Talk:Piedmont Atlantic megaregion

[Untitled]
I've just discovered this article, and I'm appalled by the grammatical errors and other problems with language that it is full of. So I've been going through, trying to fix the really obvious problems (sentence fragments, random capitalization, omitted articles, etc), most of which imply that this article was written by someone whose first language was not English (perhaps User:Toneythegreat, who no longer seems to exist). Regardless, although I do feel comfortable fixing the grammar and a few basic information errors, I don't claim to be any kind of expert in the article's subject, so I feel less comfortable changing any real content. The exception to this is when I've located something that is clearly an opinion rather than a fact. However, I'd still appreciate someone with more knowledge about the PAM coming along and pushing the information that the article presents in the right direction. Danberbro (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing what I can to help, Danberbro, as I just discovered it myself - I attacked the attractions section to try to make it better and will try to revisit again a little later. Part of the problem is I'm not convinced this article actually meets the notability standards in its current state - "mega-region" is nothing I ever heard used by locals while living in the South and instead of trying to lump highlights from each of the culturally distinct cities of this region into one article, IMHO we should focus the article deeper on why the researchers gave the region a 'mega-region' designation and what qualities (if any exist) are blurring the lines between the cities and states. I'll have to go track down and read the original research to do that though which will take some time. 74.61.53.15 (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, 74.61.53.15, that the article might not be notable enough. I currently live in Durham, part of the Research Triangle Park, which according to this article is also a major part of the PAM, but, like you, I've never heard anything about the megaregion. I think what this article needs to focus on is that the PAM, and other megaregions, are best understood as economic, and perhaps political, phenomena, rather than cultural entities. The article's brief section on the "culture" (read: music) of the PAM is ludicrous, and I'm going to go ahead and modify it so that it basically redirects to the culture articles for the individual regions that make up the PAM. Tell me if you think this is too hasty a move. Also, perhaps it should be noted that the PAM is, at least at this time, a mainly theoretical concept? That being said, for now I'm just going to work on the culture section, and continue making the sentences flow better than they do currently. Danberbro (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just added this article to the disambiguation page you get to when you search for "PAM," and I realized that the only time I've ever seen the term "Megaregion" spelled with a CamelCase "r" (MegaRegion) is in the title of this article. Perhaps the title should be changed? Furthermore, of the eleven megaregions into which the US has been divided, only three beside PAM (the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Front Range) currently have Wikipedia articles. And only the PAM is ever referred to as a MegaRegion/Megaregion/megaregion. Indeed, in the article regarding the Front Range Urban Corridor, the area is never referred to as a mega-anything, only as a region. I think that the naming convention for these articles needs to be standardized.

To begin with, I think that "megaregion" (with lowercase r) should always been used rather than "MegaRegion," and, except in the context of a title, should not be capitalized at all (as seen in the article about America's megaregions. Also, although megalopolis, megaregion, and megapolitan area all seem to describe the same thing, the same term should be used in all articles about the US megaregions.  I don't know which term is the best or the most "correct;" the whole study of megaregions is relatively new and so a specific name has not yet won out over the others.  However, considering the fact that the main article uses megaregion in the title, perhaps this term is best for now.

I also propose that articles, even if they are small and basic, be written for all eleven of the United States's megaregions, as the four about which articles have been written seem randomly picked. Finally, these articles should have some sort of matching format; maybe a good example to mimic is that of the article on the Great Lakes Megalopolis, with a description and history of the region, some population data, and some images. This format could serve as a good start for those regions that presently have no articles at all. This is not to say that the article on PAM needs to be reduced to this format, only that it still needs cleaning up; maybe once it has been tightened it can serve as a template for the expansion of other megaregion articles? I realize that very little to do with megaregions has yet been explored and that they are still a concept of the future, but for now this all seems to be a good way to deal with a standardization of the articles. Danberbro (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)