Talk:Geography of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mexico Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.

[edit] Continents and regions

North America includes Mexico, and it is not part of Central America. That is a common view in the English-speaking world.

The United Nations has its own ideas. They define Mexico as part of Central America, a "subregion" of "Latin America and the Caribbean".Wait one moment.... What about tailand? Whatever. Moving on. Wikipedia needs to include the UN point of view, of course, but we are not bound by it. --Uncle Ed 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The UN geoscheme is not based in geography, because how to understand that Mexico only is 12.11% in Central America (according to some geographers), and they however include it all in Central America? Mexico being 12.11% in Central America means that the remaining 87.89% is where!? Of course in the North American region. This is an article about geography, so I think geopolitics should not play a major role. For better understanding in this issue, you can visit Talk:North America. AlexCovarrubias 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

be minnie mouseadded to the article. Aquzenn 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle America??

It’s funny how the term “Middle America” which includes a lot of countries, is only mention when it comes to Mexico, I guess we should go to all the Central American countries, the Caribbean, Colombia and Venezuela and include that they also belong to the so-called region of ”Middle America”. Supaman89

Why not? That would only make the articles better and more precise (careful about usage regarding Colombia and Venezuela, which are rarely included in the 'so-called' region.) I'll get to it eventually. Corticopia 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of maps

A
B

Map A labels seas, oceans, gulfs, islands, important cities in Mexico, and the countries bordering Mexico. This is immediately relevant to the introduction of the article as it mentions the Pacific Ocean, the United States, the Gulf of California, the Gulf of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, the Caribbean Sea, Isla Guadalupe, the Islas Revillagigedo, and the cities of Ciudad Juárez, Mérida, and Mexico City by name. In comparison, Map B labels none of these things, except for the U.S. It labels the states of Mexico, but the introduction of the article doesn't mention any states, except for the five eastern ones. We already have a map of these states, and in any case map B cannot be directly cross-referenced with the introduction as it uses abbreviations rather than state names. So, Map A appears to be a better choice for the introduction. Spacepotato (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I could actually label the oceans in map B, I also think it is better because it has a more precise division of Mexico, just naming some cities doesn't look good for a country has big as Mexico, it needs to have its subdivisions, in fact that's why you're supporting map A isn't it? Because it is more detailed about the islands and oceans right? and well about the mention of the U.S. states, it is the geography of Mexico right? if any states should be named they should be Mexico's not the U.S. ones.

BTW I’m just waiting for Corticopia to come and say the same stuff that you said, what a surprise. Supaman89 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Spacepotato. As for you Supaman89, you're undeserving of additional commentary. Corticopia (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)