Talk:Geography of Mexico

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medicenelm9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: MidoriWolf07.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continents and regions

North America includes Mexico, and it is not part ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhof 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Middle America??

It’s funny how the term “Middle Americaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa” 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)[reply]

I think you mean Mesoamerica..."Middle America" is a reference to middle-class culture in the United States.Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

== Discrepancy in information ==ohla

I have discovered what I believe may be an error in this article, as I am no expert on the matter I would appreciate some confirmation.

Under the heading "Physical features" : "Beginning approximately 50 kilometers from the United States border, the Sierra Madre Occidental extends 5000 kilometers south to the Río Santiago, where it merges with the Cordillera Neovolcánica range that runs east-west across central Mexico."

When I link to 'Sierra Madre Occidental' I get this information.

"The Sierra Madre Occidental is a mountain range in western Mexico and the extreme southwest of the United States,[1] extending 1500 km from southeast Arizona (south and east of Tucson) southeast through eastern Sonora, western Chihuahua, Durango, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes to Guanajuato, where it joins with the Sierra Madre Oriental and the Eje Volcánico Transversal (Transverse Volcanic Axis) of central Mexico."

My problem being one article states the mountain range extends 5000 kms and the other states 1500 kms.

Can somebody please shed some light on this please?

Iwiki

Please add this uk:Географія Мексики to the main page--Kusluj (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate in Northern Desert Areas: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon

Information about this desertic areas in the north of Mexico is missing, this is very important in the states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon--Mario 181193 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Mario 181193 {{editsemiprotected}}[reply]

Hi. Can you please provide the information needed together with the links to their sources and then put up this edit semi-protected template again? Thanks! Bejinhan Talk 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to supply full citations to reliable sources. Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This need a picture of the desert

The section about climate lacks a picture of the Mexican desert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlakuache (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlakuache Which desert in Mexico? Mexico has more than 1 desert. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BarrancaCobre.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BarrancaCobre.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The impact so far, and the future impact, of global warming on Mexico?

I would like to know what climate experts think will happen to Mexico in particular, not just the world in general. (Since wealthy, republican, United States conservatives love to preach about personal responsibility and also tend to at first deny, and then later, minimize, global warming, i'm hoping that best of that scurvy lot will some day issue mea culpas and take some responsibility.)I'm guessing, but don't have proof, that the wealthiest of these climate change deniers are buying up land in the northern USA and Canada and getting rid of their landholdings in the southern USA and Mexico.)--Richard Peterson216.86.177.36 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not yet have any information about climate change in Mexico, but some information is provided in Water resources management in Mexico#Potential climate change impacts. Jarble (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the climate map that I'm posting?

I've being posting a very accurate climate mape in this article and the edition has been reverted constantly... I'm the creator of this image, I have used the Diva-Gis data by and made the edition on Paint... where's the problem Athomeinkobe (talk)

how come a child painted map (or at least a very poor accuracy) can be better than the one I have tried to post

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierRA (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a new map, using the criteria for Koeppen climate types from this academic source: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pdf/Paper_2006.pdf

There are some shifts, mainly due to the correct criteria being used for Cw, and for the half-years being used to calculate the 'Cs' and 'Cw' types (the paper linked above clarifies that summer and winter are defined as 'summer half-year: April-September' and 'winter half-year: October-March' for the purposes of calculate precipitation criteria for 'Cs' and 'Cw'). Because of that, you can end up with a weird situation where there is a summer rainfall maximum in a summer month, yet a dry spring month in April or May can qualify an area as having a 'Cs' climate.

See my User Page for a detailed example of this for Flagstaff, Arizona. Redtitan (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geography of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental conditions

I noticed that there were no sources for this section. I looked up the first sentence on the Internet and got a match immediately from the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. I believe that this is a reliable reference, but there should be some serious revamping done by rewording the article. This is direct plagiarism, and citing the source will not be enough.

To add, this information was reportedly researched within the range of 1986 and 1998. There should be an effort to update the information to more current data. Because of the time frame of the current information, any affects NAFTA had on the environmental conditions would be nice to know. Information about Mexico's recent climate change laws, their implementation, and/or current progress would be a nice addition as well. — Hbonilla2 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

environmental conditions section and sources

- links for sources 2, 3 and 4 lead to a page that is not foundMiramarble95 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC) - the "environmental conditions" section has no citations, but a very large number of facts and statistics is usedMiramarble95 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

When I was reading the article I encountered a link (the second one) that led to a page that was not found. When I clicked on link #5 it led me to an encyclopedia in Spanish. It may be a useful source but not for people who are not Spanish speakers. When choosing an article it should be one that the targeted audience will be able to read. In total there are a total links. The eigth one is in the middle of the webpage and after that the second half of the page goes without any citation. This makes the reader unsure if all the information comes from the same articles used or is this is all just his own opinion. Samanta1997 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Peer review: needs more sources

The page is very interesting, I really like how much information each section has, but the one that is bothering me is that after the first part of the article, there is barely any sources cited. We can't be for sure if the information you're using is valid because there are no sources backing up this information. I do see sources, but only in the first part of this article, but after that I don't see anymore. Overall the information is very well written, you just need to cite the sources that were used after the first part of this article.MidoriWolf07 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)midoriwolf07[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geography of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving "Environmental conditions"

Hi! I'm thinking about possibly spending this semester looking more into environmental issues in Mexico and working to improve the "Environmental conditions" subheading within this article. Perhaps this isn't the best place to do it (if so, please kindly redirect me! Thank you!), but I would also like to add a little bit of information about the environmental movement in Mexico. If you would like to see a list of the sources I may potentially use, you can find it on my user page! Please let me know what you think. Cheers! Abrild72 (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"South Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South Mexico. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#South Mexico until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New

I did not see anything inaccurate. Each fact is referenced with a link to more information. I did not find the video of the NASA flying over Earth to be helpful. In this point I find it pointless to include because it doesn't show anything for the geology. The article is neutral and provides more info on Mexico's Geology/ how it got to the point its at. To me the climate was very broad information. Just says tropical to dessert, could've had more information included on what the climate is like in the area. The links do work and there is well done paraphrasing. Only thing I would add is more climate information. Why was the NASA fly over Mexico included?

Is the permanent crop number of 1.36% good or bad? GeologyofMexicoMaster (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are up to date because they are from 2011-2019, but I would like to see articles from 2020 because a lot can happen in just a year.

One of the articles I found biased was “Canadian mining doing serious environmental harm, the IACHR is told” because it already states in the title it is looking to persuade you to think people are harming the environment in caranda which isn’t even connected to Mexico. --2601:204:EE7F:F090:2829:78C2:55F9:8F5C (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are up to date because they are from 2011-2019, but I would like to see articles from 2020 because a lot can happen in just a year.--2601:204:EE7F:F090:2829:78C2:55F9:8F5C (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Triangle

Shouldn't the geography of The Golden Triangle in the Sinaloa state be mentioned in this article, since it is so historically important to Mexico's economy, and a major part of US-Mexican economic history? it's particularly important because of the small amount of arable land in Mexico, and it's sizeable role in fostering the drug trade with the US over the last 50 plus years. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]