Talk:Flags of North America

Mexico and UN scheme

The English wikipedia is the only one wiki using the UN scheme to categorize the flags, the other wikis excludes Mexico from Central America, and include Mexico into North America, just the Norsk wiki uses a different category, independent nations and dependent territories. The current article alrady had a few edit fights, to end this I suggest to adopt a similar format here, like the used in North America or a consensus to choose one. JC Febraury 27 2007, 13:20 (PST)

I agree, we should use the current geopolitical arrangement of the continent. Another alternative is alphabetical order. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that if Mexico is grouped with the U.S. and Canada as "North America" (a la NAFTA), what name is left with to refer to the union of this region with the Caribbean and Central America? "Greater North America"? The UN geoscheme, at least, gets around this by coining the term "Northern America" and using "North America" to unambiguously refer to the superordinate category. --ScottMainwaring 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really see your point. We can do it because the sole fact that the three geopolitical regions are listed in this article (as in the article North America) logically shows the connection between them. Also, common usage backs this, even inside the US and Canada (where the use of North America meaning the three countries has increased (Look at this! [1]). Another alternative is only to group the geopolitical regions of Central America and the Caribbean. When you look the definition of North America, you usually find that it contains Canada, the US, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Alphabetical order is a good option too (as it is presented in a table in North America). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against alphabetical or some other non-spatial order, at least for this visual presentation of flags, since this would make it difficult for regional similarities (or dissimilarities) to pop out. This is most apparent in the Central American flags, which visually relate to one another in interesting ways. The green, white, and red tricolor of Mexico really stands out on its own in that set — it make a visual case for itself being different. (Panama, too.) Viva la diferencia! Such design patterns would be lost in a big alphabetical list. --ScottMainwaring 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you again about the patterns in the CA flags. As I already suggested, we can only group the countries of CA and the Caribbean, and let Mexico, US and Canada alone, without a title in the header. Just a possibility. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't understood. I think your suggestion sounds good; closer to how people (if not the UN) think about the region. --ScottMainwaring 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't see why why we can't be more specific (that is, retaining the current regions/contents), an alphabetical arrangement is also is fine. Corticopia 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About the UN Geoscheme

According to the article United Nations geoscheme:

The scheme was devised purely for statistical purposes and is used only for carrying out statistical analysis. According to the UN, it: ...does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.

I knew this and I even read it somewhere in the UN website, but right now I cannot find it anymore. However when I consulted the article here in Wikipedia, it already says that. I write this separately from the discussion above because it is very important, due to the fact that I already re-arranged the flags (WP:BOLD). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NAU flag

What's the story behind this flag? [2]

It's in the wikimedia commons but I haven't found any information about its origins. Conspiracy theorists say it's been "unveiled," but are not clear on who's been unveiling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.204.11 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)