Talk:United Nations geoscheme

message: I think it should be made clear in the article that the macroregions and subregions in this scheme were devised purely for statistical convenience, and are simply an arbitrary division of the world that facilitates statistical analysis. A full explanation is at []), NB especially the following statements:
:The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
:The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
Also, as far as I can see, the term used by the UN to refer to this scheme is 'Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use', not 'UN geoscheme', so I'm wondering why the article has that title. Dougg 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'UN geoscheme' is an in-house invention here at Wikipedia. This year has seen a long-running battle over the meaning of 'America' and the definition of 'North America', and related matters about continents and 'regions'. Like, is Mexico part of North America or Central America?
It seemed simplest just to take whatever the UN seemed to be saying, and refer to that as their POV. One day Israel is 'racist', the next day they're not, depends the General Assembly resolution on "Zionism is Racism". --Uncle Ed 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the 'UN Geoscheme' 

message: : First of all we dont even know where the borders go between europe and asia as they are not official, thats why we dont even know which countries are transcontinental, which are completely european or not european at all. I understand that many people rely too much on the UN classification which is absolutely not correct. even though the UN has the power to recognize the borders of a sovereign state (in case of consensus among the majority of the member states) they have nothing to do with defining borders between the continents or inside a continent.WHat these borders are, is that they were created as an administrative entitiess for THE UN, and for the Functioning of the UN and thats exactly according to what they have different parts in the organization that have to "take care" of particular regions. There are many other organization who have devided continents or some regions with their own version of borders which does not mean that they are official, its purely for their organizational functioning. if the  UN will call the council session where majority of the countries in the world/continent will agree on where borders go, in case of consencus(just like on this FORUM) they can make the borders official. Until then, if noone can provide any sources that says that the UN had a session where countries VOTED / AGREED on this issue, until there is a charter that says that the borders are official and etc.these borders do not set a standard for anyone in the world. they are purely for the UN in order to implement their administrative functions.(just like the US army has different commands that have to take care of particular region in the world.)
:  in this map all of those "transcontinental" countries are in the European command (which does not necesarily mean that they are european, though, because these are just the administrative entitys, for the functioning of the certain organization and etc. and nothing else)
: We should not stop preffering the UN version over others for whatever reason it was done before--DScheffer (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WHO gave these people the right to use the UN model as a standard

message: This page links to the region and subregion pages, but those words are very general geographic terms, not UN geoscheme specific, as this page seems to imply.  I've been adding to the region page to make it more about the general geographic concept of "region".  The subregion page seems more confusing than useful, especially if it is meant to be UN geoscheme specific.  Perhaps the links on this page ought to be changed to Region (UN geoscheme) and Subregion (UN geoscheme) -- that is, if the topics actually require pages.  Why not just describe the whole thing here on the UN geoscheme page?  ..in any case, the changes being made over at region are going to make this page's first link ("The UN geoscheme divides the world into "macro regions"...) into a kind of change of topic.  Just saying... Pfly 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Region and subregion pages

message: Has anyone put this map together with labels in different languages?  I'm using it in Campaigns Wikia, and we have 10 languages.  I'd like to use the same map for each of our Voters Guide pages, but I need the labels in the local language instead of English.  Can anyone help?  Chadlupkes 15:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map w/ Translations 

message: The Subregion page was almost entirely about UN "subregions", part of the UN geoscheme as described here. But the term "subregion" means a lot more than that, and over time the content of "subregion" has creeped and become increasingly messy and confusing. As I wrote above, last October, I don't see why the UN subregion concept requires its own page. Why not address the topic here instead? Pfly 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no: the 'subregion' article lists many sub/regions which may or may not equate with the subregions in this article.  This article deals with a specific system (which is also used in various spots in Wikipedia), and I do not think the 'subregion' article (which is a far broader concept) has creeped so much that a merge is required.  And even if that article does creep, what of it?  After all, the concept of regions and subregions is somewhat tenuous, wherein the topic of this article is not.  Quizimodo 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just didn't see the point of the subregion page at all. If subregions are a kind of region, then the page would make more sense being part of the region page. But since the subregion page was originally about the UN geoscheme subregion concept, I thought it should just be explained here instead of on its own page. In any case the subregion page is more confusing than helpful, whatever it is about. "Merging" with either this page or the region page would basically mean deleting the subregion page. Is there actually anything there that isn't already explained here or, thanks to creep, region? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Pfly 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Subregion]]

message: What was this geoscheme proposed/set into force? What is its evolution (if any)? Please don't answer me here, expand the article instead. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe while Austria, located almost on the same line, is somehow with the West? Clearly, the UN is still functioning as if we lived in 1950's and Eastern Europe was synonymous of communist, Soviet-allied countries. I see no other explanation. This classification is antiquated and it needs to be done away with. Given all this, why does it deserve a separate page? Should not it be merged with the UN or something related? Separate page gives an impression that it is something crucial and this might be the reason why the classification creates so many problems on various pages related to what I view as Central European countries --Bucharwm (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this cold-war era classification system deserve a separate page? Merge

message: Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:
Dear xxxxx,
Thank you for your email.
The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm
The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
"Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal.
I hope this is useful.
Best regards,
The UN Demographic Yearbook Team.
It seems Wikipedia abuses the geoscheme, while there is actually an openly proposed geoscheme by the Geographical sub-division:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf
--131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A message from the UN regarding this "UN" geoscheme 

message: The geoscheme is not a universal geoscheme of the UN. It is used by only one of its agencies, for its own use, the United Nations Statistics Division. Therefore, the title of the article should read: United Nations Statistics Division.--Fənɛ́tɪks.fərɛvər (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to: 'United Nations Statistics Division geoscheme' 

message: Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:
Dear xxxxx,
Thank you for your email.
The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm
The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
"Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal.
I hope this is useful.
Best regards,
The UN Demographic Yearbook Team.
It seems Wikipedia abuses the geoscheme, while there is actually an openly proposed geoscheme by the Geographical sub-division:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf
--131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV. A message from the UN regarding this "UN" geoscheme 

message: The map needs to be updated, since South Sudan is now included in Eastern Africa (before its independence, it belonged to North Africa with the rest of Sudan, but not now).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.240.17 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needs to be updated (South Sudan) 

message: Can we add Caucasus as a Region of the World? Think it's culturally and geographically significant enough to include it (Not quite European, not quite Middle Eastern, not Asian)
:This is a list of regions as used by the UN.  Unless the UN adds it, we can't add it.  TDL (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasus 

message: I've removed some absurd superscripted asteriscs from the Americas section. Another user reverted with the ed summary "Literally specified in the primary source". I checked the ref for the section and found nothing regarding "superscripted asteriscs". Such would require a better explanation. Eh? Vsmith (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ Click on 'Geographic Regions' and then look at the bottom of the page. It's there. — D. Wo. 03:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see it now, but what a contorted mess that is and they don't even provide an asterisk as a guide for that mess. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superscripted asteriscs 

message: Some of the classifications made by the United Nations geoscheme are unreasonable. They do not align with some common classifications adopted by other notable sources. I propose that a few notes be inserted to mention these differences, such as:
For Africa, Western Sahara is often included in Western Africa; the Sudan is sometimes included in Eastern Africa; Angola, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and countries and territories south of Tanzania (the Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Réunion, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) are often included in Southern Africa; the British Indian Ocean Territory (aka the Chagos Archipelago) is often included in Southern Asia; the French Southern Territories is often included in Antarctica (except the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean, which is often included in Southern Africa).
For the Americas, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, and Trinidad and Tobago should be included in South America; Bouvet Island should be included in Southern Africa. Central America should be renamed Middle America because Mexico is also included in this subregion.
For Asia, Afghanistan and Iran should be included in Central Asia (currently the only subregion which has no coastal countries). Central Asia should be renamed Middle Asia in order to distinguish from Soviet Central Asia.
Europe is too small to be divided into four subregions. It should be divided into two subregions instead, namely Eastern Europe and Western Europe, with the Iron Curtain acting as the boundary line (except Albania, Greece, and former Yugoslavian countries, which should be allocated to Eastern Europe). Siberia is not a part of Europe (it is actually bigger than the whole European continent), it should be assigned to a new subregion called Northern Asia instead.
For Oceania, the subregion "Australia and New Zealand" should be renamed Australasia. New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, and Western New Guinea should be allocated to Australasia; Heard Island and McDonald Islands should be included in Antarctica. 2001:8003:900C:5301:B04E:203C:3667:A717 (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to take this up with the United Nations Statistics Division. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

text: You used the word unreasonable. Unreasonableness is an opinion. The UN geoscheme is what it is whether you or I find it reasonable or unreasonable. Adding notes to the article would only serve the purpose of expressing your opinion on the matter. — D. Wo. 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable classifications