Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Territorial evolution of the United States

[edit]

I started researching this and making the maps back in May, and after two months of work, I finally popped it up. Everything is either referenced in the articles linked, or in external links, but I can add other extlinks if needed. I don't really know what else to say here, except I think it might be ready for nomination, so here I am. :) --Golbez 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I found this page on DYK the other day, and I was very impressed by it. Lovelac7 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Provide a general source of all items; otherwise you have to source each item individually. Additionally, the sources you already have are not properly formatted with {{cite web}}. The irregular intercalations of text make the whole article look ugly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working on it. --Golbez 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've cited it out one of it's orifices now, replete with cite-webs. As for the ugliness, any suggestions? --Golbez 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe, thank you. You could use two columns for each decade, but the cost would be making the maps smaller. Or maybe you could alternate the side on which the maps are (say 1880s left, 1890s right) Try experimenting a little, if you've got the time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe in part it could be addressed to putting on more text explaining the territorial change. There would be less white space and therefor not that ugly & more informative. Renata 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've guffed out a lot of the entries, adding the present-day states and such. A little more might be able to be done, but in many areas, I'm not sure what I could add. I suppose I could add all the capitals. ;) --Golbez 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it has no lead (1 sentence, does not qualify as such), but I have to admit that is one interesting & good list. Renata 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to support Renata 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very informative and well-presented. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Could use a bit more work on the introduction, and a picture at the very beginning of the list (by the introduction) would be nice. But an excellent list overall. --Tim4christ17 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry but calling the article Territorial evolution of the United States and failing to include the United States territories is not acceptable. Joelito (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on them, but technically, they are no more part of the United States than the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I'm wrong. --Golbez 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, U.S. territories are still very much a part of the United States. I note that several territories are already listed - the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Territory, etc. It's just common sense that its other terroritories - including the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and past holdings such as Cuba - be included. --Tim4christ17 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alaska, Louisiana, etc. Territories were incorporated territories, incorporated into the borders of the United States. Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc. are unincorporated territories, possessions of the US government but not part of the country. A prime example: A war about 140 years ago told us that incorporated parts of the country do not have the right to leave, but I do believe Puerto Rico would have the ability to leave, were certain conditions met. --Golbez 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a full list of unincorporated territories to the Notes, and there's a possible draft of a list on the talk page, but I am still very much against including them in the main timeline. No one challenges one whit that Arizona Territory was part of the United States; however, you might annoy some people if you call the CNMI or Puerto Rico part of the United States. (And you might annoy some people if you don't - there's no winning). --Golbez 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're born in Puerto Rico, you're automatically a U.S. citizen. I guess I've always figured that meant it was part of the United States.... --Tim4christ17 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to United States nationality law: "Children born in the United States (including not only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, but also, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone before it was returned to Panama), are U.S. citizens at birth" In other words, the unincorporated territories aren't quite equal to the states, whereas I don't think there has ever been any difference between the incorporated territories and states as far as citizenship is concerned. Also, people from American Samoa, while U.S. nationals, aren't U.S. citizens, possibly because the territory is unorganized. And finally, Puerto Ricans have representation in neither congress nor the electoral college. It seems to me to be the difference between "part of the United States" and "a possession of the United States". --Golbez 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have gone on a different direction. The article is talking about land and you are talking about people. The article is concerned with the United States territories. Territories includes incorporated and unincorporated territories. Wikipieda does not care if it annoys some people we are here to present verifiable facts. Joelito (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Great. Love the use of maps aswell. Sotakeit 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many questions on the talk page. Article is probably not stable yet. Rmhermen 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent list. Top class. Rmhermen- probably not stable? I'm not seeing too many questions, I'm seeing editors discussing how to address comments here- perfectly valid. If you weren't allowed to change anything during FLC or FAC, nothing would ever pass. --PresN 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1141920457"