Talk:51st state

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Authority

[edit]

I see no authority for the term 51st state. Is it a term made up by someone using Wikipedia to create the term or is there an official definition? Sam Tomato (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links that follow here were not created by me. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by official definition? It's a phrase that simply fits into what it is associated with, the fact that there are currently 50 states in the United States, so the next would by definition be the 51st state. Doesn't need an official authority, it's simply a mathematical quantity. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 01:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color of the U.S. flags

[edit]

Can someone please explain why the colors of the 50+ star U.S. flags appear to be a different shade of blue that the current, 50-star version? The shade of blue does not even seem consistent among the U.S. flags section. - 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC) BeeboMan (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]

Change the title to 51st US state, it would make more sense for non-Americans. 122.151.147.36 (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, as other countries with Federal governments could conceivably also get a 51st state. English Wikipedia should have a worldwide view, and omitting references to the United States from the article title even though the content is strictly about the United States does not follow that goal. For now, 51st state could redirect to a new article title of 51st U.S. state as there are no other federal countries with a potential 51st state, but if that changes in the future the redirect can be removed and the page turned into a disambiguation. JRubsWell (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE applies here. The term used is "51st state" not 51st US state. It's the WP:COMMONNAME. If there were a country somewhere where there was a 51st state up for discussion that may be a different matter, but that is entirely hypothetical. TheSavageNorwegian 19:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@An editor from Mars. I've reverted your move (after I embarrassingly mis-typed the page move, whoops) perhaps we can discuss this more here. I oppose moving to 51st US state because in my view it is not the WP:CONCISE title. Individual US states like Minnesota or New Jersey are not named Minnesota (US state) and New Jersey (US state) for the same reason. If there is a country out there with fifty states or provinces and has a turn of phrase called "51st State" then I'd call it ambiguous, but as far as I know, there isn't, so it isn't. TheSavageNorwegian 21:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Politics

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2025 and 1 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iglesiasa12 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Iglesiasa12 (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– I think there is merit in standardising the naming convention for this set of articles covering essentially the same topic of additions to federations. I think the "List of proposed [territorial units]" format is most natural (noting List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada already uses this) and matches up with the "main" pages for each country (U.S. state; States and territories of Australia; States and union territories of India). However, "List of" could also be omitted. With respect to the U.S. article in particular, the scope of the article has expanded well beyond analysis of what might become the 51st state and includes both historical proposals before there were 50 states and current proposals that do not involve statehood (e.g. Greenland). I T B F 📢 12:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this is not, and should not become, a "list of" page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is structured as a list currently so not quite sure what you mean. As stated I'm not wedded to "List of" being included in the title so "Proposals for new U.S. states and territories" or "Proposed U.S. states and territories" could be alternative formats. I T B F 📢 14:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's moving too close to being a list then it should be structurally adjusted to remain an article that discusses a concept of US politics rather than a list of proposals. But, again, I oppose the move on the grounds it would degrade article quality rather than improving it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on scope: Regarding the United States, this would not just add territories to the scope, but also proposals before 1959 when the country became a 50-state country (both for statehood and territories). That might not be obvious at first glance. If it includes the successful proposals, the list could get pretty long, since I suppose 37 proposals for statehood have been accepted since the nation was created, along with various proposals for territory status. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Different scope, IMO. I'm also leaning oppose on the other two, but either way, this is a WP:TRAINWRECK and should have been nominated separately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to speak specifically re: the title of the Australian article. As it happens, I came upon this discussion today because I was looking up that article and entered the search term "Proposed new states of Australia". I could not recall if this was exactly what the article was called but I assumed it would at least be an existing redirect and I was surprised it was not, since it would align with "states of Australia" redirecting to States and territories of Australia. I would support a name change to "Proposed states and territories of Australia" (or "Proposed new..."), as this would align with the format for the aforementioned article on existing states and territories. I oppose including "list of" in the title as unnecessary. With regards to the US and Indian cases, with which I am much less familiar, my tentative outsider view is that it seems to me the US article should be moved to the proposed title but without "list of", and that the Indian article should retain its existing form. Potentially, the US article could be "Proposed new..." so that its scope remains unrealised proposals since the US attained 50 states rather than sprawling to include historical proposals. Axver (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are articles, not lists. "List of…" does not reflect the article content and, as noted by others, changes the scope of inclusion for at least some of these. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I agree with all the reasons mentioned by all of the other editors voting likewise. --User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 01:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I agree with reasons above. Breck0530 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.