This subject is featured in the Outline of Wyoming, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
A chart in the article shows that between 1970 and 1980, there was an increase of population by over 40 per cent. Unfortunately, there is no further explanation in the text, e.g. in the history section. Could someone please add some information regarding this increase?
And, by the way, information on the history of the last few decades in the article is rare, anyway. Someone with greater knowledge or more insights should extend the article. -- Gut informiert (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an explanation about the boundaries in the body as there should be. In fact, is that correct? I am thinking it might be territory that came from the purchases not boundaries. Can someone enlighten me before I go exploring on my own? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This part of the current lead:
Wyoming also is the only state whose boundaries were acquired through four separate purchases: first during the Louisiana Purchase, second from the Annexation of Texas, third from the Oregon Country, fourth and last from the Mexican-American War.
One, yes, it should certainly read "whose territory was acquired...", not "whose boundaries..." Two, only the first of the four listed was really a "purchase". Texas was "annexed" by request, the Oregon Country was claimed and ultimately fixed via treaty, and the Mexican Cession was annexed by conquest. Three, this might be true if limited to "since the US was established in 1783", as colonial territory was established through many treaties, wars, etc. Even then, according to File:UnitedStatesExpansion.png Colorado arguably involves four acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase, Adams–Onís Treaty (the small purple bit), Texas Annexation, and Mexican Cession. Then there are additional possibilities. Part of the territory of New Mexico was arguably acquired with the Louisiana Purchase, then given up in the Adam-Onís Treaty, then acquired again in the Texas Annexation and the Mexican Cession, and further added to with the Gadsden Purchase. Is that three or four, or even five territorial changes? Finally, as often the case when talking about territorial acquisitions Native American land cessions/purchases are being ignored here. Pfly (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you kind Wikipedian. I think then the material should be removed from the lead. Then the expansion should be developed in the body and afterward re-evaluated to to see what if anything should be included in the lead.Ward20 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! Pfly (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The images in the geography section are poorly organized and are causing white space issues, and some may have to move elsewhere. The map of the national parks doesn't seem fully necessary, too. I may try moving some around.Scarlettail (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems better now for some reason, never mind. Scarlettail (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't the one that removed any figures before but I now removed most of the paragraph (including these percentages) because the information seemed faulty and was badly sourced:
As I understand it, the first ref might either have been intented to source the LDS percentage as 9% - however, it actually give percentages for Protestants, Catholics and Jews as well. I included these, though if one reads through the article, the method of ascertaining Protestant figures is a bit biased.
The second ref is supposed to source all the figures is more problematic. It doesn't like to specific information but only to a website that forces the reader to click through several choices to get anything. As such, the link is useless to the reader.
The best I could find was percentages for Montana and Wyoming combined.
Without this ref, there is no basis for Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or non-religious figures.
For more than one reason, it is absurd to give a percentage of Christian as 77% next to Protestant 47% and Catholic 23%.