Talk:Texas

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Skip to table of contents

United States: Texas

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Template:WP1.0

Texas was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 18, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 13, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

The current Texan Collaboration of the Year is Lizzie Velásquez.

Every year, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Four Independent Nations?

I know of the Vermont Republic and Hawaii, but what is the fourth? Would . . .

"it joined the United States as the 28th state. It is one of only four states that was an independent nation before becoming a constituent state of the US."

. . .be better worded as . . .

"it joined the United States as the 28th state. It is one of only four states that was an independent nation--the others being Hawaii, the Vermont Republic and (whatever the fourth is)--before becoming a constituent state of the US."

. . .or perhaps a reference to the other prior nations that were annexed into the US? I think listing out the others would prove out the claim. I'd make the change, but I can't find the fourth ;)

How was Vermont any different than the other British colonies that fought the War of Independence. The Wikipedia entry on Vermont says that it was an Independent Republic "in the 14 year period during and after the Revolutionary War".

New Hampshire, for instance "It became the first post-colonial sovereign nation in the Americas when it broke off from Great Britain in January 1776".(Wikipedia "New Hampshire") It joined the United States six months later.

So wasn't New Hampshire an independent nation for six months, too?

Thoughts? Jamesfett 06:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found the fourth was the California Republic. I'm going to make the change since I think it helps prove the claim. Jamesfett 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there was also the short-lived Republic of West Florida, which now forms parts of the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. --Evb-wiki 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of settlements prior to arrival of first explorer

"The French settlement was massacred by American Indians, and Spain only started sparse settlements, so most permanent settlements by Europeans didn't start until long after the first explorer arrived in 1521." Earlier in the paragraph, it states that the first explorer arrived in 1528. This is obviously an error, and the sentence is out of place. The flow of the paragraph is chronological, but this statement is out of that order.

Any ideas? Krazymike 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked it. The first statement is overly simplistic. See, e.g., Fort St. Louis Archeological Project. The rest is weaselly, without a source, and doesn't really add anything to the paragraph. I also fleshed out the demise of Ft St Louis a little. --Evb-wiki 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation of Texas

The annexation of Texas really is a big enough thing to deserve its own page but currently it is given less than a paragraph. Should that not be expanded to encompass more of the facts surrounding the event?

Danman111111 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]