Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Territorial evolution of Colorado/archive2

Territorial evolution of Colorado

Nominator(s): Buaidh talk e-mail 02:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the Territorial evolution of Colorado for featured list because this list has been vastly improved with extensive documentation and references. I appreciate all comments and suggestions for improvement. Buaidh talk e-mail 02:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I did not comment during the first FLC discussion for this article, but I recall one of the main concerns being the lack of sourcing, and that still seems to be an issue here. For instance, the very first section is completely unsourced. Even if it seems fairly uncontroversial, a featured list should very rarely, if ever, include unsourced statements. Additionally, I think large portions of this list shouldn't even be included. For many early European colonizers, they technically claimed ownership of the land that is now Colorado, but they weren't really claiming control of Colorado directly – it's pretty hard to do that when you have no real understanding of what "Colorado" is. Unless there are sources discussing the control of Colorado specifically, most of the early information fails to demonstrate notability and feels close to synthesis to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've augmented the lead paragraph with 17 references and seven notes. I'm working on documenting the Indigenous peoples. These are described in the the Prehistory of Colorado.

I've followed the precedent of the Territorial evolution of the United States with regard to European territorial claims. I documented these conflicting claims to show the evolution of historical president. All European claims in Colorado prior to 1739 were nothing more than claims, although Spain did routinely patrol the region and did arrest Zebulon Pike 1806. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did a poor job explaining that second part. My point was that it's hard to say that Colorado's borders evolved over time when there was no such thing as Colorado at the time. To compare to the Territorial evolution of the United States article, that list only starts when the United States became a country – in other words, when there were actual borders to the country that could evolve. When early colonizers didn't have specific administrative divisions for their territory and didn't have anything to call "Colorado", I don't think it makes sense to discuss them unless there are secondary sources that directly discuss the evolution of Colorado specifically during this time period (not just the lands that would become Colorado). To make an analogy, an article about the territorial evolution of Germany should start from the formation of Germany in 1871, and it shouldn't trace back through the preceding millennia to discuss the groups that controlled the territory before then (as is indeed the case for that article). Of course, if other reviews disagree, they are welcome to add their thoughts; this is just my perspective.

Regarding the Indigenous peoples section, the implication seems to be that their presence is verified by the Prehistory of Colorado article, but you can't use other articles as implicit citations per WP:CIRCULAR. To quote from the aforementioned policy, if there are sources in that article that support the information, "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've documented the Indigenous peoples section with 26 references and two notes. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 05:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up: The early information about the region that is now Colorado might be better suited for the existing History of Colorado article. The difference in starting dates (prehistory versus the actual formation of the state/country/territory) seems to be the existing consensus; compare History of the United States to Territorial evolution of the United States. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 U.S. states have articles entitled "Territorial evolution of state", each modeled after the Territorial evolution of the United States. The "History of state" articles are all in normal article form while these 13 lists are in outline form. These 13 lists only deal with territorial claims and designations and not general history.

Your points are well taken though. Unlike most other U.S. states, the external boundaries of Colorado have not appreciably changed since the Territory of Colorado was created in 1861. The name "Colorado" wasn't even in use prior to 1861. The area was only briefly known as the "Pike's Peak Region". The internal county boundaries have changed, but an article about these would be entitled something like "County evolution of Colorado". A pretty good article about this is located at Colorado County Evolution, but I would hate to duplicate that article.

The region defined by the current boundaries of a state has a historic and prehistoric relevance going back to the very first occupants.

I don't really know where the 13 "Territorial evolution of state" articles belong. ~~Perhaps better names would be "Outline of the historical evolution of state". I've spent a couple hundred hours on this article, and I guess similar time has been devoted to the other 12.~~ These contain valuable information about how each state came to be, even if they don't fit the definition of territorial evolution. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 06:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I think that "Territorial evolution of ..." articles tend to focus on the borders of the specific territory, not the people who have claimed the region in the past. I know there are 12 other "Territorial evolution of state" articles, but since it appears they were all created by you and seem to have been largely maintained by you as well, I hesitate to use them as any indication for the community's consensus on the format of these articles. I'm not trying to denigrate your contributions – clearly you've put a lot of work into these articles – but I would prefer to follow the format on other "Territorial evolution of ..." articles that have been edited by a larger swath of the community. If there isn't enough discussion of Colorado's borders and their changes to warrant an article, we shouldn't force one into existence, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I had forgotten that I created these 13 articles 13 years ago. Other editors have contributed to these articles. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Buaidh talk e-mail 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. --Pres N 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.