Talk:Superior (proposed U.S. state)

capitals

recognizing that this topic is in being AFD'd, I don't think it helps to have unsourced speculations on what the capital might be. I am pasting them here until there is a reputable source for the capitals

<<quotation>>The following cities have been proposed as a capital for the proposed state:

• Houghton, Michigan
• Marquette, Michigan
• Sault Ste Marie, Michigan
• Traverse City, Michigan

<</quotation>>

Add one more: Bruce Crossing. Then Joe Zimmer erected a billboard proclaiming "Governor's Mansion" next to his mobile home on Highway 28 and proposing Bruce Crossing (population 551) in Ontonagon County as "the capital of the 51st state." [1]

area code 906

unsourced statement about 906/616 area code split should be either sourced or removed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

indeed this split passes without comment at http://www.areacode-info.com/!history/1960s.htm which suggests that the 906 code was part of a gradual fine tuning of the whole North American Numbering Plan. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done -Atmoz (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Superior (proposed U.S. state) → Superior (state) — WP:PRECISION, like lately on Talk:Washington_(U.S._state)#Requested_move_-_Washington_(state).--TopoChecker (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

Oppose. The clause in question also says disambiguators should be precise enough; they should also be accurate. There has never been a state of Superior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The main difference here is that Washington is an actual state at this time and not a name of a hypothetical state that may or may not exist in the future. Also the title may confuse cause confusion (especially for people who are not from the US) and imply that there is currently a state name Superior when there is in fact not one. This issue does not exist for Washington.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pmanderson but suggest a move to Superior (proposed state). The U.S. is superfluous unless evidence is provided of the existence of a another proposed state to be called "Superior" -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would support a move to drop U.S. TopoChecker (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• Comment All the counties in Category:Former counties of the United States - they are not actual counties existing at this time. All these titles may cause the same confusion, as the "(state)" does. Now one may reply the term "county" is not included for disambiguation. Then look into Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire - Bretzenheim (state) - not a state anymore. Why isn't it Bretzenheim (former state)? Because it doesn't matter for disambiguation. Something was / is / will be / may be a state. No distinction in title needed. TopoChecker (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor
• Oppose, it is not and never was a state of any sort. older ≠ wiser 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The dab does not say it is one. It does not say it was one. TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• Using the title "(state)" implies otherwise. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title admirably explains the status (proposed) and location (US). Plazak (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The titles for Texas, Minnesota etc, do not show the location, nor the status (current), - they do not even show it is a state. TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• Texas and Minnesota are quite well known as US states, and require no further dab. Plazak (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dab exists to distinguish base terms. They are not there to tell details about the content. They can tell details, but WP:PRECISION asks for telling few. TopoChecker (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• The disambiguating phrase should also not be misleading. "(state)" is misleading in cases where no such state ever existed. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• That also depends on the person that try to interpret the dab as there is/was a state. Would Superior (proposed) be misleading?. TopoChecker (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• That would be unintelligible. Might as well use a completely arbitrary disambiguation term like Superior (x1m3z42). older ≠ wiser 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• For completely arbitrary I would invoke WP:PRECISION/ shortness and propose Superior (1). But better not to choose something completely arbitrary, but something connected with the content of the page. E.g. Superior (proposed) or Superior (proposal). Texas does not come with the term "state", the information is it one is in the article. Same could be done for Superior. TopoChecker (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• oppose it's not a state. WP:PRECISION doesn't say that you're supposed to use the wrong disambiguator just for the sake of making something short. Why don't we just call it Superior (new) then? It's just as wrong. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• You claim it is wrong, but you bring no evidence. Leaving an adjective out, makes the noun wrong? There is no Washington (current U.S. state). TopoChecker (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)comment by banned editor

• It does when the adjective negates the noun, as it does with "fictional" or "proposed" or "suspected". Powers ^T 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think it depends on how one interprets the dab term. If it is to distinguish one base term from another then Superior (state) does that well. A specific description whether that was a state in a novel or a state proposal would violate WP:PRECISION. It also does not matter whether this was proposed U.S. state or a proposed Mexican state. But if the dab term is meant to be read as <base term> is a/was a/is located in <dab term> then the proposal above would violate correctness. TopoChecker (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor

• Oppose; leaving out "proposed" is misleading and inaccurate. Powers ^T 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removing "proposed", which would make the title inaccurate, as LtPowers says above. I don't have much of a problem with removing "U.S.", but I like how its inclusion clarifies that this is a proposed U.S. state (i.e., a subdivision of a country) and not a proposed sovereign country. Ucucha 03:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Snowppose User:TopoChecker should reflect upon whether " ...(state)" is always the best disambiguator. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Superior never has been, is not, and probably never will be a state. Would support a move to Superior (proposed state). Skinsmoke (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Suggested new name is inaccurate, current name is precise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superior (proposed U.S. state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150724043021/http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=748688 to http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=748688#.VbFtHLWUJx8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No active movement?

I don't know if the statement that there is no active state movement is true now as it was in 2012. I do know I keep getting ads for a Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/StateofSuperior), but I don't think that alone can establish notability (as far as being verifiable through an independent, reliable source). Does anyone know if this group has achieved discussion in a newsworthy medium? -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@JeffBillman Not nearly, no. Most of this talk is in smaller groups complaining and no intent to push the movement further. Archigan (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)