Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by area

Numbers don't match up
I've noticed several of the numbers don't match up the source that was given by the article here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0358.pdf

Alaska, for example, is given as 663,267 sq mi but the Census table's number is 664,988 sq mi. Where did '663,267' come from? Ww7439 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source used was the 2000 Census. I just found the areas used in the 2010 census, so I will update this article soon.  --Lasunncty (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Updated to 2010 census. Hwy43 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I forgot about it. --Lasunncty (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgia
I genuinely have no idea how to fix it, but the page is showing the country Georgia instead of the state... --94.43.9.81 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Redundant tables
I removed one of the two tables that are identical except for how they are sorted. KenHigh reverted my edit, saying "Although the only difference is sort order the mobile site does not have a sort feature, making this one alternative sort useful information." I have never seen this sort of thing on any other Wikipedia article. What is the useful information contained in the "total area sort"? Is it the territories and regions being ordered by area in the same table as the states? (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 20:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Phinumu: I can see your point. I believe the useful information is for example, how Alaska, for example, is larger than most of the divisions and some regions of the country. I won't "fall on my sword" in an attempt to retain this "extra" table that I created (I created both tables that include info on divisions and regions.) Perhaps an acceptable solution would be if I eliminated the first table after incorporating %land and %percent water into both of my tables. The first one would be sorted by type (States 1-50 first, etc.) and the second would be sorted by Geography. Although this would eliminate the table sorted by size regardless of type I tend to concur with your what you seem to be saying: that adding a whole bunch of tables, just sorted differently is not warranted. Besides, these mobile devices do allow their users to "view the desktop site" if they want to be able to sort. Hopefully the Wikipedia powers that be will enable sorting on the mobile site in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHigh (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The third table is 100% redundant with the second table. The second table is ~75% redundant with the first table. I tested the mobile view on my phone and I was able to sort. I propose the following:
 * change the second table to be a sortable table representing the nine divisions only with a default alphabetical sort by division; and
 * change the third table to be a sortable table representing the four regions only with a default alphabetical sort by region.
 * This will resolve all the redundancy concerns I have. Hwy43 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I oppose removal of the first table. Hwy43 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One feature from the 2nd and 3rd tables that I think should be incorporated into the main table is land area rank. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that. While doing so, add the water area rank as well. I suggest adapting the first table's design to look as follows. == Area by state/territory == Similarly, and elaborating on my previous comments, the second and third tables would look as follows. == Area by division == == Area by region == Hwy43 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK with me. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

New column / Miles with decimal places, Kilometers without?
While it was proposed in the previous post, the Rank column for Water wasn't added to the first table; that's been done.

Per MOS:LARGENUM, it's probably best to delete the decimal places for miles and just round to whole numbers. A difference of less than one square mile is hardly consequential; additionally, note that kilometers are already rounded. Since this is (hopefully very slightly) controversial, I haven't done it; it will require quite a bit of keyboarding.107.27.118.209 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected status
Hello, all! I have noticed that on this page "List of U.S. states and territories by area" there has been lots of vandalism. I would like to request that this page is upgraded to Semi-protection status for additional protection.

Thanks, Enigma

EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

great page, thanks
? area by acres or other units - is that possible in wiki, have columns that can be changed on teh fly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

legend on map
The legend on the map says "states by Land area" but Michigan's color(80,000 - 100,000) indicates that it includes the water area. It should be a lighter shade of blue for 40,000 to 60,000 sq. mi. --BillB346 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently the legend is incorrect. The map is pretty much a duplicate of the Total Area map at the bottom of the page.  --Lasunncty (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Nation?
I found this really surprising: the Navajo Nation (Navajoland) lies in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. It covers an area of 27,425 square miles! That's three times larger than my home state of NJ! It's the largest sovereign Native American nation. Would it be appropriate to include in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.198.62 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The List of largest Indian reservations in the United States includes areas for the largest 50 reservations. We could perhaps include a link to that here, but I don't think we need to duplicate the information. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that linking would be better. It's difficult enough to find persistent sources even for the US states. in certain regions, numbers are massaged to break out land and water subtotals. Imagine if we attempt to determine how much of the Navajo nation is in each of those 3 states (area or percent of their total lands) and then had to subtract the right portions of land versus water in each of those states in order to report separate row totals for even this one Indian nation (much less the 50 largest). Don't sign me up. While a recongnize Indian lands and courts have their own soverignty, I don't believe they have total sovereignty equal to  the states.  Their lands factor into congressional apportionment I blieve.
 * I'm glad to learn that this page had been based on the 2,000 census and could be revised when a 2010 version came out. I don't know that there are big or frequent enough changes to state boundaries to justify all that work but perhaps the water areas (melting polar glaciers and inland evaporation) significantly changres the numbers these days. I looked today for a 2020 version as I am about to insert many correct grand totals but couldn't find more recent data at the Census site.
 * While the Census folks have geographic area data so their population numbers can be statistically related (population counts per area), I question if they are the best source for this (rather than USGS). Their totals seem to be summed within their systems from smaller divisions/regions, etc. At these scales, differences will exist between government sources if one is deriving area that way. Though I'm not sure that is a good enough reason to find a whole new goverment source. One note about the 2010 Census data, they were either inconsistent in how the totals (total vs land vs water) were populated or the didn't carry enought digets thru, resulting in rounding errors. EXAMPLE: For Alaska, the Water Sq Km (245,383) plus the Land Sq Km (1,477,953) adds up to Total Sq Miles of 1,723,336 but their own column for that total on that row says 1,723,337.  This could be from carrying too few significant digits OR it could be because they had Total Square Miles and used the conversion formula shown in their foot notesto derive Square Kilometers from that (insted summing the component numbers as they has reported them).  665,384 Sq Mi x (2.58998811) gives us the 1,723,337 Sq Km number they reported which doesn't match their own Land plus Water Sq Km number. But for California, The Total Area in Sq Km matches to Land columns plus Water columns. But here there is no use of the convesion factor. Deriving Sq Kms (or Sq Mi) 163,695 Sq Mi. x (2.58998811) would give 423,968 Sq Km for California. But the Census here reported Land plus Water and a total of 423,967. Nearly 40 years into the age of spreasheets, such unnecessary discrepancies are difficult to ingnore but for my own use, what we have going meets the need (once I coorect the grand totals).  Wclaytong (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
This site lists the area of the island at 5.3 thousand square miles and other sources, including the wikipedia entry for PR give 3.5 thousand. Clearly, one is wrong and must be changed. My sources suggest that 3.5 is correct. (I did not check the square kilometer numbers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes Micahmassado (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So who is correcting it? Clicking through shows the smaller figure. 161.38.130.16 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible Rhode Island error?
The table says that Rhode Island is 4,001 square kilometer, but the article about Rhode Island says the following:

"1,214 square miles (3,144 km2), of which 1,045 square miles (2,707 km2) are land.". Which of the two are correct? Ulflarsen (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The values in this table are from the US Census Bureau. The 1,214 value is from the RI Secretary of State.  I'm not sure where the 1,045 value comes from.  Presumably there is a difference in which waters are included, but I don't think you could say one is more correct than the other.  --Lasunncty (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To Lasunncty: The separate article about Rhode Island says 3,144 square kilometer, while this table says 4,001, and the numbers are not equal if we only look at land, the table says that's 2,678.


 * I have checked a couple of other states as well, when it comes to New Jersey the table and the article are equal, both say the size is 22,591 square kilometer, while on Vermont there is a difference. This table says 24,906 while the separate article says 24,923 square kilometer.


 * I find this strange as we talk about entities that are well defined, so there should be one and only one number for the size of each of them. That Wikipedia have such differences in a list of all states, versus the separate articles about at least of two of the states, should be looked at and corrected. I would say that all the states in the list should be checked, or that this list and the various articles about separate states should be based on the same public source. Ulflarsen (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi
What's Wrong With Mississippi's Flag? DSOFOreverTYU (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It currently does not have an official flag. A new flag is scheduled to be selected in November. See Flag of Mississippi for more info.  --Lasunncty (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 area update
Does anyone know if the census released the new area counts for the 2020 census? They usually have the information in their gazetteer files but I can't find where the state area files are. Thanks and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see them either. Maybe they haven't been published yet? --Lasunncty (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary columns
Extra-wide tables are hard to read, and similar columns don't provide much value. This table has three rank columns when it should have just one, and two equivalent percentage columns, except either is the compliment of the other ( (1-A)=B <=> (1-B)=A ).

The total rank is the only one needed and the water% might be better to keep than land%. See List of countries and dependencies by area. Wizmut (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have two possible alternate styles for the table at my sandbox. The first combines the two units into one column like the big list, while the other separates them like they are now.
 * Please do comment on which general style could be better and also on what other changes would improve readability. Wizmut (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * While the first one looks cleaner at a glance, I think the second one is easier to read. I would suggest using Static row numbers so that the rank doesn't get sorted.  --Lasunncty (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the second a little easier to read by adding a sliver of white space between the different types of area.
 * Static row numbers would add ranks to things that shouldn't be ranked, such as the various US totals. And, well, people can sort by state ranking only if they like, even though it's not a very big difference. Wizmut (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can add  to the lines that shouldn't be numbered.  But my point was that this would allow people to see the rankings for other columns besides just total area. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was not aware of this feature, it looks very useful. Wizmut (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Census regions
I have updated the main table, and can do so for the other two: census division and census region. But before I do, I wanted to ask: are they of general interest? Most people would not know of how the Census divides up the US, and might not even care if they did.

Of all of the regions mentioned, "New England" sticks out as being possibly interesting, and maybe the south. But New England excludes all of upstate New York, the South includes all of Maryland, and the Pacific region groups together Hawaii and Alaska - point being, this is just a convenient category that the Census likes to use, but possibly doesn't represent a list of coherent and distinct regions.

But if somebody disagrees, that's fine, it's not too much work to update the tables. Wizmut (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't miss them if they were removed. Not all definitions of these regions/divisions agree, so just going with the Census Bureau's definitions may be considered undue weight. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Revising Minor Outlying Island numbers and all Four Grand Total Numbers at the bottom
Exporting the data to Excel and checking the four bottom rown totals revealed mostly errors (bigger than the 1 off errors previously mentioned). The 2010 Census did not include the 9 minor outlying islands. A good start at including those nummbers in a single new row appears to have been done without adding them into the appropriate totals (in this case just the last one United States). The Census only gave us two of these four totals (plus one we don't use for the non-minor islands except Puerto Rico). The other discrepancies may be due to different interpretations of each TOTAL flavor so I'm adding an extra word or two in those descriptions which might help anyone chose the right rows building thesee totals. It would never have occurred to me that something labeled the 50 states would not include DC but to the credit of those who created this wiki table, one description caused me to see the logic in that distinction. I'm hoping add similar clarity to the other 3 descrptions. Wclaytong (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The term Contiguous United States includes DC. The minor outlying islands area is calculated from the source given (seems to be down now, but we can add an archive link) The total US figure is the one given by the source, which may also explain any other rounding errors. The total given by the source likely excludes the minor islands.
 * Please see MOS:BOLD for advice against excessive bolding. Table text should be treated more-or-less like article text for readability purposes. Italics are used for amalgams, such as Wizmut (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ranks start at 2?
The displayed list on the page starts with Alaska, ranked at #2. Oddly, when displaying the table in preview mode in the edit page, it looks fine, i.e., Alaska is displayed with rank #1. 71.234.42.218 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can't reproduce in Firefox or on mobile. Can you give more details to help reproduce this? Wizmut (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to reproduce it but I am getting the same erroneous numbering. I am on the Wikipedia app on iOS. Quanjano (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)