Talk:Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Columbia article.
Article policies
WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

We'll...this is sort of like a disambiguation page, but then it contains commentary that would be valuable so it's not really a disambiguation page. I suggest a custom note instead. --Jiang 10:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That works. - Furrykef 18:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the content about the historical concept of Columbia be moved to its own article, so that this can be a real disambiguation page? JoaoRicardo 03:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I think the country Columbia should be the first thing mentioned here, rather than the "poetic name" for America bit.

If such a country existed, that would be a good idea. Perhaps you're thinking of Colombia. --Sneftel 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Moved Content

I question the complete validity of the word Columbia having its origin as a poetic name for the United States in its female personification because I don't believe the Canadians in British Columbia would have been too happy about naming their province "British United States (fem.)" I don't have a deeper source, but I will keep looking for more historical references to the origin of the use of the word Columbia.

I moved the historical content about Columbia as a name for the USA to Historical Columbia so this could serve as a true Disambiguation page instead of a mini-article. I also made Historical Columbia a stub because it is fairly brief while it is an important term/topic. I wasn't sure what to call the new page so anyone feel free to move it. --Gpyoung 4 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Well, looking at the article on British Columbia, it appears that BC was named after the Columbia River. Looking at that article, it appears the river was named after a ship, which could have been named after anything, plausibly including the United States. Therefore, it makes sense that British Columbia could mean the "British [portion of the territory around the] United States [River]", or "British United States" for short, if you substitute "United States" for "Columbia". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I know this discussion is long over, but I followed those links. The Columbia River is named after the Columbia Rediviva ship, which is turn is named after the Irish saint Columba. William Quill (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia/Colombia

Just a suggestion: How about "Not to be confused with Colombia" at the top, such as the one on the Colombia page? This one-letter difference confused me for a while, so I'm assuming others might make the mistake as well. I would make the change myslef, but I've never edited a page before and I would rather not mess anything up. 69.234.104.249 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I'm a bit concern about the "originality" of Columbia, I'd like the mention of an "original Columbia" removed as it's stating this originality without using any reference.

[edit] Requested move

Columbia → Columbia (disambiguation) and Historical Columbia → Columbia – Since the current page at Columbia is a disambugation page, while the actual Columbia article is at Historical Columbia. --Yath 04:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as per nomination, makes sense to me. John (Jwy) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the historical use of Columbia is not overwhelmingly more common than the others - Columbia, South Carolina is a very notable city for example. The disambiguation page should certainly be here. — sjorford++ 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are multiple common uses of Columbia--there is no clear evidence that the use described at Historical Columbia qualifies as primary. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the others.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do

A couple of things that still need to be done:

  1. Take a closer look to determine which entries really aren't plausible for a "Columbia" page. Most of these I could make a case for keeping, but "Columbia Valley Gardens", for example, seems to be an unlikely one for people to search for with just "Columbia"
  2. Merge Columbian into this article.
  3. Fix the Columbia automobile link, page, and associated pages. That article seems to have been turned into a dab page at some point although there are only two WP articles really associated with it; both companies should probably be linked to from this page, and the name returned to referring to only one of the companies.

--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)