Jump to content

Talk:Washington (state)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sales Tax

I've changed the sales tax to 8.8% before, but it gets reverted. I know for a fact it is 8.8%, so let it be known 6.2% is not correct. N734LQ 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. Per Washington State Department of Revenue, State Sales Tax is 6.5% state wide, with varying County, City, and Special Jurisdiction taxes collected. Source: WaDOR Tax Finder GIS. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's 8.8% or thereabouts in Seattle, but the minimum statewide tax is a couple points lower. --Lukobe 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

Article assert "Boeing Field in Seattle is the busiest airport by numbers of planes in the world." But I cannot find a citation for the claim, and I don't mean this kind of citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.17.40.34 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC).


FoxNews contradicts. 216.254.22.4 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wikipedia better

The Washington article on the Spanish wikipedia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_%28estado%29 has become a featured article, and although I can't read Spanish, it is clear that the article there is better than the one here. Check it out, and why not improve this one? Pfly 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Lukobe 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The poster said he/she didn't understand Spanish, how do you want him/her to cooperate? It might be a good idea to actually read what the poster said before responding with an automatic message. It border on rudeness and carelessness. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

"H E L L O WHAT'S UR NAME??" has absolutely no bearing on the subject whatsoever. I'd remove it myself, but when I go to edit the page, it isn't there. 71.217.114.221 04:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be looking at an old version of the article. That was removed on the 19th. --Bobblehead 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What is the rationale for Washington pointing to the State's article as opposed to any of the other possibilities, including George Washington - the namesake of most places with that name, Washington DC - the capitol city of one of the largest countries, or going directly to a disambiguation page? The only discussion on this I found was a suggestion to use the model of Lincoln, whereby the name is a redirect to a disambig. That never seems to have been implemented. Is that a resolved solution awaiting implementation? Tritium6 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because the State of Washington is the only term that really only goes by simply "Washington", Washington, DC is, well, Washington, D.C., and George Washington is George Washington. Any place that would have a Washington County, their articles would be "Washington County, (insert state here)". If you want George or D.C., you should really be searching those terms as those are the proper names. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with Cascadia. The state of Washington is the primary entity referred to by the name Washington. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but please provide some support for that statement, Knowledge Seeker. I suspect that you are perhaps drawing from personal experience around your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. Globally, Washington refers to the capital of the USA. Do you think many people outside the US even know there is a state named Washington? Perhaps in Canada and western Europe, but for billions of others, the lack of a disambig at Washington leads to them reading about Washington state and thinking they are reading about the capital. The lack of a disambig is a very USA-centric (or Washington state-centric) decision. Cascadia - please read the Washington, D.C. article. Washington is the name of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tritium6 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
If you feel you're right, you can certainly open up a move request for this page, however I would advise looking at the last proposed move. It might help you analyze the arguments for and against the move. However, I would like to calm your specific fears about confusion--I can pretty much guarantee you that practically no one comes here and reads the article thinking that they are reading about the city. That whole "Washington is a state" bit (the first four words of the article) probably makes sure of that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyone who reads the first line of the article and still thinks they are reading about the Capital of the United States needs more than a disambiguation page to fix that. The lack of an automatic disambiguation page is not very USA-Centric NOR Washington-centric, it is simply acknowledging the realities of the actual terms, not the misconception: Washington=the state; George Washington=The Man; Washington, D.C.=The Capital of the U.S.A.. And should you need support, I give you Washington, Washington, D.C.; Washington, DC Tourism site using "Washington, D.C.", Washington, D.C. Government Site "DC.Gov". CASCADIAHowl/Trail 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

State symbols

I have removed two items under "State Symbols", the idea that the Onion is the official Vegetable and the Blueberry Muffin is the state muffin. Neither of these items are listed at the Washington State Legislature page on State Symbols. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Walla walla sweet onion is listed there, it might be a good idea to add it back. Stale Fries taste better 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I added a reference to a Seattle P I article discussing the contested election, but am not sure how to properly place the reference as a footnote. The subsequent trial following the election is a valid point to include, since it discusses the vote tallies and the margin of error.

Add <ref> and </ref> around a normal addition of an external URL, at the end of the sentence or paragraph. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just figured it out, thanks.

05 or 06?

According to the census the population is 6.3m, in the intro it says this a 06 number in the demograghics it says this is a 05 number, I think it is 2005 but its locked up.

According the the U.S. Census, it's a 2006 figure. I've changed the Demographics section. --barneca (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Official language(s) English

I'm changed that to "English (de facto)", since according to List_of_official_languages_by_country#U Washington is not a state with English as official. Fanra 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This has gone back and forth for a while. Since "de facto" means "not official", it is strange to append it to a field called "official languauge". There is no official language. "De facto" means "not official". I changed it back to "None", as it has usually been. Pfly 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tax Npov?

The state of Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S. It is one of only seven states that does not levy a personal income tax.

While I agree that the tax structure in Washington is subjctively regressive, the language seems NPOV. Is "regressive" a parlance used in economics? Regressive how? By whose standards? 76.22.7.202 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the linked-to page Regressive tax explain it well enough? Pfly 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I also challenge this: "The state also does not collect a corporate income tax." It collects a "Business and Occupation Tax" that is based on gross receipts. That's a business/corporate income tax by another name. http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/ExciseTax/FilTaxReturn/BusTaxOver.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.182 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Microsoft to the History section?

Boeing is there, and Microsoft is (IMO) just as important as Boeing. Stale Fries taste better 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

The "area" section of the infobox has some formatting problems. I tried to fix it, but couldn't figure out the source. --Hojimachongtalk 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state, and its Christian population is the lowest of any state.

Hawaii has only about 29% of Christian which is much lower than the 63% of Washington. 62.47.181.135 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm? 62.47.180.35 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone change this? 80.121.77.174 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the claim about Christian population.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i find it very insulting that once again the Church of Later Day Saints is not under the Christian section. Mormoms praise Christ therfore we are just as Christian as any other Protestant sect and Catholic76.28.245.208 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Michael

Is this inclement weather important at all?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004049820_webweather03m.html Dio Only Uses a Knife (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) i find it very insulting that once again the Church of Later Day Saints is not under the Christian section. Mormoms praise Christ therfore we are just as Christian as any other Protestant sect and Catholic76.28.245.208 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Michael

Recent edit

Sighting references wich did not show after original addition

[[2]] www.turtlezen.com/weirdlaws.html [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttle-junky (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington:Template disagreement

There is a disagreement going on at Template:Washington about whether or not to include the "Tri-Cities" as a larger city or not. Please read the discussion and help us come to a consensus. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bluebunch wheatgrass

The redlink on Bluebunch Wheatgrass can be fixed by using Bluebunch wheatgrass instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

but is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.136.141 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why does it say {{{2000Pop}}} for the population, but when I went to change that to a number, I couldn't find {{{2000Pop}}}, but I found where population was on the table, changed it, but it still says {{{2000Pop}}} in there?

I fixed it. Someone changed the 2000pop entry to 2007pop, which was making it show up as it was. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington State redirect

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Washington State about its status as a redirect to Washington State University, rather than a disambiguation page. You are welcome to join. - BanyanTree 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to that discussion, I've made it a disambiguation page. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscapitalization

In the lead it currently says "Washington is sometimes called Washington state or The state of Washington". It's debatable whether "State" should be capitalized -- usage goes both ways on that -- but "The" clearly should not be. Since the article is semi-protected, as an anonymous user (who is staying that way). I can't fix it myself. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Race

Regarding the demographics table shown in Washington#Race, what does "(Hispanic only)" mean? I don't understand this table. Is this explained somewhere? — OranL (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New communities of Columbia cat

Hi; I just created Category:Communities on the Columbia River over breakfast and populated it with BC places and some I know of in Washington, plus made some additions to Category:Cities on the Columbia River, which curiously enough seemed to have (on the US side) only Oregon cities, and none from Washington except I think Yakima and Wenatchee...I've added some like East Wenatchee and the Tri-Cities (to the cities) cat and didn't know where else......Skookum1 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quarter image

What does Image:Washington quarter, reverse side, 2007.png have to do with toxic chemicals? — OranL (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dams along the Columbia

Dams that were built along the Columbia River were not initially built to create hydro power, as the main entry for Washington State avers. They were built for flood control and as a part of the "make work" projects FDR initiated to combat The Great Depression. Most especially, Grand Coulee Dam was not a hydro power dam to begin with, as it was retro-fitted, at great expense, to become a hydro power dam many years after it was completed. To this day, few of the dams on the Columbia are hydro-power producers...they continue to exist for the purpose of flood control. The majority of Washington State's major hydro-power producing dams are on the WEST side of the Cascades, not the east side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.79.41 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The move again.

Hi. We're having a discussion at Talk:New York about where "New York" should send the reader. Right now "New York" is the location of the state article, same choice as here. Obviously not everything that happens there is applicable here and vice versa, but I do believe "Washington" should be a dab. I've read some of the old discussions about this and don't believe my points have been addressed in them.

The argument the other way goes: "But we have a convention that works fine now. D.C. is where it should be according to US city guidelines and so there's no conflict. Besides, all other states except Georgia do it this way."

  1. States have no specific guidelines other than "spell it out" so general WP:PRIMARYUSAGE guidelines take over.
  2. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE states an unmodified phrase (no parens) can only be the location of article when there is an overwhelmingly common usage. Since this article gets 117,000 hits and Washington, D.C. gets 168,000, neither qualifies as the primary meaning of "Washington".
  3. "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." so consistency in state names (which is somewhat moot because of Georgia) takes a secondary priority to the best layout for the reader.

I know people hate to argue this over and over again, but I can't read the policy any other way.--Loodog (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, with reservations: As uncomfortable as I am with the completed move over at New York, the reasoning applied to that scenario also applies here. While I don't have a personal problem with keeping the article on Washington state at "Washington", other conventions suggest that a move be made here as well. However, should the move at New York be reversed, then I would withdraw my support for this article following suit. Best, -epicAdam (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Update: they moved New York back, but without consensus. Wonderful.--Loodog (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out on Talk:New York, any and all move discussions related to this article should be done so in compliance with the instructions defined in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves (with a possible additional notes on Talk:Washington, D.C. and WP:USA directing interested parties there to the discussion here). Any other method is unlikely to garner an accurate measure of support/opposition for the move and will likely result in the move being undone. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that makes sense. I'm learning this process the hard way.--Loodog (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An official move has been proposed and is currently up for discussion at Talk:New York#Requested move. Since any decision made there will have obvious implications for this article and Washington, D.C., users may wish to make their voices known. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The New York debate wound up being no consensus and the page was not moved. See Talk:New York (state)/Archive 3 for all the gory details. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Width and Height are Reversed

The values for Washington State's width and height are currently reversed on the wiki page. Washington state is wider than it is tall when looking north. --Russorat (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Party Registration

Where as voting patterns and self-identification may support the idea that there a more Democrats than Republicans, there is no party registration in the state. As this my first post and I’m having fun just getting this in, I hope one of you more knowledgeable users would effect this change. I fear messing up the article. WashingtonNative (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's a voter registration form from the state. I read through it once or twice, and couldn't find a party registration section. There may, however, be other sources as to official party registration numbers, and I don't know too much about politics in the state, so I'll leave it up to others on what to do. AlexiusHoratius 09:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Washington doesn't have party registration, so the only way to tell the party breakdown is by polls and voting patterns. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no political registration under the current system (which has changed many times in the last 8 years when the previous voting system was declared unconstitutional), but was that always the case? Back in the 2000 presidential race I voted in the Republican primary (mostly for the first of my three opportunities to vote against Dubya) and I recall that in some way I indicated that I was a Republican, which made my ballot count for more towards picking the Republican nominee than it would have otherwise (this was an election organized by the state government, not a party caucus). I don't recall if this was an official party "registration" or maybe I just asked for a Republican ballot as opposed to a Democrat one, or something else. Anyone recall how this worked? In seems possible that the Secretary of State's office has some earlier records of party affiliation even if they don't for 2008. CAVincent (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I did find some interesting info. It looks like in 1996 and 2000 voters were allowed to choose among three presidential primary ballots - Democrat, Republican and Unaffiliated. In 2000, there were 1,309K ballots cast, 22.7% Democratic, 37.5% Republican and 39.8% Unaffiliated - and among "Unaffiliated" 40.1% went to McCain and 22.7% went to Bush. Given that the state hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1984 and hasn't elected a Republican governor since 1980, I think these numbers vastly overstate Republican support and merely reflect that in February 2000 the race between Bush & McCain was still open and interesting but Gore had pretty much wrapped up the Dem nomination. The results in 1996, with an active Republican primary race but no real opposition in the Democratic primary, are similar. Also of interest - since 1972 there have been three occasions when both of the top two primary gubernatorial candidates were Democrats (1976, 1980 and 1996) which under our new Top-Two election system would mean the Republicans would have gone unrepresented in the November gubernatorial race in those years. Notably, in 1980 Republican John Spellman went from third place in the primary to winning in November. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


I am an official of the Democratic party, a legislative district chair. I have been voting in Washington State since I was 20 in 1972. I have never registered or been asked to register in a political party. I’m am sure that has been the case since the blanket primary was adopted in the 1930’s. For the blanket primary requires no party registration. For you could vote for a democrat for governor, and then for senator, a republican in the primary. Washington State did not have a presidential primary until the 1990’s, and then like in 2004 none because the Republicans were going to renominate Bush, and the Democrats weren’t going use it to select national delegates. This year’s contest found the Democrats choosing not to use the results while the Republicans choose to use it for half their delgates. The presidential primary laws directs the Secretary of State to provide a list of those who vote in the presidential primary to the party whose presidential candidates they vote for. So if you voted for a democratic presidential primary candidate the Democrats get yours. But and this a big but it is not an registration for the next time primary comes around you still get both ballots to make a choice of which to cast.

When the blanket primary was declared unconstitutional, we since have had ongoing court battles on the shape of the primary for non-presidential races, From where you chose which party to vote for and vote only for that party’s candidates, with no record of your choice of party to this year’s top two primary. That is where every body runs together and the top two vote getters in the primary regardless of party “preference” move on to the general. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx WashingtonNative (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Microclimates/extreme weather paragraph

This paragraph was added a couple of months ago:

But despite Western Washington having a marine climate similar to those of the coastal cities of the Mediterranean there are exceptions, such as the "Big Snow" events of 1880, 1881, 1893 and 1916. The "deep freeze" winters of 1883-84, 1915-16, 1949-50 and 1955-56 among others. In these events Western Washington has experienced anything from six feet of snow, sub-zero temperatures, three months of snow on the ground, and lakes and rivers frozen over for weeks on end. Seattle's lowest temperature recorded officially is 0°F set on January 31, 1950. But it has been known that areas away from Seattle have experienced record lows from -10°F to -20°F. So it can be said that the climate in Western Washington can range from hot to cold, pouring rain to blizzard and no wind to storm force winds. Because the weather is so variable from place to place weather forecasting is hard in Western Washington. Along a coastline 200 miles long, Western Washington has two mountain ranges, an inland sea, a gorge and a fjord. With this variability come microclimates that can occupy spaces several football fields long or areas as small as a backyard. It is not uncommon that rain is pouring down in one area, while 50 feet away not a single drop of rain is falling. Western Washington has also experienced tornadoes and severe thunderstorms. These tornadoes are usually only a EF0 or EF1. But Western Washington in the summer of 2008 experiened over 5,000 lightning strikes in the Cascade Mountains and more Severe Thunderstorm Warnings in one day then seen in an average year. It can be said that the weather in Western Washington is unpredictable.

This needs a lot of work, not the least of which being some citations. First and foremost, is western Washington particularly notable for microclimates? I know we've got 'em here (I live in Seattle), but this paragraph has some pretty bold claims that need to be backed up with a good citation. -- RobLa (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Right away, Western Washington having a marine climate similar to those of the coastal cities of the Mediterranean sounds dubious. Seattle's climate is a far cry from that of Rome, Athens, Nice, Barcelona, etc. I suspect it may be true that western Washington does have an unusual number or density of microclimates, but the claim should be sourced, and there is no need to go into such detail regarding football fields, the number of lightning strikes in 2008, and so on. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. This looks like a good place to start: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=3681 . Next time I get some editing time, I may take a crack at a rewrite using some info from that article. This could be the work of someone who has the Cliff Mass weather book (which I don't have). Something tells me "Chapter 1: The Extraordinary Weather of the Pacific Northwest" might have something to say on this topic. -- RobLa (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdwtalk 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic not Christian?

The religion demographics is broken up in a way that suggests Catholic doesn't fall into Christian, somebody should fix this.24.65.95.239 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look a bit more closely at the way the list is indented: Protestant, Catholic, Other Christian and Latter-Day Saint all are indented behind Christian, with the various Protestant denominations indented behind Protestant. AlexiusHoratius 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I've officially made an ass of myself.24.65.95.239 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - although I don't know of a better alternative, I can see how the list in its present form may look confusing at first. AlexiusHoratius 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"bye and bye" vs. "by and by"

The state motto is listed as Alki (and source is listed at[ http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Legislature/StateSymbols/]). The translation at that cited source is "bye and bye," so the quotation is accurate, but I think that the correct phrase is "by and by." The alternative spelling is a common mistake (see [4]) I was going to change it, but since it's an accurate quote of the cited page... I elected to put it here instead. what do you all think? --Pballen (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. This HistoryLink.org page might be a better source--it not only translates it as "by and by" but says, correctly, that the word comes from Chinook Jargon, instead of the vague "an Indian word" origin given by the wa.gov site. Pfly (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Washington State" vs. "Washington state"

I know it's a small semantic issue, but when using the term "Washington State," "state" should be capitalized when referring to the government or some other proper noun agency (e.g. Washington State Office of Financial Management) and it should be lowercase when referring to the geographical area. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. --Lukobe 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. A quick search of on-line grammar/style pages on Google shows a unanimous preference for Washington State, whether referring to state gov't or the geographical area above Oregon. It's state of Washington, but Washington State. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The lowercase form is actually correct, as Washington State would imply that the term "State" is actually part of the state name. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, looking at your results (where are the on-line grammar/style pages?), it's obvious the capitalization of "state" is used in the name of government agencies where all important words are capitalized. I agree with the others, it should be lowercase. --Chris S. 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did my part, I looked it up to make sure I wasn't misremembering what I was taught before I posted anything. The first three hits on the link above are grammar/style guides, and they agree with my interpretation. After several links to university and state government pages (which don't prove or disprove anything), looking at the next 10 or 15 pages yields, on balance, similar results. Calling it unanimous was wrong, but the consensus in those pages is clearly for "Washington State". I would have liked to see a slam-dunk, like Strunk and White or something, but couldn't find an irrefutable source, neither for or against "State." I never reverted anything, so you folks do whatever you want to do, but I'd love to see an actual cite from a respected arbiter of style for "Washington state". Perhaps there is no uniform standard. (And the BBC doesn't count, as I believe British spelling capitalization rules differ from US spelling capitalization rules.) --barneca (sorry, very sleepy. spelling is a whole other kettle of fish). (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) --barneca (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me put it two you two different ways. 1)Washington, the state, is ONLY DEFINED AS WASHINGTON. A capitalization of State would indicate that the legal name of the state was Washington State. It is not. Government agencies capitalize the term State as part of their proper name. Washington State University is one such example. 2)Please take this example from the State of Washington website How to become a Resident of Washington state, please remember the heading is capitalized as part of a heading stylization. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I found an authoritative source. From the Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed., section 7.37:
In general, words designating political divisions of the world, a country, state, city, and so forth, are capitalized when they follow the name and form an accepted part of it: empire, state, county, city, kingdom, colony, territory, etc. They are usually, though not always, lowercased when they precede the name or stand alone:
(snip several other examples)
Washington State; the state of Washington
--barneca (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not consider a manual of style as an authoritative source, because they define how it should appear within that style. Besides, by that measure, the following is listed in the Associated Press Style Manual:
"Use state of Washington or Washington state when necessary to distinguish the state from the District of Columbia. (Washington State is the name of a university in the state of Washington)."
pp. 239, Associated Press Style Book, ISBN 0-7382-0740-3. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent, since indentation is messed up anyway)
I know, I know, a sane man would just let this die. But I have a couple of points:

  1. When we are purely talking about matters of style, I don’t see how you can say you don’t accept a manual of style as authoritative.
  2. The WP:Manual of Style specifically references The Chicago Manual of Style as an authoritative style guide. The other guides mentioned by WP:MOS are silent on this subject.
  3. One of the references above (I cannot find it right now, I suspect it was one of the google links) has the quite reasonable suggestion to just reword to avoid confusion. In a couple of minutes I’m going to go ahead and say "state of Washington" instead of "Washington State" everywhere except the specific line describing the use of the term “Washington State”. (actually, this is slightly complicated. Often, it's a title (all capitalized), and sometimes it refers to, f.ex., Washington state seal, which I believe is correct since "state" refers to "seal", not "Washington". Anyway, I'll do it sometime tonight)
  4. After points 1-2 above, I'm somewhat tempted to change the one remaining instance back to Washington State. But in cases where WP:Bold conflicts with WP:Consensus, I suppose common courtesy would be to err on the side of consensus. (Plus, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I found myself in an edit war over this.)
  5. Would you all now agree that I've backed up my position well enough that you don't have a problem with Washington State in the one remaining instance? If so, I'll go ahead and do it.
  6. If not, how would you like to proceed? If you're curious what they would say, we could ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
--barneca (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Except "State" isn't part of the proper name and where the Wikipedia style guide makes explicit instruction, it over-rides Chicago. WP is explicit that only proper nouns should be capitalized. Chicago isn't even consistent on this, [5], and they capitalize things we would not here at WP. This is clear that putting state after Washington is a redundancy, but also clear that when done to disambiguate from the DC to use lower case.
So please do not capitalize state. SchmuckyTheCat 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards to this article, rather than change Washington state to state of Washington or Washington State, I'd just drop all references to Washington state or state of Washington that is not part of a proper name as it is an unnecessary disambiguation. It's the equivalent of referring to Gary Locke as "Gary Locke (politician)" throughout his own article. The only exception being the one in the intro where a majority of editors (including myself) seem to prefer "Washington state" to "Washington State". --Bobblehead 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, "Washington State" is a proper noun; that's my whole point. That's why it's "the state of Washington", but "Washington State". The CMOS link you gave is consistent, and explicitly agrees with me: "...or the exact geographical entity, uppercase." And we've already established that there are different opinions on this; but in matters of style, an explicit recommendation of "State" by an authoritative style guide should trump a King County web page.
If CMOS has said "Washington state", I would have accepted it and moved on. One of the big ideas here, as I understand it, is respect for authoritative, verifiable sources. Could someone please at least address the issue that CMOS explicitly, as a specific example, gives it as "Washington State"? Or that a large majority of Google hits give the same thing? Or that, when several styles are both OK, deference should be given to the original? --barneca (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
When you search google, you're looking 90% of the time at items that are actual departments of the state. They are capitalized because, for example, it is the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). CMOS is a manual of style, yes, but there is also APA style, AMA style, etc., all each have their own style. I specifically cited the Associated Press Stylebook as an example that stylebooks and manuals of style are not necessarily going to have a standard. The issue is what is the legal term for the state. It is either State of Washington or just simply Washington, except when used as a department entity name. The government pages referenced (one King County webpage, and another, a page from the State of Washington itself, expressly use the term "Washington state" when implying dis-ambiguity. Furthermore, as I've stated, the reason why we do not use "Washington State" is for 2 primary reasons: "Washington State" is the name of a University IN Washington, and the state's legal name is not Washington State, it is simply Washington. "state" is only added in to make sure people do not confuse it with George or D.C.. In addition to all of this, having been a resident of Washington for over 12 years before moving back to Arizona, I can safely say with certain assuredness that the word "state" is only capitalized when referring to WSU. The official governments of the State of Washington use that form of capitalization, and I think they would be the official deciding factor in how their name is legally presented. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As I specifically said above, "State" is still the majority use when you weed out official state websites. But that doesn't matter. As I said above, I know there is disagreement, even among manuals of style. That's why I think we should defer to what WP:MOS specifically lists as an authoritative style guide. Legality has nothing to do with it; it doesn't matter what the legal name is, it matters how you're using it.
OK, you wore me out. I'm disappointed, not because I didn't "win", but because I really feel no one is addressing my main points (by "main points", I mean the specific three things I mentioned, again, in my last paragraph). Cascadia, all of your points above I believe I already addressed, except your mention of living there for 12 years; I lived there for 8. Is that how we decide things? I can tell you, with certain assurance, your generalization is absolutely not universally agreed-to. I have tried my best to answer everyone's objections, but I honestly think no one is returning me the same courtesy. I'll leave this discussion now, as I feel myself getting cranky and that's probably not good for anybody, and I think everyone here can see no one is going to change their minds. --barneca (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
barneca is correct on point of what a "proper name" is. It sounds like people are introducing a fallacy by saying that "Washington State" is not correct because a) only proper names are capitalized and b) only "Washington" is the "proper" name. First off, I think that the structure of the logical argument itself is sound, but the problem here is that "proper name" is being semantically overloaded to become essentially a synonym for "official name," and yet a "proper name," in the context of (a), is entirely a grammatical concept. "Washington State" is in fact a "proper name"/proper noun in the purely grammatical sense of the term -- and a proper name need not be the "official" or canonical name for something (please do see even the Wikipedia page on the topic, for one). While some might consider it to be biased or politically loaded to use "Washington State," it is actually grammatically correct (and moreover, "Washington state" is grammatically *incorrect*, because it is a proper name, yet it is not capitalized).Christophre (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered how this issue would look for other states, like say Nebraska. The term "Nebraska State" makes me think of a school. "Nebraska state" also looks like a school name. To refer to Nebraska as a state, wouldn't people say "the state of Nebraska"? Pfly 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, I appologize if you feel I wasn't addressing your points. Your main point was that the CMOS lists it as being Washington State. The part of WP:MOS I feel you may have left out was the preceding line: Some examples of authoritative style guides are:, then it lists two, including CMOS. Meaning it is not the absolute and only authoritative style manual. Why is CMOS any higher than the Associated Press Sylebook? That is why I found a source directly from the state government, which, like I stated, would know best how to use the term "state" when referring to Washington state. All you've stated is that CMOS and the interpretation of a google search should trump the websites of the counties of Washington state, and the State of Washington itself, which in all honesty use the term day in and day out. And about my years of residency in Washington, I only added that in to illustrate my frustration of the fact you keep leaning on CMOS, although myself and at lest one other editor has shown you uses of "Washington state" that come from official sources outside of a sytlebook, and I had cited a direct quote from another 'authoritative' stylebook. Again, I apologize if you feel I wasn't addressing your points. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree, but am not quite as cranky this AM as I was last night, and apologize for the snippyness. I'll defer to the overwhelming opposition; I doubt there's any point to further discussion. --barneca (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All of those invested in this discussion have certainly done a lot of research to back up their arguments, but I've got to say - anytime I hear the word 'state' tagged on to the name 'Washington' the hairs on my neck stand up. I consider the fact that not one map ever produced adds the word 'state' to Washington, thus to add it is unnecessarily editorializing and relegating Washington to second-class citizenship among the other states. Conversely, Washington, D.C. already has a modifier. Previously when somebody asked where I was raised, I would simply say, "Washington." Inevitably the follow-up was, "State or D.C.?" I try not to be 'that guy' and very pleasantly say "There's only one Washington," and let them figure it out. And yes, I'm a nut. Now when asked where I come from, I answer, "About an hour North of Seattle," and that takes care of things nicely and I don't have to hear the dreaded title. I don't know why this bugs me so much, but it does. Things have names. I don't care about the tendencies of others in regards to how they choose to name something; Washington is the name of my home. Washington State is the name of a university therein. End of story. Finally, I wish the name of the state had been Columbia to avoid this confusion, but then everyone would probably think I had access to cocaine.Itramcj 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Counties?

So... what counties comrpise Washington? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.16.201 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


See also section

I removed it. None of the links seem obviously useful to the general topic of Washington. Most were political or government pages which are better linked from political and government sub-pages. Conversely, a handful of political or government links in a see also section is an indiscriminate invitation to add others. Before adding a "see also" section, ask yourself: Can I make this a link in the text of a relevant section of the article? Would this link be better in a sub-page of another article instead? SchmuckyTheCat 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Spokane City Population

I just noticed that the population for Spokane in the "Largest Cities" section did not agree with the PDF file I found under the source link; so I changed it. Hopefully that's not a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.71.158 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ameri-co-centricity, is in the air for you and me...

Apologies to Kraftwerk. I'm just wondering why there is a debate amongst Americans about whether Washington should point to an article about the American president or the American state, when in fact the original Washington in England (which George Washington, and hence all other things called Washington, is named after) is surely a far more obvious candidate, despite the slight inconvenience of not being American. 217.155.20.163 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're right.. A town in the UK that isn't known aside from its immediate neighbors should definitely be located at Washington. After all, being the original is far more important than being the more commonly known. Heh. Thanks for stopping by.--Bobblehead (rants) 02:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite bobblehead's sarcastic response, there are things to remember that may seem like "Ameri-centricity":
  1. Common use trumps chronological order.
  2. In geographic terms, the Order of Political Succession is used (Country, Region, State/Province, County/Parish, Metro City, Large City, Small City, Town, Township, Village, Hamlet... down to address.)
It's not American-centric as much as it is logic and order. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Does the term reductio ad absurdum mean anything to you? George Washington may have gotten his surname from that city, but there wouldn't be anything else in the world with that name if he hadn't made it famous. Even the city of Washington, England's website attests to that. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Easy answer is see here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions, from the page is this: "This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
So, actually, using that, "Washington" should really direct you to "Washington D.C.", since the vast majority of the world thinks of that when they hear the word. But I'm not going to argue for that.
Any claims of "Ameri-co-centricity" make as much sense my claiming "British-co-centricity" that "Elizabeth II" takes you to the UK Queen rather than "Elisabeth II of Bohemia" who was born first. Fanra 05:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well for one the name is spelt differently. The other is the pivotal role of the British royal family in the English speaking world. I don't know if wikipedia has any bias towards things to do with the English language, however there is a general acceptance of the corpus of 'English' things/ideas etc. In any case I'd never heard of the place in the UK (though I assumed Geo. Washington had an English geographical connection somehow). From my andtipodean experience Washington DC is well known whilst Washington State is not. Unless of course you are from the US. Ozdaren (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Washington should point to a disambiguation page.--SkiDragon (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people outside the U.S. would be looking for Washington, D.C. if they typed just plain "Washington" into a search. The article on the state of Washington should be at Washington (state) and this should be a disambiguation page. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea Washington should be a disambiguation page just like Georgia.--Fomerom (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree as well. There are just too many difernt things known by the name. People will type in looking for the city and the person. And yes, a few many even type in looking for Washington, Tyne and Wear. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to move the state to Washington (U.S. state) and either make Washington a DAB or direct to the city. I've made no progress.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Concurred, I'm European and "Washington" means D.C. whenever someone discusses U.S. Politics here, in my experience, I'd imagine most of us who would type in "Washington" are looking for D.C.--Occono (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I live in Washington state, and I fully support making this page a disambiguation. Not only is Washington, D.C. better known outside of the United States, I've regretably learned from multiple experiences of talking to various companies located in the north-eastern United States that D.C. is also the only one known to some people within the United States (ie: I've had multiple arguments about the existance of a state named Washington - being assured by the other party that I actually live in D.C. ... go figure). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Washington should be a disambiguation page. This "the Order of Political Succession" for geographic sense is nonsense. We should just use the most widespread name as the primary topic and, when as it happens here there it is not a clear issue, have a disambiguation page.--RR (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed for Edits

Perhaps this naive (I'm not much of a Wikipedia contributor, and don't really know the goings-on), but:

  • Why is this article "locked"?
  • Who was the final authority that decided that "Washington state" is preferred over "Washington State"? (I've added to the discussion, even though it seems to not have had any recent activity)
  • Is the Chinook-English translation of "alki" as "bye and bye" perhaps a mispelling? "by and by" is definitely the correct spelling of the idiom meaning "eventually/at some point in the future" (Merriam-Webster; note that "bye and bye" is used here a search term that provides suggestions for valid entries)

Christophre (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


on the first one, are you talking about this article, it doesn't say it is protected
on the 3rd, that is a good question, The answer is as follows

"Al-ki or Alki is an Indian word meaning "bye and bye." This motto first appeared on the territorial seal designed by Lt. J.K. Duncan of Gov. Stevens' surveying expedition. On one side it pictures a log cabin and an immigrant wagon with a fir forest in the background; on the other side, a sheet of water being traversed by a steamer and sailing vessel, a city in perspective; the Goddess of Hope and an anchor is in the center. The figure points at the significant word "Alki." Settlers from the schooner Exact named their settlement on Alki Point, New York. The new settlement was slower to grow than its East Coast counterpart, however, so the name was changed to New York-Alki, meaning "into the future" -- the 1850s version of the term "bye and bye" or, "I will see you, bye and bye."" source: Washington.gov

-- GoldMan60 ¤ Talk  03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where to post this, but this looks like a good spot. Washington state or State, it not named for the president. It wsa named for the first settlers who forced to leave Oregon territory. George Washington Bush and his family settled in the area now know as Tumwater. They were not allowed to settle in Oregon because they were black. He may very well have been named for the first president, but the state was not. Ask any student who passed 7th grade in Washington State. President Washington is on the state seal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.82.102 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

washington

Why do i get sent to Washington state instead of Washington DC when i type washington into wikipedia? it is obvious most people in the world who speak English refer to DC when speaking about washington. Even in the USA, some people say Washington state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When you type in New York, it takes you to the article on New York state, same idea, most people in the world don't care/know that the state exists and are referring to New York City when they talk about New York, just because the state is usually not what the word refers to does not mean that it is not what the word is supposed to refer to. just because the majority of people do it does not make it fact Washington DCs name is and always has been Washington DC not Washington. I can tell you that the majority of people in the Northwestern USA NEVER refer to Washington DC as Washington, they always put the DC on there. Sorry if that was a little abrasive I'm tired and this is one of my pet peeves. Happy Editing --Gold Man60 Talk 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Military Bases

Somebody needs to add in the military bases section The Everett Naval Station AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • 47.5 N -120.5 W

South Bay (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Fixed before now.) BrainMarble (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational Service Districts

This section is nothing more than a series of random numbers following the abbreviation "ESD". If no one can at least come up with the locations of these districts (maybe even with links!), can we delete this section? Co149 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. That section contains no information and no way to find any. I've cut it out and I'm saving the text here in case someone who knows more can put it back and flesh it out so that it's useful. As it was, it was just wasting space. Just to be clear, the following was cut out as a subsection under "Education." W.stanovsky (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Educational service district

  • ESD 101
  • ESD 105
  • ESD 112
  • ESD 113
  • ESD 114
  • ESD 121
  • ESD 123
  • ESD 171
  • ESD 189

Forrest

Rain forests? Surely this is an innappropriate link as these are not RAIN forests, simply forests by the definition of the rainforest article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.161.75 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that not tropical rain forest? Also, Wikipeida isn't a source while published works by educators and professionals are.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I fail to make the connection. South Bay (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Temperate rainforest[6]Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Page moved. Those opposed to the move mostly are saying that there is no need since this is the only place that uses Washington. Well, that is not correct since the state is correctly called the State of Washington. Then we get into the issue of primary use. I watched the TV news over the weekend to get input on this. In every case when the reporters said Washington, it was for the District of Columbia. This points to the main issue of primary usage. That is, is there a primary usage for Washington and if there is, what is it? Nothing that I read presents a case for this being the primary use. In fact much of the opposition is based on the state being at the primary name space and claiming that is ample justification for keeping the status quo. Also the AP Style book points out that using Washington for the state article here can be an issue since the news uses Washington for the city. That could explain my observations from the weekend. So with no primary use, there is a clear consensus to move. The proposed name really did not gain much traction, however the consensus for a new name was Washington (U.S. state). Once the page is moved, it will take a while for the links to be cleaned up. At some point in the future, the dab page probably needs to be moved to Washington. This was supported in the discussion and was not specifically opposed. So I'll make that part of the move in a day or two. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington → Washington State — In order to disambiguate - Washington is the name of several entities, see Washington (disambiguation). It seems to me that the state doesn't have any more claim to the title than several of the other entities; however, it is the only one which is a state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Point made. I still oppose the original proposal. – allen四names 00:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
RM is not a binary vote. You are not restricted to supporting or opposing the move to the specified title. "Support, but should be moved to xxx instead" is a perfectly valid option, as seen below. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Clarification - I support a move either to Washington (state) or to Washington (U.S. state) with the redirect retargeted to Washington (disambiguation). (Note that I have chosen to oppose the original proposal and have offered my support for two alternatives.) – allen四names 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and move Washington (disambiguation) to "Washington". This article has a clumsy hatnote with 2 specific meanings as well as the dab page, not good practice, suggests that this is not the clear primary meaning. If anything the US capital is better known, at least outside the US. PatGallacher (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment w/ probable oppose As a native I am a little boohoo like over the thought of relegating the state page. Looking at it objectively, I can kind of understand it. However, Washington D.C. does not need disambiguating. State of Washington might be a decent alternative but then we are running into a consistency issue across the states' articles. And fixing the hatnote is simple enough and should not be a factor in potentially moving the page.Cptnono (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with the full realization this will probably fail as did the New York thing a few years ago and with the comment that "Washington State" is usually used, at least in sports, to mean the school. The simple fact is that the word "Washington" often means something other than the state to many Americans and nearly all non-Americans, yet a search for "Washington" directs here. What I would most like to see would be Washington as a dab and Washington (state) be about the state. The "state-over-city in all cases" thing kind of falls apart when considering Georgia (whose current set-up I agree with). AlexiusHoratius 20:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the State of Georgia was Georgia (U.S. state). If there is some precedent (assuming that change was made with consensus) than Washington (U.S. state) might work. Washington should just be a disambiguation page in that case since deciding the primary topic is and certainly has been disputed Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that there is some official precedent or standard, other than the Wikipedia naming convention. (The reason Georgia (U.S. state) is specified as "U.S." is that the word "state" can mean country as well as US sub-national division. In other words, the county of Georgia is also a "state". But I guess there are no other states nor countries named "Washington", so we wouldn't have to worry about that here.) However, I wouldn't really be opposed to saying Washington (U.S. state). AlexiusHoratius 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There are typically long forms. For example, it used to be the "Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic". According to the CIA and the World Almanac, Georgia (the nation/state/country) no longer has a long form. I assume the long form for the U.S. state is "The State of Georgia" just like Massachusetts is actually "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts". Since consistency is important on Wikipedia (I'm sure there is an essay somewhere), I also would assume Washington (U.S. state) would be the way to go. We typically do not use long forms.Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; Use Washington (U.S. state) to match Georgia — I myself proposed this a while back and it didn't pan out, but it seems to me to be absolutely necessary. The common "oppose" argument goes like this: city is at "Washington, D.C.", state is here, no conflict. Let's party! What this neglects is that WP:PRIMARYUSAGE guidelines supercede common name guidelines. It's more important to get the primary usage of a search phrase matched up to reader expectations than for us to simply assign one article to the phrase location because it wasn't taken in this weird encyclopedia set up of ours. Washington should be a dab simply so that readers aren't going "WHAT THE FUCK?" when they type "Washington" because that's what the city's called.--Louiedog (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've never been able to figure out, both here and at New York. A significant number of editors are taken to the wrong article, and that's pretty much cool? Why? Because the state is bigger? I don't get it. AlexiusHoratius 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The alternative is to take everybody to the dab page, which is the wrong page for all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
All dab pages are, by that definition, the "wrong" page. Washington needs to be disambiguated because it is inherently ambiguous. If someone said "I'm moving to Washington", most other people would then ask which one. If someone from outside the US says "I'm flying to Washington on business", I think most people would assume they're talking about the city. AlexiusHoratius 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Then why do we ever have dab pages as primary? Obviously, there's a reason, and it's that there's no primary, or contentious primary usage. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a few people here are suggesting that no-one (and people using Wikipedia in specific) ever refers to Washington DC as simply 'Washington', or that when someone says 'Washington' it is universally understood to mean the state. I've been a football fan my whole life, but I've never heard of the Washington D.C Redskins. Also, Georgia (U.S. state) is not the proper name of the state, and New York City is not the proper name of the city. But we use them because their technically proper names are ambiguous.AlexiusHoratius 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've heard "Washington" used to mean the city and that usage shows up in published print too: "Zelaya told reporters he was flying to Washington last night from Central America."--Louiedog (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Other examples of Washington to mean the city in publication: [7][8]. The AP Stylebook even explicitly mentions this usage as OK to use in print.--Louiedog (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I do find the difference between the "votes" at Talk:Washington/Archive_1#proposed_move and here interesting. Much of the reasoning is the same but it appears less people are being swayed towards keep this time for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Updating links?

I've posted a message at Talk:Washington#Automated hints to disambiguate Washington links concerning the fixes that will have to be done as a result of the move, as well as hints for automated tools. --Closeapple (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Marble Weaver (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move - Washington (state)

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: Clear consensus; whether "U.S." is needed for Georgia is a separate issue. — kwami (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington (U.S. state) → Washington (state) — No other state in the world is called "Washington". The normal disambiguation term in these cases is "(state)", see listing below. -- TopoChecker (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(BTW: You may be interested in Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state).)

Except for Australia, everything seems straightforward:

The only ones out of line are Victoria, and Washington. This is an attempt to fix this. --TopoChecker (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Per WP:PRECISION "Be precise but only as precise as is needed". I can't fault the logic of the nominator. The disambiguation term (U.S. state) is misleading as it implicitly suggests that there is a another state somewhere called "Washington". Since the "U.S." is unnecessary, why have it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Clear-cut consensus. Seems like a formality to keep going. Any reason I shouldn't just close now and move? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the move, but there's no harm in waiting the full 7 days. We don't want someone coming along later and using that against this consensus. Best to wait it out and then we can move it on Sunday if their are no objections by then.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree; I've heard the "hasty/improper close=invalid move" argument enough to know that it probably wouldn't hurt to let it run the full length. AlexiusHoratius 06:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that if there are no clear cut objections by Sunday, then any one of us who are involved should be able to move the page, unless of course the target page is locked. If there are any objections, then I suggest we wait until an uninvolved admin takes a look. Again, we don't need any drama about this later.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- since Georgia is an exception, no need to be consistent with the exception. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I think we have this form to match Georgia. A disambiguator is needed to distinguish from D.C. If this nom is successful (as seems likely), it will need to be followed by a massive CFD and probably other changes. I hope the nom is ready to nominate all those changes too! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 22 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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Washington (state)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
I think this article would benifit from facts and statistics of Washington for example:

"Between 100 and 120 young people complete suicide in Washington each year. For every youth suicide, there are another 20 suicide attempts, seven of which result in hospitalization. One in five youths in Washington report that they have seriously considered suicide. One in 10 Washington youths have attempted suicide. Suicide is the second leading cause of death in Washington for youths age 15-24. Only unintentional injury accounts for more deaths. In 2004, suicide was the cause of 17 percent of Washington deaths in 15-24 year olds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cultureshok (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 March 2009‎

For the record, those quotes are from the Washington State Dept. of Health in 2009. See Wikipedia policy regarding statistics. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I also believe it would benifit form incites into washington culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cultureshok (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 March 2009‎

Last edited at 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Washington (U.S. state)

Category:Washington (U.S. state) and ALL sub-cats, which are related to the above conversation, have been nominated by another editor for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry Groups, i.e., African Americans

I could not find any references to African Americans or hispanics among the ancestry groups or elsewhere on this page. Is this because there are none found in the latest census data? Suggest addition if the data is available, along the lines of the page for New York state, which includes these groups in its listing of Ancestry Groups. Thank you.Aberforth (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No reference to racial demographics to speak of, but the statistics exist - just look on the U.S. Census Bureau website, though I didn't find stats later than 2009 estimates. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html 83.8 percent white and the highest percentages of other races being Hispanic/Latino at 10.3 percent, and African American at 3.9. I'm afraid I don't have time to make the changes myself, but honestly I was rather offended by this oversight or whatever it was and had to say something. Thanks.Jaredthesouza (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_(state)/Archive_2&oldid=1251377243"