Miscellaneous desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 25

Picture on user page

Can i just copy a picture from Wikimedia Commons to my user page directly? If not, what do I do? Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page on Wikipedia, or someplace else?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my user page. Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to use a Commons picture on your user page, I'd use the Template:Image and just link to it. This is allowed from Commons, because all Images there are free to use. On the contrary, non-free images with fair-use claims cannot be used on one's user page (like album covers, movie posters and the like). --McDoob AU 93 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What boy-names are not known to belong to anyone who has committed severe crimes?

There are so many baby names to choose from, and I'd like to find criteria to narrow them down.

Therefore, is there any boy name that never belonged to anyone who murdered, raped nor robbed? If so, where do you find this info? Thanks.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1874955,00.html

--129.130.97.69 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need such a rare name to find one that has never committed a major crime, that you might do better to invent your own name. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You're asking us to come up with a list of all the males in the entire world who've ever been convicted of murder, rape or robbery? We're good, but not that good. I feel quite safe in saying that such a list does not exist, and it would take an extraordinary commitment of resources to produce it - basically, a life's work. And it would never be complete. You might discover that no Murgatroyd has ever been known to commit such a crime, but next week along comes a murderous Murgatroyd and you'll have to start looking all over again for a name for your baby (who might be an adult by now). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...the Murgatroyds became notorious "for their profanity and debauchery, and members of the family were fined, imprisoned and excommunicated". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you succeeded (which inevitably entails cursing your child with some daft D&D-eque nonsense name) you have no guarantee the name won't be besmirched by someone else (driven to madness by the teasing their loonietune name has brought them). Adolf was a perfectly nice respectable name for centuries. "No, you confuse me with someone else. I'm not Zaluphrackx the cannibal of Saratov, I'm Zaluphrackx the tax accountant from Stevenage." 87.113.28.157 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if prisoner's names and their crimes were publicly available you can go get that info and compare it with a list of common names. Might need to let a computer handle that though. -- œ ^™ 02:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the article you linked to would suggest giving your child an obscure or more likely made up name, which is likely to be needed if it really never belonged to anyone who murdered, raped or robbed may not be doing them any favours. In fact it seems to suggest giving them a common (in say the UK or US) name like Michael has its advantages even thought there undoutedly many Micheals falling in to those categories. So I'm not sure the relevance of the link to your question. Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it suggest you name them "Bob". He iro 02:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that's the specific example given of what to name your child, earlier on it strong implies Michael and David aren't too bad too (although Michael is probably better then David). In any case Robert doesn't meet the op's criteria either so it still proves my point. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Bob probably hasn't helped the image of that name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that, just because a "Ferdinand", say, has never committed a rape, murder or robbery, does not mean they haven't committed any manner of other nefarious deeds - tax avoidance, incest, drink driving, farnarkling ... Far more positive would be to find someone you regard as a role model* and name your kid after them, than to try to do it in the negative way you're suggesting. (* "Role model" here means "role model, warts and all", because if you're looking for someone who never did anything they were or should be ashamed of, you're out of luck on planet Earth, I'm afraid.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could narrow the list down considerably by looking strictly for your own last name in the list, and avoiding first names whose combination matches that of notorious characters. Like if your last name is Gacy, don't name your son after John Wayne. If your last name is Bundy, stay away from Ted and Al. If your last name is Mudd, consider legally changing it to something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Harcourt? --Trovatore (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Harcourt! Harcourt Fenton Mudd, what have you been up to? Nothing good, I'm sure. Well, let me tell you, you lazy, good-for-nothing ..." -- ToE 10:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little boys named Ralph134fhnlkphylzbroomph have never been known to transgress any laws, rules, customs, guidelines, or policies. Edison (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article briefly addresses the fact that the unpopular names seem to be associated with stigmatized classes and single families. The great flaw that I see here is that they seem to assume that it's the name itself that causes the higher rate of problems. How much does the fact that their example "Alec" might be associated with a lower class (which unfortunately is often associated with higher crime), have to do with the rate of becoming a criminal, rather than the fact that the person is named Alec, not David? While it is probably true, for example, that more people named José speak Spanish natively than English, it would likewise be be a fallacy to say that if you, not a Spanish speaker, name your kid José, he will be more likely to speak Spanish as his first language. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's however the kind of logic I see at work in this article. Falconus^{p t c} 09:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the article does address that to some extent:

The name doesn't cause the crime, of course, and the way people react to the name isn't the only other factor at work. Rather, boys with unpopular names are likelier to live in single-parent households and have less money.

I'm pretty sure they aren't saying the name caused them to live in a single parent household or a household with less money. Instead, they're saying what you said. (This is about all they say on that as they then go back to the reactions of others to the name bit.) The bigger problem is they perhaps give too much emphasis to the importance of reactions of other people (and the people with the names), possibly without sufficient evidence it is that important to why people with 'unpopular' or otherwise 'unsuitable' names have problems.

However the third paragraph seems to suggest there is some evidence perceptions of the name can be a factor in how people react to the person and how the person perceives themselves. (Rather than there just being evidence for a correlation between problems in life and the unpopularity of names.) In their penultimate and final paragraph they also note that there can be contradictory factors, for example for an African American to have a name strongly associated with African Americans may have an improved sense of self (according to some research). But they suggest later it may cause sufficient negative reactions from others to outweigh that improvement. They effectively earlier gave an example of one possible negative reaction although I suspect however they lack sufficient evidence for the specific claim it may not outweight the other advantage/s.

(Although not specifically mentioned in their article, I believe there is some evidence that such a name may indeed cause the example they gave of it being more difficult to get a job. Definitely I know and have mentioned before on the RD that there is evidence in a number of European countries like France and the UK, having a name associated with 'immigrants' results in more rejections when seeking jobs. I seem to recall finding something showing the same for African Americans in the US. The evidence for this usually comes in the form of randomly sending out the same C.V. with different names.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See UUID. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some folks look for excuses for criminal behavior. Peter Schmuck and Ima Hogg are rather dreadful names, but they have/had productive lives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see this --190.60.93.218 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC) or this Wolfe+585, Senior --190.60.93.218 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddness in the tz database

Each different color in this map shows a different entry in the tz database for the US state of Indiana. Why is Crawford County given its own entry? Despite the plentiful changes in time zone boundaries affecting time in Indiana, Crawford County's time hasn't changed since 1967 (the database only shows changes since 1970, so that shouldn't matter), and it's been on the same time as Orange County to the immediate north ever since the idea of standard time was first implemented in the area. A few counties east of Crawford and the counties on the southern end of the state's eastern border also haven't officially changed time, but they often (unofficially) observed daylight saving time when the rest of the state didn't; however, our Time in Indiana article doesn't speak of Crawford observing daylight time until the rest of the state (the yellow areas) also started. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are very familiar with this topic. You are unlikely to find much aid at a general reference desk. Can I suggest a more specialized venue?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Google News articles provide some insight. This article states that parts of Crawford County started observing daylight saving time prior to 2006; the snippet available of this article, from 2004, suggests that half the county observed DST at that point. Warofdreams talk 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dewar Cup presented by Thomas R Dewar Esq

I have a silver plated goblet style 28 cm high cup which has the following inscription on it "The Dewar Cup presented by Thomas R Dewar Esq Sheriff of London 1897-8". I am trying to find out what it was presented for and to whom. The cup has a Mappin and Webb stamp on the base plus W5528 and JP. There are four 'shield' areas on it one of which has the inscription inside it, two others have floral decorations and one is empty, presumably that would have been where the holder could have had their name inscribed. The cup is decorated in an ornate floral and swag style decoration and I would like to know more about it. The cup came from a house in the Highbury and Islington area of London and was given to us in the 1970s. I know Thomas Dewar gave out various trophies to different sporting organisations but cannot find any reference to a goblet style cup. Can anyone help?Dkm22sjm (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload a photo somewhere and provide a link here. It might help in identification. Astronaut (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is an article on a Dewar Cup presented by Thomas Dewar, 1st Baron Dewar but it looks nothing like the one described. While there are no English articles there is the French series, Dewar Cup Aberavon, Dewar Cup Billingham, Dewar Cup Torquay and Dewar Cup Final women's tennis tournaments held in the UK, but this indicates men played as well. Of course none of them have a picture and a look at "dewar cup" tennis is no help. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dewar didn't restrict himself to tennis, either. For example, this book notes that a Dewar Cup for school football teams based in London was first awarded in 1898. That sounds quite a plausible thing to give out a fairly generic trophy for - but without any further details, it could be for any of various competitions. Warofdreams talk 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the cup has a Mappin & Webb stamp on it, it may be possible to trace some more of its history through Cutlers Hall in Sheffield, where all silversmiths in the city were required to register. Mappin & Webb themselves may have more detailed records if you approach them. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I haven't seen a picture, but a 28cm cup in a goblet style in electroplated base metal would almost certainly be a stock item engraved after it left the premises. Yes, Mappin & Webb also made items in sterling, still do in fact, but as I recall, non-silver items were completely unregulated, which is why you see such items with "hallmarks" that vaguely resemble sterling hallmarks but aren't. You could contact Mappin & Webb, but I am very dubious they could help you beyond possibly giving you a pattern number. It does not sound like a commission or special order.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text on the cup does give us a clue. Dewar was knighted in 1902, so it must have been awarded at some point between 1898 and 1902. He was an MP from 1900, so it was probably given out before that - 1898 seems a likely date for the actual award of the cup, not just his shrievalty. I'd suggest that, given that it states that he was Sheriff of London, it's most likely to be something awarded in London. There may well be no way of proving this, but the school football competition seems a good bet - perhaps the London Football Association might have something in their records. Warofdreams talk 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a rain, will an area of woods burn?

I'm writing a book. The scene takes place in the hills of Kentucky. If it has just rained/sleeted, will an area of woods burn completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.124.96 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what stared the fire / the amount of heat available; and indeed on the sorts of trees in the wood. The amount of potential energy available for combustion in a wood far far exceeds the amount needed to evaporate water from the heaviest rainfall. If there's enough heat available, fire will continue. If not, not. As to wood types: some woods have far more oils in them than others and so burn better - think broom or pine, for instance. There are lots of other variables, but if you as author wish the wood to burn, you can legitimately make it so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you may want to put in some foreshadowing. A mention that underbrush has not been cleared, perhaps for environmental reasons (to protect an endangered insect, for example).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underbrush is hardly ever cleared in the U.S. A more realistic premise is that fires in the area have been suppressed for decades to protect surrounding property owners. As a result, a dense litter of deadwood has accumulated on the forest floor. Once this litter is ignited (lightning strike?), it spreads the fire through the forest, quickly evaporating the moisture from the recent precipitation. The intensity of the flames due to all that fuel produces a firestorm that overwhelms firefighters. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire's also more likely if, before the rain, the woods had suffered a drought. That way, once the rain stops falling, the woods is still drier than its natural state. --M @r ē ino 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chemical residue of certain industrial products (now hopefully all identified and limited) might be deposited over a certain area, affecting burning. Dru of Id (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Kentucky, but in the UK, coniferous forests burn quite well in the summer, but broadleaf woodland really doesn't under any circumstances. I remember a quote from a Forestry Commission official who said that traditional English woodland "burns like damp asbestos". Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor soil, common in the hills of the US South, promotes the growth of pines. The ground gets a thick layer of pine needles and pine cones. The mat of pine needles would easily shed rainfall on a hillside. The oil in the living pines as well as the layer of needles on the ground contain oil which burns quickly and hot. I would expect a pine forest to burn extremely well even if it has recently rained. If the woods were hardwood, and it had been raining in the winter (yes, there would be periods warm enough for rain in the winter) or in the spring, the bare damp limbs with wet bark would not be easy to ignite. A brushpile is easier to ignite than a standing tree, naturally. The topography is a factor, since fires find it easy to burn their way up a hillside. In the story, a match or cigarette dropped in a brushpile at the bottom of a hillside with a stand of pine trees and cedars would be a very plausible way to get a conflagration going right after a rain. Edison (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The time of year when sleet is experienced, is when the relative air humidity is high – (above 45%). One does not get spreading wildfires at this time of year because everything is damp and the vapour pressure ensure that it goes deep. Forest-litter needs to be reasonable dry before a small fire can grow to a major conflagration. The Russian nuclear test just burnt the leaves off the trees, scorched the grass and left behind a loads of crispy roast duck. Therefore, I think that your proposed scenario lacks credibility. Just curious: what is the causative agent, that you want to lead to this mega barbecue inferno? --Aspro (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unusual toys

A while ago, I promised my brother that I would get him all the toys from winnie-the-pooh, which he still seems to quite like. So far, I think I have done quite well, but his birthday is coming up and I am having a little difficulty finding any more. I need to get kanga, owl and rabbit still, anyone have any ideas where I can find toys of these characters around?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a shopping advice site. Try eBay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, slightly different question, anyone know of a specialist website/online shop that might sell toys such as these, something like www.winnie-the-pooh-toys.com or some such. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Stores sell a range of Pooh merch. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Disney versions can be found here). I don't much like them myself. I think there are better ones. Bielle (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the toys from Winnie the Pooh? That might cost you a fair bit, [1], [2]--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of toy plastic kangaroos available at Australian tourist resorts, almost all made in China. I'm sure several would have online merchandising outlets. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the disney ones, and I'm sure he would too, but I'm not so keen on the prices. I have a friend in pyru so I ventured over there and asked, I figure they will know better than anyone. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Box (Cabot Collopakes)

I have a wooden box with the label on it that states "Cabot Collopakes, Samuel Cabot, New York Chemists Manufacturing, Chicago, Boston". It is a very old box with intricate dove tail corners. I have asked many people old & young if they have ever heard of them or know what they are to no avail. Can you help. Thanks! D. Mills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.80.138 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be paint. This google search should help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) What do you want to know? Collopaking was a pigment-grinding process used in paint manufacture by Cabot, patented in 1922; the name "Cabot Collopakes" was trademarked in 1966.[3][4][5] Cabot's company still exists - here is their website so you could ask them. (edited to change link to company) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City not capital of New York

I can understand why New York City is not the capital of the United States despite being one of the most famous and most populous cities of the nation, as it is better to have the capital governed directly by the nation instead of any state, but why isn't New York City even the capital of New York? JIP | Talk 20:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is Albany... Now, if you want to know the reason why it is Albany instead of New York City, the reason is that New York City is not New York State; though it is the most populous city it isn't centrally located, which in any time period before right now, was an important factor in picking an administrative center for a state. Most states chosen state capitals were picked for their central location rather than their population; c.f. Springfield, Illinois, Raleigh, North Carolina, Sacramento, California, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Jefferson City, Missouri, Montpelier, Vermont, Concord, New Hampshire, Augusta, Maine, Columbia, South Carolina, and I am seriously growing weary of listing these so I'll stop now, but the list is even longer. New York State is a bit of a strange shape, basically a sideways "T", and Albany is basically at the intersection of the "T" making it ideally suited for administerring said shape. More on Albany specifically: The New York State Capital shuffled around a lot, it was occasionally New York City, but more often it was Albany or another nearby city like Poughkeepsie or Kingston. In 1797 it was permanently made Albany, likely because of its key location along the junction of two major river valleys (the Mohawk River and Hudson River) made travel easy, the creation of the Erie Canal made Albany an even more important transportation hub in the state. --Jayron32 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that Sacramento was chosen for its central location, looking at the state as a whole. You can't understand that period in California history without understanding the California gold rush. Sacramento was very near gold territory. ~~The (a?) previous capital, Auburn, California, was even closer, but farther from San Francisco.~~ So my guess would be, yes, central location, but central between gold mining and San Francisco, not central for the entire state. No one much cared what was going on in San Diego. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can't seem to find anything confirming my claim that Auburn was the capital. --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento nearly lost out to Downieville when it came to selecting a state capital in 1853, at least according to a plaque in the town center. Astronaut (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at a map of California by county. That will tell you where the population was when they were divvying up the spoils. The worst located capital, by present day standards of course, is Juneau.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor to consider is that much or most of the money in New York State has always been concentrated in relatively few hands in and around New York City. Meanwhile, before the mid-1800s or so, most of the state's population was rural. New York State residents (mostly farmers) were probably reluctant to site the state government in New York City where the rich city elite might more easily control it. Incidentally, much of New York City's elite had been loyal to the British. Siting the capital elsewhere in the state (and particularly in a place more easily accessible from many parts of the state, as Jayron32 explains) was probably seen as strengthening the state's republican character. Marco polo (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing feeling that the interests of New York City do not reflect the interests of the rest of New York State (hence various plans for the secession of NYC) so it would make a poor capital for everyone not in NYC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, when another city is chosen as the capital other than the most populous city, there's always the problem that it may then become the most populous, due to all the government activity. Then you need to either move the capital or be at risk of that city gaining too much power. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that doesn't happen. There have only been a few cases I can think of where a state capital surpassed the largest city to itself become the largest city, and no one ever cared. See Indianapolis, Indiana, Columbus, Ohio, Phoenix, Arizona, etc. All were chosed and/or purpose built as state capitals, and later overtook the former largest city to become the largest city, and there has never been any real desire to move the capital to a different place when that happened. --Jayron32 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so they chose to risk that city becoming too powerful instead (or perhaps they waited until it was too powerful, then were unable to move the capital). Another option is to have the capital split between multiple cities, like the capitals of South Africa. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just have a capital with no government functions at all, like Amsterdam. That's an interesting solution: declare a city your Capital, and then don't do anything governmental there. As an aside, re: South Africa, the three "Capitals" were once the single capitals of the three independent states that united to form the Union of South Africa (Cape Colony, Orange Free State, and Transvaal), and the three-capital solution was a method of keeping all three states happy. --Jayron32 21:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One has to wonder, if three capitals is OK, and there is no necessary connection between the capital city and the machinery of state, whether the ideal number of capital cities might be zero. That would throw an interesting wrinkle into geography bees. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more than a prospective wrinkle, its an actual fact in at least one case I can think of. See Nauru, a sovereign state with no official capital city. --Jayron32 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I can understand that people in New York State wanted to have the capital somewhere else than the most populous city, to avoid concentrating both political and financial power in the same place, which would have caused bias to that city. There might be a similar reason why Helsinki, despite being the capital and by far the most populous city in Finland, was not the capital of the Southern Finland Province (back when provinces still officially existed), instead of Hämeenlinna. As far as I am aware, the only officially recognised governmental layer between municipalities and the whole nation in Finland is regions, but as far as I am aware, regions don't have capitals. JIP | Talk 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider, if you are unfamiliar with the U.S., is that States are not administrative layers. They are actually semi-independent states with their own form of limited sovereignty. The U.S. is a federation and not a unitary state like Finland. In the U.S., the Federal Government is (broadly speaking) responsible for foreign relations and regulating business between the states, while the states manage their own internal affairs. Over time this initial seperation of powers has eroded, but in principle the States have their own sovereignty that the Federal Government doesn't have. --Jayron32 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the basic idea, although politics has never been my speciality, and I've never lived anywhere outside Finland (although I have visited many other countries). But I guess that, despite the difference in the form of state, the reason why Helsinki was not the capital of the Southern Finland Province was also to avoid excessive concentration of power. At least I can't think of any other reason. JIP | Talk 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For many years, Connecticut had two capitals - both Hartford and New Haven. Florida has its capital about as inconveniently placed as possible. In short - there is no remotely decent rule indicating where a capital is placed, whether it is moved at some point, and why. Existentialist answer, I suppose. Collect (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's actually do the counts, to see what the trend is. Remember, there is no rule to explain all 50 states, but there may be a rule to explain the majority of states.

Centrally located but not largest city: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delawate, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin 24
Centrally located AND is the largest city: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia. 10
Largest city, NOT centrally located: Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming 6
Neither largest nor central: Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington 9

I'm missing one, but I can't think of it: Central location wins big: 34 states have their capital in the middle, while only 16 have it the largest city (with some overlap). Only 9 states have no "rhyme or reason" regarding geography or population. --Jayron32 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the Florida peninsula's population's only boomed since air conditioning, Disney, and Castro.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so perhaps the center by population might be selected, rather than the center by area. This is also true in Alaska, where the interior is almost uninhabited, with the population largely on the coasts, especially in the South. I suspect that some of the other "not centrally located" capitals fall into this category. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case you can drop Sacramento. Sacto is maybe not that far from the geographic center of California, however you want to define that (I wouldn't be that surprised if the centroid is in Nevada, but then Sacramento is not far from Nevada). But it's way north of the center of population. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron: You counted Kansas twice (should not be in Category 1, now = 23). Missing are Arizona (central and largest, Category 2 now =11) and Montana (not central and not largest, Category 4 now = 10). — Michael J 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island - central, but impossible not to be. And Connecticut is small enough that "central" is scarcely a factor <g>. Ditto Delaware. Collect (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is now, but Northern California was where the action was when it was chosen. In the old days, they used to move state capitals as states grew. Thus, Pennsylvania's capital moved from Philadelphia to Lancaster and then to Harrisburg in 1812; Ohio moved its capital from Chillicothe to Columbus in 1816; and Springfield, Illinois, took over from Vandalia in 1839. But they don't do that anymore. In the 70s, Alaska was all set to move its capital from Juneau, which is so isolated you can't even drive to it, to Willow, north of Anchorage. Then they realized how much it would cost to make the move and canceled the project. That's why we shouldn't expect to see a statehouse in Orlando or Bakersfield anytime soon. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Alaska state government is in Anchorage anyway. There is a practical limit to how large Juneau can grow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, state governments were tiny. You had the governor, the lieutenant-governor, the legislature that would be in session perhaps three months a year, the attorney-general, six or seven other state officers (each with two or three deputies or clerks). There was no welfare system, no sales or income tax, no department of education, etc. etc. It was easy to move.--Itinerant1 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more information. According to this source, New York was the capital of New York State from the early colonial times (when lands west of Albany were still populated by Native Americans) till 1775, and then briefly after the Revolution, however,

The vast tracts of land owned by the State in its undeveloped up-country had to be surveyed and sold, and Albany was the location most convenient for such work; so, in 1785, the Surveyor-General was directed to move his office to Albany, he being the first of the State officers to locate here—and that was the beginning of the movement which made Albany the capital of the State.

In 1786, the Legislature passed an act which provided that if the Governor did not convene the Legislature at a particular place, it should meet on the first Tuesday of January next at the place where adjourned to by the prior Legislature, and if not adjourned to a place certain, it should meet at the place where last held. This date was changed in 1798 to the last Tuesday in January. This was an early indication of restlessness and a desire to leave New York city, and to bring the seat of government up towards the centre of the State, and to a place more easy of access to the members from the interior and away from the expense and frivolities of life in the largest and richest city in the Union at that time.

--Itinerant1 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason a city like New York or Philadelphia is not the US Capital (although they served that function early on), is because they wanted to get the Constitution ratified, and having a "neutral" site for the capital (in the middle of a swamp in southern Maryland) aided that process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Of course we could have a situation like Australia, where every state capital city is far and away the largest city in its state and the national capital was dumped in the boonies for similar reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all the state capitals are on the coast, as far removed from "centrally located" as it's possible to be. Mind you, the population is generally concentrated around the coast, the interior being relatively dry and arid. So, it makes sense for the capitals to also be on the coast. As for Canberra, the only constitutional stipulation was that it should be within the area of New South Wales and at least 100 miles from Sydney. That still left a lot of possibilities that did not mean it was relegated to "the boonies", as you so charmingly put it. Byron Bay could have been the capital, for example. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the American Revolution, New York City's recent history of being the British headquarters in the state, full of wealthy merchants and others of dubious loyalty to the US, might have made an alternate capital more appealing to New Yorkers. Edison (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta is not centrally-located, but it was convenient, as being located at the center of the railroads which ran from north to south and east to west through the state. In fact, Atlanta's original name was "Terminus", since it was the center of railway traffic in the state. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along thoise same lines, Columbus, Ohio became that state's capitol after the state legislature repeatedly moved it from one end of the state to the other and they finally decided to just have it in the exact middle of the state. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this era of increased communications and technology, if nations and/or states were being founded today, they might not even have single capitals. Executive and legislatures could be in one place, certain agencies (such as Transportation or Housing) would be in the largest city, while others (Agriculture and Interior, for example) would be in lesser-populated areas. — Michael J 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that at all. Having all the main people in the same town facilitates cross-talk that wouldn't necessarily be there without formal channels. There's a lot to be said for physical proximity — it's not just about who you talk to on the phone, it's who you have dinner with, who-knows-who, who you run into at functions, things like that. There's a lot more to governance than formal communication; arguably formal communication is actually the least important site of policymaking. It's easy to deride this sort of thing as being about "insiders" and "old boy's clubs" and the like, but it's a significant part of how people with extremely different interests, ideologies, and constraints make hard decisions. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]