Talk:New Columbia (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled[edit]

Why New Columbia? Nik42 07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia.--Kross ^Talk 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just retain the current name, since that's what everyone knows it by already? States don't have to be named in the same way... Xyzzyva 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, there's no real conventions on how to name a state. But the use of the word "District" connotes an idea different from statehood. It may be simpler to retain the name "DC", since that's what everyone knows it as now. But at the same time, the way people know it know is as a territory that does not have congressional representation. Maybe moving away from that by changing the name to something that does not indicate a lesser status isn't such a bad idea. Wandering Star 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Columbia" does seem like an odd name, since there isn't any particular Columbia this is named after. Also, what would the two-letter postal abbreviation be? NC is already taken. I think if the citizens of DC want to have the same rights as the citizens of states, DC should just be absorbed into Maryland. Ottawa is in Ontario, after all. Angr/talk 14:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Democratic Columbia" in order to preserve the DC acronym? --Vladko 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maryland idea isn't a bad one. After all, the parts that originally came from Virginia have already gone back to Virginia, so why not send the parts that were originally in Maryland back to MD? However, I don't think Congress will go for it. In the event that they don't, DC's gonna have to settle for statehood or something like it. It's current status results in disenfranchisement for 600,000 people, so that has got to change. AS far as the postal code? Well, remember, there is no specific convention of what letters from the name should be used. After all, Missouri's postal code is not MI. That's Michigan. New Columbia I think was proposed as a means of sustaining the identity of the city (The Columbia part), but ditching the demeaning status (the District part), and avoiding confusion with a country in South America. Granted, the spelling is different, but you can see where confusion could occur, especially for kids taking social studies in school. Maybe we could use NA for the postal code. The similairity with the abbreviation for Not Applicable would be hilarious. Wandering Star 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Because having two major things in this country named Washington isn't already confusing or anything... ;) Also, DC merging into Maryland is unlikely, as it would require basically the same amount of constitutional amending, and would otherwise be quite messy. I say just as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachussetts, and Kentucky are Commonwealths, not states, (while another Commonwealth, Puerto Rico, doesn't even have statehood), let's just keep the current name, and try not to overcomplicate and overcorrect things. Besides, things get boring if all states are named the same way (the name "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" isn't a bad thing!) Xyzzyva 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Commonwealth" thing is just a colonial era holdover. It's just as meaningless as the fact that Maryland's flag is the coat of arms of Lord Baltimore. Being a commonwealth does not differ in any legal sense from being a state (except in PR, where they're just as exploited as all of the territories are). The tag "commonwealth" is a sort of a historical reminder of what once was, and is no more. Since DC did not exist during the colonial era, it wasn't a commonwealth in the colonial era. Thus, declaring it a commonwealth now would be just as odd as taking a state which never was part of British North America (say, Arizona) and bestowing upon it a flag with a coat of arms of a now-extinct peerage of the British nobility. So, I don't think DC will be named a commonwealth. Continuing to call it DC wouldn't be something I'm overly opposed to, just as long as it gets it's statehood. The fact that these people have no congressional representation at all is apalling. Wandering Star 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've think you've misunderstood me. I was saying, just as you do, that since some of our states already have alternatve names, there's no harm in granting DC statehood under its current name. It would merely be a historical holdover of its pre-statehood period. Xyzzyva 03:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]