Miscellaneous desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

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.

June 29[edit]

Why is washington dc called the district of columbia[edit]

Personified Columbia, from a World War I patriotic poster.

I would like to know why is washington dc called the district of columbia what does columbia have to do with the us and why did they name it that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.146.225.116 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus never reached what is now the USA but he is still considered very relevant to the history of the USA, and the Americas more generally. DC is named after him, not after the country Colombia (but which is also named after him). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.#History says: On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington, and the district was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time. The inline source is:

Crew, Harvey W. (1892). "IV. Permanent Capital Site Selected". Centennial History of the City of Washington, D.C. Dayton, Ohio: United Brethren Publishing House. p. 101. Retrieved 2011-06-01. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time "Columbia" was sort of a nick name for the USA.

Not exactly related, but worth remembering : DC once had more than one city in it. It wasn't until the late 1800s that it all become one city. APL (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since people have covered the "Washington" and "Columbia" part, the reason that it is a "district" is that it is specifically not a state; that is because the seat of the National Government was supposed to be entirely independent of any influence from any states (and having it be part of a state would give that one state undue influence) the District was specifically designated to exist outside of all states. At the time, this wasn't considered a major problem since a) other than the few people living in the relatively minor port cities of Georgetown, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia most of the chosen site of the District was unpopulated swampland and b) it really was supposed to just be a location of the Government, and wasn't intended to be a major metropolis. Also, most people in the early 1800s couldn't vote anyways, and the only real national representation the "people" had was in the House of Representatives, which was 1/2 of 1/3rd of the federal government, the other 5/6ths of the Federal Government being out of their direct control, the idea that the District wouldn't be a State seemed like a Good Idea At The Time. Today, however, DC is a major metropolis, a city of over 1/2 a million people anchoring a metro area of several million. And those 1/2 million people have no voting representation in Congress. So the fact that it isn't a state, and isn't part of the state, means that the people who live in the District are essentially disenfranchised. Furthermore, until the 1970s, citizens of DC didn't even have control over their local affairs, given that administration of the District was directly controlled by Congress. See District of Columbia home rule and District of Columbia voting rights and District of Columbia retrocession and District of Columbia statehood movement for more background on what being a "District" and not a "State" means for Washington, DC and what solutions have been proposed for these issues. --Jayron32 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, the justification for their lovely license plates (Which Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a picture of) that say "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"[1] right on them. APL (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APL: The fact that DC once had more than one city in it is irrelevant to the little-known fact that the official capital of the USA is the entire District of Columbia, not any of the individual cities within it and most particularly not just Washington. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being Australian, Jack of Oz is actually quite correct. Though known as "Washington, DC", the official name of the entire city is merely "The District of Columbia", see [2] for the 1871 legislation where that fact was placed into law. The name "Washington" has no official standing anymore, though de facto usage is (as always) most important; nearly all people, even government officials use the name Washington, DC even though it has no "official" standing. --Jayron32 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australians have quite often been known to be correct, Jayron. Watch this space for more examples of antipodean rectitude. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gippslanders especially are known for their chronic correctness. (Well, I was one once.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see what's become of you, HiLo, since moving to the big smoke. It must be a heavy burden, that metropolitan madness. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Well, it seems relevant to questions of naming, since from a modern point of view it seems like the same city has two names for no good reason, when in fact there's a historical reason for the unusual naming convention. APL (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of cities have two names, and it is usually for a good reason. Consider the city so nice, they named it twice... --Jayron32 14:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-Yo Ma and Boutros Boutros-Ghali were dining together in Baden-Baden. Yo-Yo had the couscous, which he enjoyed; Boutros thought the mahi-mahi was only so-so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha! --Jayron32 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1871 law linked above states "that the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown shall be repealed...that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington". In fact it required the new board and legislature to be made up a certain numbers elected from Washington (the largest portion), from Georgetown and from the area of the district outside Washington and Georgetown which could in the future be divided into townships. So under the 1871 law Georgetown and Washington still existed in an altered form. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the name Washington was still applied to the area known as Washington at the time (which was roughly equivalent to the modern neighborhood of Downtown Washington), though the actual "municipal corporation" was only known by the official name of "The District of Columbia". Basically, they downgraded "The City of Washington" from the name of a municipal corporation to the name of a defined area within the municipal corporation (i.e. something akin to the status of "The City of London" (aka the Square Mile) is within the modern city of London). Other than acting as a "ward" or a "neighborhood" or "election district", however, the area named by the legislation as "Washington" had no actual city functions. For a parallel, look at something like Long Island City within New York. It used to be a seperate municipal corporation (i.e. its own city), but is today just a neighborhood within Queens, and despite the name city, is not actually a "city". Similarly, according to the text of that legislation (at least by my reading), the "city of Washington" isn't actually a "city" but merely a defined district within the municipal corporation known only as the "District of Columbia" Of course, today this usage has disappeared; the entire city is still known by literally everyone as "Washington" regardless of what the official documentation says they should call it. Yet another example of a common occurance: the disconnect between official names and actual usage. --Jayron32 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the City of London is entirely separate from the rest of London for administrative purposes and always has been. It's rather a constitutional oddity. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. (a permanent state of being for me, I might add). --Jayron32 12:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quite common confusion regarding Delhi and New Delhi. Anglo-Saxons and people whose culture has heavy Anglo-Saxon influence tend to assume that Delhi and New Delhi relates in the same way York relates to New York. Thus they assume that the capital of India is 'New Delhi'. In reality, New Delhi is the modern area of the city of Delhi, distinguished from Old Delhi further north. New Delhi is one of nine districts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and has its own Municipal Council (which most other districts don't have=. It happens to be that virtually all important government functions are located in New Delhi, thus the notion that New Delhi would be the capital. --Soman (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, why doent Wikipedia put up a link where you can download a wikipedia topic/page as a pdf to view offline... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.5.128.210 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the menu bar at the left: print/export -> download as PDF. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 09:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.5.128.210 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mavudis and Y'Ami[edit]

Many articles on the web said that "Y'Ami Island" is an alternative name of "Mavudis Island" of the Philipines, but Google Maps labeled two names on the distinct two islands. Who is correct? luuva (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has responded to this, when I searched for Mavudis Island on Google Maps, it gave me Y'Ami, suggesting the two are the same.[3] So I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. Sometimes maps place labels a little away from where they should be, because the name won't fit elsewhere. Do you have a link/picture? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a possible answer by myself: the island labeled as "Mavudis Island" on Google Maps should be "Mabudis Island" in reality. Links: [4] [5] luuva (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the web sites I just glanced over, as well as our articles, Y'Ami and Mavudis are the same thing, but Mabudis is a different island, about 15 miles to the south -- so it looks like you are right. It certainly wouldn't be the first such error Google Maps has ever made. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Cards - 3G & video call enabled?[edit]

Resolved

I picked up a device the other day and in the instructions it specifies that I need to use a 3G and video call enabled SIM card with it. Would any old modern pay-as-you-go SIM card work or are there some cards or some networks that don't support video call? I'm in the UK. doomgaze (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question might be better posted in the Computing section of the reference desk, where the audience is more inclined to be knowledgeable on this subject. TheGrimme (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first, but hey I've already found the answer. Thanks anyway, doomgaze (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good-oh. Don't think about sharing it with us, will you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to be of service to the OPs, Tagish. They don't have any mutual obligation to enlighten us. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True; although the enlightened ones do so, nevertheless. The street is open in both directions, and it surely takes little thought to recognise that supplying answers to questions may help the next person in the OPs position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would take little effort or time or thought to do that, no argument there. But there's still no compulsion, no requirement, no general expectation that they will. It's entirely up to them. If they do it, it's a nice bit of icing on the cake. If they don't, that's OK too. Snarking at them as if they'd broken some unbreakable law is a little over the top. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]