Talk:Washington (state)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Washington County Map

What county is this one?,-123.054256&spn=0.05272,0.130978&om=1 KyuuA4 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Point Roberts belongs to Whatcom County. Myasuda 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Early questions

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

Any way to get a list of famous Washingtonians? Look at Spokane for a start :-) Any thoughts on whether this is worth it?

Should this page become a disambiguation page, with the bulk of the content moving to "Washington State"? Based on the "pages that link here", it seems as though many have nothing to do with Washington state (usually Washington DC).

I just looked at a random sampling on articles on "pages that link here" for WA and almost every one was for the state. So no, I don't think this page is a canidate for disambiguation. Besides, this state is the only thing I can think of that almost always just called Washington -- you always first have to establish context when referring to DC so as not to confuse anybody (at least that is how things are in the 'States). --maveric149

"WA" also means Western Australia, so I think WA and Washington State should be separate pages with disambiguation. Grant (22/2/04)

As a resident of Washington, we are usually offended by being asked to call ourselves "Washington State". Our state's name is no more "Washington State" than California's is "California State". Its proper name is Washington, and it should have that as an article name. People who link Washington when referring to Washington, DC are wrong, and their laziness/inaccuracy should not be encouraged by moving this article. Sorry about getting upset, but I've lived here my whole life, and this is perhaps our biggest pet peeve (just ahead of "does it ever stop raining in Seattle?"). Jwrosenzweig 00:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm with you, man. Let's not move Washington to Washington State. Lukobe 19:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I live in DC. Do you know how annoying it is to have to constantly introduce context? At least you guys are an actual state. Meelar 21:03, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll make a deal with you, Meelar. :-) I'll agitate for DC statehood if y'all will start calling yourselves "DC" all the time and reducing the ambiguity. ;-) Deal? Jwrosenzweig 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Deal. And "ya'll"? What kind of Washingtonian are you? Meelar 21:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Heh. :-) I typed that one absent-mindedly and decided to leave it in for amusement's sake. And to answer the question straight, I'm the kind of Washingtonian whose older sister moved to San Antonio 10 years ago and now fills his head with Texas dialect whenever they talk. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I grew up in vancouver Washington so not only did i have to deal with the Washington DC ambiguity, I had to deal with the Vancouver BC ambiguity. I my vancouver was the original vancouver!!! Also I use ya'll as my 2nd person plural all the time too. I do not think it is just a southern thing just more famous there. I hear alot of people use it here all the time. tpahl 10:58AM PDT
Hehe ditto, I was born and raised in Vancouver. Once Conan O'Brien did his state quarters bit. He did Washington and on it it said "No, the state!" Sounded like it was written by a Washingtonian! Khirad 06:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

On another note, is there a reason we list all of WSU's branch campuses and none of the UW's branch campuses? Is there any reason to list branch campuses separately? And if they should be, should I add UW-Tacoma? Jwrosenzweig 00:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello? :-) Obviously this is a much-neglected page. Well, if no one responds soon, I'll take unilateral action -- don't know yet if that means axing all the WSU branches or inserting the UW branches (or some via media) but I guess nobody much cares. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I tried, but couldn't think of a reason to prefer one over the other... Stan 16:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Are there actually separate articles on the branch campuses? If not, we should axe the WSU branches, I think. Lukobe 19:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
LOL, I feel horribly stupid. You yourself, Lukobe, deleted the branches on March 30. And when I came here and saw my question with no reply, it never occurred to me to check and see if anyone had made the change already. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. :-) Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Jwrosenzweig 19:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Hmm! I feel a bit stupid, too, not remembering having done that at all!! If I did it in response to your suggestion, I have no idea why I didn't make a note of it here. Oh well! Heh heh. Lukobe 20:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


Sorry to nitpick, but I've seen this mistake made elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Y'all" is a conjunction that is quite frequently used in Washington. It's a common misconception that people say "Yous" in the North and "Y'all" in the South. On the West Coast, this is inverted. It's those that live in California who are often regarded as "yuppies" or "yanks" while the Northwest is home to people generally referred to as "hicks" or "rednecks". The exception to this, of course, is large cities such as Seattle, Spokane, or Olympia. Of course, compared to the rest of Texas, places like Houston and Dallas seem rather "yanky", so large cities shouldn't really enter the equation.

So just for future reference, any stereotypes concerning "yankees" or "southerners" actually have to be flipped upside-down when considering the West coast. It's hicks on the northwest coast, and yuppies on the southwest coast. As proof, compare a southwestern city such as L.A. or San Diego with a northwestern city such as Wesport or Aberdeen. --Corvun 01:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Y'all" isn't a conjunction--it's a contraction. And it's not much of a conception, mis- or otherwise, that people say "youse" in the North. Maybe the Northeast.
It is also not fair to compare true cities like L.A. and San Diego with dinky burgs like Aberdeen and Westport. L.A. and San Diego should be compared to Seattle and Portland. You need to choose far smaller towns in California to compare to Westport and Aberdeen. And they'd actually have to be in southern California--because northern California is actually more like Oregon.
--Lukobe 07:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Not if you're talking about California towns like Redding or Susanville. Talk about hick towns. RickK 07:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have lived in rural areas of Washington for the past 12 years, and never once have I heard a native seriously use the word "y'all", on either side of the state. Also, what the guy above said about the "youse" conception; no one has it. --Tim 03:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've lived here all my life and I've very rarely (if ever) heard "ya'll" used in this state. Plus, I live in a small town, where you would expect the word to show up more, and it doesn't.

I've grew up in Washington and I say y'all, yous, and worst, yous'all and y'alls. I didn't pick it up here though. It comes from spending summers in places that say those things, and it's such an easy (lazy) way to pronunciate, and then to combine them unthinkingly. It's not a Washington thing - at all - I've been asked where I'm from after saying any of those. SchmuckyTheCat 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As a native northwesterner, I can confirm that y'all isn't a native northwest term, however, there are a significant number of imports (esp. due to military presence in Washington) who say y'all. Indeed, it works both ways, as my father was posted in Texas, and I picked up y'all. Of course, I'm aware that I'm saying it, and use it to full comedic effect.  :) Brian Sayrs 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lived in NY for four years, I never heard anyone say yous. Yonatanh 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard many people in the Philadelphia area say "you's" instead of something like "you guys" or something similiar.-Andrewia 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


More should be covered about the economy of Washington then just its agriculture. The state has major corporations like Boeing and Starbucks, to name a few. I think there should be some information on the state's GDP as well.--MpegMan 19:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's some good business information in/linked from the Seattle page you could use. --Lukobe 21:38, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'll get working on it.--MpegMan 23:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move of article

Moved article to clarify and to match ueage of Georgia (U.S. state) when more than one geographic entity shares a name. EdwinHJ | Talk 01:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems excessive to move the article, when none of the other geographic entities is likely to be confused with the state. --Yath 02:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
REVERTED! Cburnett 03:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State Parks

Anybody know what happened to the List of Washington State parks page? It was all filled in and ready to expand, but now the link is dead. Have our neighborhood Deletaholics flushed it? — RJH 23:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay I created a new page called Washington State Park System. Please add a description of your favorite state park to the list. Thanks! — RJH 23:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like the original list is at List of Washington state parks (note the lower-case 's' in "state"). Jeff 11:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks. Somebody must have done a move and didn't bother to fix the link on this page. — RJH 15:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic NPOV

Don't hit me, but in the interests of NPOV, should perhaps the listing for Governor in the info box contain a note such as "Disputed" or "Contested", perhaps linking to Washington gubernatorial election, 2004? - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 18:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Gregoire is the current governor. Whether or not she was legitimately elected might be a matter of contention, and a note and link about the election might be appropriate in the "elected officials" section, but at this point in time she most definitely is the Governor of Washington and the info box should reflect that fact. -- Jonel 19:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For that matter, should there even be an external link to the state Republican party? -- malept 21:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Solution to the disambiguation page problem

An elegant solution was found to a much more problematic name of Lincoln, involving a 1000 year old city and capitals and other items named after that President. There were many edit battles and they all disappeared with that approach. I believe this should be treated the same. --Noitall 06:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Washington state vs. Washington State

it is X District, X City, X County. shouldnt the weriting in the intro be switched from "Washington state" to "Washington State"? If not, why not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Because "Washington State" refers to the university. Matt Yeager 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I want to comment on that. Since 'Washington State' redirects to WSU anyway, couldn't 'Washington State' redirect to 'Washington' or the disamb page? Chadlupkes
... hmm? I'm assuming that for the second 'Washington State' you said there, you meant 'Washington state'--however, that already does redirect to Washington. ? Matt Yeager 02:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation Percentages

I saw an edit that was probably well-intentioned, which I reverted, because it changed the total percentage of Christians from 71% to 73%, and that resulted in the grand total of all religions becoming 102%.

The reason I think the change was well-intentioned (although not explained at all, and not done by a logged-in user) is that the sub-categories of Christians add up to 73%.

The whole thing can be attributed to rounding error, I believe. If a few of the sub-categories were rounded up to whole percentages, then they can, in aggregate, add up to quite a bit more than 71% even though the number of Christians comes to 71% of the total.

The right thing to do, in this case, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, is to leave the percentages as they are.

--GraemeMcRae 20:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the source of the religious affliiation percentages used in this article? Many state articles reference the "Religious Identification Survey".

Tinosa 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rossi certification after election

I noticed in the text of the article a claim that Rossi was certified as the winner by the Secretary of State. That seems inconsistant with not only what I've heard, but the article on Wikipedia about the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. Can someone check on the factual accuracy of this? Here is the specific text:

"In 2004, Washington's gubernatorial race was so close that the Secretary of State certified Republican candidate Dino Rossi as governor-elect almost a month after the polls had closed, beating out the Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire by just over two hundred votes." Davidpdx 16:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't check to see where that sentence is in the context of the article, but that sentence refers to the original count of the votes (before the recount). This is confirmed at this official site. Notice the date of the last update, 12/23/04. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: Actually, that December date is the end of the final hand recount. Not sure of the exact date that the 200-vote margin was official, but the first recount was official on November 30th, as seen by this official article, which had a 42-vote margin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so it looks like maybe the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 may have been the one that mislead me then. It doesn't state that on there, maybe it should. I don't know. I'm not really familiar with these pages (for the record I'm from Oregon). I was just curious though. Davidpdx 15:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This redirect considered harmful

In my opinion, making Washington refer/redirect to Washington State is quite wrong.

Worldwide, the word "Washington" is probably used most frequently to refer to Washington, D.C..

Many non-USA users have probably scarcely heard of Washington state (Imagine the confusion if "Paris" redirected to Paris, Idaho). The word is also used about as frequently to refer to George Washington and (according to Google) to various colleges and universities. We should change the current state of affairs. - 21 November 2005

Washington, D.C. actually has a name other than "Washington". So does our friend George Washington, the University of Washington, and many other things, as you can easily see on Washington (disambiguation). The state, however, does not have another name. Its name is no more Washington State than Virginia's is Virginia State. (Washington State actually refers to something else entirely--follow the link.) Matt Yeager 23:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, couldn't Washington redirect to the disambiguation page and have this article at Washington (state)? jfg284 you were saying? 06:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Not really. As the state is the only thing that properly is referred to as Washington, there's no need to have it anywhere else (contrast it with, say, Georgia (U.S. state), which is NOT the only thing properly referred to as Georgia). Matt Yeager 07:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Two gov't sections

These should be merged. --Lukobe 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I also noticed that someone linked 'Democratic Party' to the US Republican Party. Nice trick, but I fixed it. Chadlupkes 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Under Politics in Washington the first and fourth paragraph are almost identical. Both talk about the 2004 Gubenatorial race being the closest in the nation and the slim margin of victory. They should be mereged or one should be deleted.

Nice catch. As per Lukobe's suggestion, a politics section that had been near the bottom of the page was merged into the Politics in Washington section without being smoothed over. I've taken a shot at reducing the (whopping) redundancy, but the section could probably still use a lot of loving care—please feel free to step in and edit it if you can make it clearer! — Jonel | Speak 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Washington State

The third paragraph regarding the name of Washington State, Washington D.C., and the battleship makes little sense and it confusing. Is Washington state named after George Washington or or a battleship? Does this paragraph seem cyclical somehow?

Not only confusing, but also inaccurate. All US Navy battleships (including both USS Washingtons) were named after states. There were other ships in the US Navy named after George, however. I've tried to clean it up - does it make more sense now? -- Jonel | Speak 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

proposed move

I propose that the Washington State article be moved from Washington to Washington (U.S. state) and that Washington (disambiguation) be moved and redirected to Washington. This would be in line with Lincoln and other similar precedents. Nothing personal against the state - it's a very beautiful place, but having Washington be a disambig would be the best way for readers and linkers to effectively navigate. "Washington" has a lot common of uses - as a person's name (including the first American president), as the name of a university, and of course as the name of Washington, DC. Outside the United States, "Washington" as a place name almost always refers to the U.S. capital. Even within the United states (with the exception of the northwestern U.S.), when someone says they're gonna "go to Washington," it's generally assumed that they mean Washington, D.C. Blackcats 01:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There is no primary meaning of Lincoln, but I'm sure this is the primary meaning of Washington. Georgia guy 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're "sure," but do you have any evidence to support this? Wikipedia is supposed to have a global world-view, and outside the United States (and even within most of the US), Washington, DC is the most common meaning. Blackcats 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sure the state is nearly always called simply Washington; whereas the city is normally called Washington D.C.. Consistent with New York and New York City. Georgia guy 01:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The city is more often refered to as just "Washington." Also, the situation isn't exactly ananagous to NYC, since the city is nowhere near the state. Blackcats 01:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This idea would bring this article out of line with all other U.S. states. - Keith D. Tyler 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Google test - "Washington, D.C." [1](those exact words) gets more Google hits than a search for all pages with the words "Washington" and "state," [2] (excluding for the "state of Maryland"), even though the latter certainly still includes many references to DC, for example discussion about the state department.

Georgia Guy suggested looking at the "What links here," but that's not the most accurate thing to look at, since links are routinely corrected to match with what article is where. So that's more a reflection of what is than what should be.

He also suggested looking at what are in the top Google hits for "Washington," and the top ten web hits include hits for both the state and the city, along with the university in Missouri. [3]

If you do a Google news search then almost all the hits refer to the capital city, and only a minority refer to it as "Washington, DC." [4] Blackcats 02:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, following example of New York. In the USA, the precedence goes to the state. The link to DC in the intro is sufficient. --Golbez 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. MoS:DP guides us to use a disambig page in cases exactly such as this - "Washington" almost certainly does not refer to the state in the vast majority of speech. Also, if I'm looking for an article on Washington (the city), I shouldn't have to read the lead of an unrelated article. Scott Ritchie 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The state should have precedence. EdwinHJ | Talk 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Gall, we've done this a million times before. The state is the ONLY thing in the entire world that is properly referred to as simply "Washington". The university is properly referred to as the "University of Washington" (or "Washington University in St. Louis", if you mean the other one). The city is properly referred to as "Washington D.C.". The president is properly referred to as "George Washington". The battleship is properly referred to as the "USS Washington" or whatever. The state is properly referred to as "Washington". Its name is no more "Washington state" than Oregon's is "Oregon state". There is a common usage of these other terms, but we have the disambiguation header for that (as well we should). The article should be placed exactly where it is. Matt Yeager 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you really want to go by what the "proper" names are, the full proper name of the state is the "State of Washington," as it says on the state seal and above the info-box. But what something is "properly" referred to isn't the only (or the most important) consideration. For example, Firefox redirects to the web browser "properly" refered to as "Mozilla Firefox." One could argue that the Clint Eastwood film should be there, since it's the most notable thing that's "properly" known as "Firefox," (and not as Firefox (film)). But people are more likely to type in "firefox" when looking for the browser. I think that ease of use for the readers is the most important thing, and I'm pretty sure that a majority of the people who type in "washington" are looking for the U.S. capital. If the page isn't moved, then at the very least, a direct disambig link should be included at the top of the page, so that they don't have to navigate through a separate disambig page or read through two paragraphs to get to the direct link. Blackcats 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well said, Matt. I agree wholeheartedly. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current use of Washington (disambiguation) is perfectly sufficient for people looking for the U.S. capital to find it easily, though I would not object to modifying the disambig notice to include Washington, D.C. on the Washington page to save a step. "Washington" is the most appropriate place to put the state, while all other entities have a different logical place to put them. Georgia is an exception to the U.S. state naming standard because there is another entity with only that as the appropriate location—no such exception need be made for Washington. Though if you want to go fully "proper" with names, we could certainly move 46 states to "State of XYZ" and 4 to "Commonwealth of ZYX". -- Jonel | Speak 09:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What Jonel said. --Lukobe 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, no a thousand times no. 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose --Yath 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. When I hear mention (in conversation, on television, ...) of the State of Washington, people usually refer to it as "Washington State". And, when I hear mention of Washington, D.C., people usually just say "Washington". Also, there's the Washington Redskins, Washington Wizards, Washington Nationals, and Washington Capitals — not the "Washington, D.C. Capitals". And, there's also "George Washington". Also, when searching "Washington" in Google, of the top ten results [5], 5 refer to "Washington, D.C.", 4 to "Washington State", and 1 to "Washington University in St. Louis".
More significantly (especially when watching/listening to the BBC, CBC and other international media outlets), "Washington" is a term that refers to more than just the city, but rather the U.S. government — the bureacracy and politics. Right now, I can't think of the term for it, but "Washington" is a term like, the "White House" which means the Bush Administration (not the building), "Hollywood" which means the American film/entertaiment industry moreso than the L.A. neighborhood, or "Wall Street had a good day" means the stock market was up, rather than the the pavement had a good day. "Washington" is one of those terms also, often used to refer to the U.S. government (not the city, yet alone the State of Washington).
As with Georgia, there is enough disambiguities that we should just make Washington the disambig. page. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And the Washington Post, Washington Times, and so on. The name of the city is "Washington." DC is just the district that Washington is in. "Washinton, DC" is like "Chicago, Illinois" or "Munich, Bavaria." And there's precedent for internationally famous cities to just go by their name alone - without including the district, state, or provence that they're in. Blackcats 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

International test: Wikipedia is supposed to be international in its scope, so a useful test is to look at what foreign language Wikipedias do, and almost every single one of them has "Washington" as a disambig page: Waszyngton Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Вашинґтон Washington Вашингтон Washington Washington Вашингтон 워싱턴 ושינגטון ワシントン 华盛顿.

And these ones have the DC article at the main Washington page: Washington Vašingtonas Washington Washington Вашингтон Вашингтон Vaŝingtono

Only a couple have the State of Washington article at "Washington." Blackcats 08:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The same argument could be used to justify putting Ruby programming language at Ruby. The counterargument is that this site happens to be in the English language (for both articles). --Yath 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that I have yet to see such a counter-argument for English speakers. Outside a few nearby states in the U.S., "Washington" is usually assumed to mean the capital city unless the conversation is about Seattle or apples. If you're in Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Maine, Florida, or any places in between, and you tell someone you're gonna "go to Washington" then at least 95% of the people are gonna assume you mean DC. Pretty much the only places where you could say that and more people would think you were talking about the state are Oregon, British Columbia, Idaho, western Montana, and perhaps northern California and Alaska. Anywhere else, people are gonna assume you mean DC. And in English speaking places outside the U.S. this is all the more the case. If the news announces that "Tony Blair just returned from Washington, (without any context given)" then I'd say less than one in a thousand British people would even suspect for a second that he may have been in the state of Washington - the thought would never even cross their minds. And this is equally true for Australia, New Zealand, and every part of Canada that's not in close proximity to Washington state. And there are also a huge number of proficient English speakers in other parts of the world - like mainland Europe, India, Africa, the Middle East, and so on who are likely to read the English Wikipedia because it's more complete than their native-language Wiki. So what really trumps all other considerations is what meaning is most often used, and it's clear to me that for the vast majority of people the US capital is the primary meaning of "Washington." Blackcats 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. olderwiser 18:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, then, that we should move Florida, Massachusetts to Florida and rename Florida to Florida (U.S. state). Even more, rename Peru, Massachusetts to Peru and move Peru to Peru (country). And while we're at it, Djibouti City should be moved to Djibouti with the country article moved to Djibouti (country). After all, Djibouti City is the seat of government, so it is more appropriate under the theory that Washington, D.C. is more appropriate based on its status as a national capital.

In a purely hierarchial sense, shouldn't a state take precendece over a city? - Keith D. Tyler 23:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In a hierarchical sense, I think a country's capital city takes precedence over a more peripheral state or provence. If the French Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (the provence where Nice is located) were name "Paris" instead, then would it make more sense to have the main Paris article be for the city or for the provence? Or if Germany had a state named "Berlin" along the Swiss border (say Baden-Württemberg was called "Berlin" instead), would it make sense for that state to get the main Berlin page or for the much more well known city to have it? I would think at the very least in those cases you would have the main page be a disambig!
You raised some really poor analogies. The Djibouti one doesn't make any sense at all - because you're talking about the name of the country - not one of its states. If Djibouti weren't the name of the country but one of its provences in the hinterlands (if the country were big enough to have true hinterlands) then it would deffinately make sense for the capital city to take precedence. Your other examples were pretty absurd too, because the towns you mentioned are very insignificant. But we're talking about a capital city here - arguably the most important seat of power in the world right now. And the vast majority of the time, the city is refered to by its name - Washington - without reference to the district that it's in. If either should have the main article, then I think the capital is the obvious choice, but having Washington be the disambig is the best thing to do. Blackcats 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Germany has both a state and a city called Bremen, and this is a disambiguation page. Bremen (city) is the main part of Bremen (state), so they are disambiguated equally. From the POV of hierarchy, note that even Georgia is a disambiguation page, and the country isn't given preference over the US state. Kusma (討論) 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the move. Washington, D.C. and the state alone would be enough reason to make the main page a disambiguation page, both could be reasonably expected at "Washington", especially by non-USAns. There also seems to be a president of the same name. Kusma (討論) 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Washington is not Washington, D.C. — Knowledge Seeker 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is the primary use of Washington; likewise, George Washington and Washington, D.C. are the primary meaning of those terms. Use of article names which have to be piped is deprecated. Septentrionalis 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: (with caveats). It bruises my ego to say this as a resident of Washington state, but I think most people outside the U.S. associate "Washington" with the city, not the state. Even in the U.S., it's common. One caveat/reservation I have is that it seems like a fair amount of (admittedly automatable) busywork to change all of the current "Washington" links to "Washington (state)". Those proposing this should present a plan for doing this work. Another caveat is that the disambiguation page would really need to be a much nicer page than the normal disambiguation page. It should present a nice, colorful choice between Washington state (including an image of the state map and possibly an iconic image like Mount Rainier or the Space Needle) and Washington, D.C. (with a picture of the White House, Washington Monument, or some other iconic image unique to D.C.), and perhaps George Washington, with less prevalent choices listed normally below that. -- RobLa 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved per lack of consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support Washington, D.C. moved to Washington, and this article moved to Washington (U.S. state). -- Astrokey44|talk 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2nd Proposed Move

Washington should be moved to Washington (U.S. state) and Washington (disambiguation) to Washington. By Google Test, Washington state gets 515,000,000, "George Washington" gets 31,300,000, and "Washington DC" gets 513,000,000. Washington alone gets 1,100,000,000. There are more results not about the state than about it, and the state and capital are fairly even. With Georgia (which does have Georgia (U.S. state)), the ratio from Georgia state to Georgia is 205,000,000 to 309,000,000 (meaning Georgia is most commonly referred to as the state), yet it still has the parentheses in Wikipedia even though Georgia is about 2/3 the primary use. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is this any different from the proposed move in the section directly above this that finished only a week ago? — Knowledge Seeker 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. -- Jonel | Speak 03:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We have the only entity whose exact name is "Washington" at that article. The situation is fine, and we just voted on it. This is not helpful or necessary. --Yath 05:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not different, and I still Oppose Septentrionalis 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. What Yath and Septentrionalis said. --Lukobe 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the proposed move, and I'm surprised this is even controversial {maybe someone can explain more precisely what the objections were?}. I thought that was the whole purpose of disambig pages? It seems very odd to argue that the only place with the exact name 'Washington' is at this page. The disambig page lists dozens of places both in and outside the U.S. called Washington. It seems overall this would be more accurate and less confusing, especially to non-US residents {and East Coast residents}. {FYI: I am a Washington State resident}.
    Please sign with ~~~~.
    • Please read the section immediately above.
      • Page names should be short.
      • Page names should fit into running text.
      • George Washington, Washington, DC and all the other American (and most of the non-American) places called Washington all have better pages where they belong. (and I'm not from Washington.) Septentrionalis 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Important cities and towns

I think there is something wrong with this list. I added the 2000 cencus ranking. If they are listed in order of importance, it's rather subjective. Seattle is the largest and the economic center of western Wash, as Spokane is for eastern Wash. Olympia is the capitol and worthy of mention. Okay, Redmond is the home of Microsoft. Does that warrant moving a 15th ranked population city to the list? Federal Way is #7 in population, home of Weyerheauser and World Vision and it's not on the list (nor am I suggesting it be added). Tri-Cities should just be out. Aside from being close to Hanford - can someone tell me why it's there?

For reference, the top 50:

1 -- Seattle -- 563,374
2 -- Spokane -- 195,629
3 -- Tacoma -- 193,556
4 -- Vancouver -- 143,560
5 -- Bellevue -- 109,569
6 -- Everett -- 91,488
7 -- Federal Way -- 83,259
8 -- Kent -- 79,524
9 -- Yakima -- 71,845
10 -- Bellingham -- 67,171
11 -- Lakewood -- 58,211
12 -- Kennewick -- 54,693
13 -- Shoreline -- 53,025
14 -- Renton -- 50,052
15 -- Redmond -- 45,256
16 -- Kirkland -- 45,054
17 -- Olympia -- 42,514
18 -- Auburn -- 40,314
19 -- Edmonds -- 39,515
20 -- Richland -- 38,708
21 -- Bremerton -- 37,259
22 -- Longview -- 34,660
23 -- Sammamish -- 34,104
24 -- Lynnwood -- 33,847
25 -- Puyallup -- 33,011
26 -- Pasco -- 32,066
27 -- Burien -- 31,881
28 -- Lacey -- 31,226
29 -- Bothell -- 30,150
30 -- University Place -- 29,933
31 -- Walla Walla -- 29,686
32 -- Des Moines -- 29,267
33 -- Wenatchee -- 27,856
34 -- Mount Vernon -- 26,232
35 -- SeaTac -- 25,496
36 -- Marysville -- 25,315
37 -- Pullman -- 24,675
38 -- Mercer Island -- 22,036
39 -- Mountlake Terrace -- 20,362
40 -- Bainbridge Island -- 20,308
41 -- Oak Harbor -- 19,795
42 -- Kenmore -- 18,678
43 -- Port Angeles -- 18,397
44 -- Mukilteo -- 18,019
45 -- Tukwila -- 17,181
46 -- Aberdeen -- 16,461
47 -- Ellensburg -- 15,414
48 -- Moses Lake -- 14,953
49 -- Centralia -- 14,742
50 -- Anacortes -- 14,557

I would like to see some objective criteria for inclusion in and ordering of this list. I could understand that Wenatchee and Walla Walla might be included because they area cities of greater population on the east side. Ready, Discuss!!! --Geneb1955 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, the 2000 census isn't exactly accurate any more. More than one million people have entered the state since then, and the rankings have (somewhat) drastically shifted. The Tri-Cities, for one thing, have--give or take--160,000 people living in them by the 2005 estimates, which actually beats Vancouver for the #4 spot in the state. Each city in the Tri-Cities may not merit entry--you're right there. But the Tri-Cities are far and away the most important metropolitan area in southeastern Washington, and definitely deserving of a spot. If we want to list by population only (and that's not a bad idea), let's at least use the 2005 estimates, which are much closer to reality. (I don't think Olympia needs to be there at all; it's really not an important city, and it's already prominently mentioned in the article.) Matt Yeager (Talk?) 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going by 2004 Census data you'd probably be better off using Metro areas rather than cities.

Seattle-Olympia-Tacoma includes
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (3,166,828) split into Seattle-Bellevue-Everett and Tacoma
Bremerton, WA (239,138)
Olympia, WA (224,673)
Oak Harbor, WA (79,293)
Spokane, WA (435,644)
Vancouver, WA (402,920)
Yakima, WA (229,094)
Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA (215,463)
Bellingham, WA (180,167)
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA (111,064)
Wenatchee, WA (103,414)
Longview, WA (96,189)
Moses Lake, WA (79,981)
Centralia, WA (71,539)
Aberdeen, WA (70,338)
Port Angeles, WA (67,867)
Walla Walla, WA (57,354)

I'd recommend using the ones over 150,000. Kmusser 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Metro areas... that's definitely an interesting idea, but... Where was your source for that? Not that I don't believe you or anything, I'd just be interested in seeing the data myself. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The first file at, edited a bit to make it easier to read. Kmusser 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For Vancouver I looked up the Washington counties of the Portland metro area.Kmusser 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There's also a map of them at Kmusser 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
220,00+ people in Olympia's metro area? Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Absolutely stunning. Anyways, if you want to go by metro areas (and clearly mark them as such), feel free. Great idea, great research--mad props to you. I'm not sure if there should be a note about how Vancouver's numbers were arrived at--you might want to consider that.
The only thing that would dissuade me is that Seattle and Tacoma are different, completely distinguishable cities. As you probably know, there's much, much less in common between the two of them than, say, between Kennewick and Richland. I don't think Tacoma can just be lumped in with the rest of the Seattle area when it's the third-largest city in the state on its own merits... just a thought. Great work though! Matt Yeager (Talk?) 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Washington State

is it really the most common search for Washington? I think maybe it'd be better for Washington to link to Washington (disambiguation and this page should be called Washington (state). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonatanh (talkcontribs) .

This has already been discussed multiple times and the consensus was to leave things alone (or there was no consensus to change). --Lukobe 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Dab pages are horrible primary target pages. SchmuckyTheCat 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
'Washington State' is a university (WSU). Many people refer to Washington as Washington State, particularly in the east, to avoid confusion with Washington, DC. However, this is not its official name. Additionally, nothing else is officially named Washington, except the state. No one would suggest that Colorado be disambiguated to avoid confusion between the state of Colorado, the Colorado River and pollo colorado. Lennon 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree that the current name of this article is appropriate, you should note that the official name of the U.S. capital is indeed "Washington", and when it is called "Washington, D.C.", the initials are merely added as a clarification, and are not part of its name. --Yath 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh uh. D.C. stands for District of Columbia. If it were merely an invention for clarification, D.C. would stand for nothing.-- 15:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Say WA?!

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on another article, but this new state slogan is definitely notable for the attention and negative press it got. -- Миборовский 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Say WA isn't the new state slogan. It's an advertising tag line. Kind of like Nike's "Just do it". --Bobblehead 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
NPR's website says it is: [6] -- Миборовский 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Might be a misunderstanding by what you mean by "slogan". Washington's official nickname is still "The Evergreen State".[7] According to the State's Tourist department "Say WA" is just the brand for tourist advertising, so not overly notable IMHO.[8] Doesn't mean you can't add it, but considering none of the states I checked include the advertising brand on their articles I wouldn't say it's notable.. --Bobblehead 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The AP ([9]) refers to it as an "advertising slogan". The phrase is just the brand (slogan, tag line, campaign pitch, catchphrase, whatever you want to call it) for tourist advertising; the amount of (mostly negative) press it's garnered makes me think a 1-2 sentence mention might be appropriate. Certainly no I Love New York, though. -- Jonel | Speak 02:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sakes, please no. Please, please, please no. The fact that it would embarrass over six million people to have that information out on the internet probably isn't a just reason for keeping the phrase out of the article, but I really wish it would be. =/ Matt Yeager (Talk?) 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between a slogan and a nickname. Let's keep the (stupid) slogan out of this article. --Lukobe 05:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The State spent $300,000 on "Say WA" and I have only seen it used by the state once. What a waste. SpokaneWilly 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you live outside the Pacific NW? The commercial is supposed to attract people to visit the state, so if you don't, then you shouldn't see the ads. --Bobblehead 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Report Vandalism

This article has been vandalized many times due to The Colbert Report satirizing Wikipedia and saying that Oregon is Washington's Mexico. I request that semi-protection for 7 days should be on this article --XMajinx 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

please sign your posts, and colbert is amazing. SpokaneWilly 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just did --XMajinx 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Range of Latitude

If I understand correctly, the latitude and longitude ranges are extreme values. Because of the zigzag nature of the US/Canada border, small strips of the state exist north of 49-00-00 N. The previous edit, 48-59, suggests that the northernmost extent of the state is more than a mile short of the international border. See also 49th parallel north, especially the reference to Washington v. Norman. I adjusted the value to 49-00. --Co149 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Washington. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I began to make some edits, but only got to the intro and a bit of the demographics. Trying to emulate the structure style and citation template style used in the excellent Minnesota article. This page's citation styles appear to be unstandardized and often lacking. Hopefully my edits are ok and I can get around to doing more later. Pfly 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Page about the windstorm

A page about the December 2006 Pacific Northwest storms has been created. --Chris S. 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Anyone mind if the image gallery is removed? There are only two photos in it, which could simply be incorporated into the text rather than kept in a gallery. State articles are already very long and an image gallery just adds unnecessary bulk.Pfly 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)