Talk:Columbia

message: We'll...this is sort of like a disambiguation page, but then it contains commentary that would be valuable so it's not really a disambiguation page. I suggest a custom note instead. --Jiang 10:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. - Furrykef 18:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: If such a country existed, that would be a good idea. Perhaps you're thinking of Colombia. --Sneftel 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a variant spelling of the same word, I guarantee 95 percent of people searching Columbia want that country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.130.241 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I question the complete validity of the word Columbia having its origin as a poetic name for the United States in its female personification because I don't believe the Canadians in British Columbia would have been too happy about naming their province "British United States (fem.)"  I don't have a deeper source, but I will keep looking for more historical references to the origin of the use of the word Columbia.
I moved the historical content about Columbia as a name for the USA to Historical Columbia so this could serve as a true Disambiguation page instead of a mini-article. I also made Historical Columbia a stub because it is fairly brief while it is an important term/topic. I wasn't sure what to call the new page so anyone feel free to move it.
--Gpyoung 4 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
:Well, looking at the article on British Columbia, it appears that BC was named after the Columbia River. Looking at that article, it appears the river was named after a ship, which could have been named after anything, plausibly including the United States. Therefore, it makes sense that British Columbia could mean the "British [portion of the territory around the] United States [River]", or "British United States" for short, if you substitute "United States" for "Columbia". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I know this discussion is long over, but I followed those links. The Columbia River is named after the Columbia Rediviva ship, which is turn is named after the Irish saint Columba. William Quill (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Content 

message: Just a suggestion: How about "Not to be confused with Colombia" at the top, such as the one on the Colombia page?  This one-letter difference confused me for a while, so I'm assuming others might make the mistake as well.  I would make the change myslef, but I've never edited a page before and I would rather not mess anything up. 69.234.104.249 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia/Colombia 

message: Columbia → Columbia (disambiguation) and Historical Columbia → Columbia – Since the current page at Columbia is a disambugation page, while the actual Columbia article is at Historical Columbia. --Yath 04:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per nomination, makes sense to me. John (Jwy) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per nomination, makes sense to me. John (Jwy) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I suggest moving the article currently at "Columbia (name)" to "Columbia", and the current disambiguation page at "Columbia" to "Columbia (disambiguation)".  The name "Columbia (name)" is a Wikipedia specific neologism. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal August 2008

message: The previous version of this page contained several duplications and confusingly overlapping sections.  There are still some duplications on this page, but they are intentional, in order to facilitate use.  The main point of the edit, however, has been to clarify the relationships between the various institutions named "Columbia" by indenting those that are named after a city, county, or other institution under the heading for which it is names.  A few exceptions (e.g. not placing "Columbia River" and all of its derived names under "Columbia Rediviva") have been due to the undue weight of the derivatives.
As a possible benefit, it should now be easy for anyone who wants to trim this page to delete or move items that are only secondarily named "Columbia" (e.g., sports teams or newspapers named after a city called "Columbia", or many of the items named for Columbia University).  I have not undertaken any such deletions myself, however. RandomCritic (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is huge;so much so it makes it difficult to use.  Maybe I'll take up the trimming process in my "free time."  Thanks for you work! (John User:Jwy talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: As an experiment, I made the below minimal list of links that *have* to be in a Columbia disambiguation page, because they all are, or might be, called "Columbia" simply; I removed everything that was Columbia XYZ or XYZ Columbia.
I suppose the list is really too short, and the ideal would be larger than this and smaller than the current list; but there should be some consistent principles developed for trimming the list to a smaller size, and determining what sorts of entries of the Columbia XYZ type should remain.  Any thoughts? RandomCritic (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal List

message: I am a Rocky fan, but do we really want that to be the sole reference to a name that actually became popular due to a much more influential and popular character, who's impact on the World arguably overshadows use of this name due to derivations from Christopher Columbus?
If we are trying to trim this long list down to the bare essentials, I propose we loose some of the later derivitives, or shunt them off to a subordinate list, and mention the original "French Maid".
While the name saw great use due to the explorer, it had entered common use long before that, due to popular entertainment.
(Yes, I am aware our article has a one letter difference. We have already referenced several uses here that are clearly alluding to fictional stock character, but are spelt the same as the hemispherical/National personification; are you really going to require me to provide reference, here, in definance of the Style Guide?)
71.235.31.212 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early use as name, preceding "Columbus" derivation.... 

message: For some reason British Columbia doesn't have an entry here... Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Canadian, and I've never, ever heard it called just "Columbia". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Columbia 

message: , could you please explain how this could possible be considered NPOV. Have you looked at the target article Columbia (name). The lead there clearly states in the first sentence it is an historical name for the US and concludes with "Images of the Statue of Liberty largely displaced personified Columbia as the female symbol of the U.S. by around 1920." I am just trying to remove this misleading characterization that Columbia is a current/present representation of the US. Please revert your revert, or go change Columbia (name) if you disagree with it. MB 00:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was all you did, that would be fine. But it wasn't. - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not totally following you. I was trying say that it being a "name" and a personification for the US are both historic. 
my version:
* an historical name and goddess-like female national personification for the United States of America
your version:
* the historical female personification of the United States of America, and a poetic name for the Americas
your version reads as only the personification is historic. But the two go hand-in-hand and are (both) disused today. Could you explain your objection without being so terse. MB 04:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main description