Category talk:Washington, D.C.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Washington, D.C.[edit]

Auntof6 and I are having a difference of opinion on come of the subcategories of Washington DC. I think that the following categories (not a complete list) should be listed in their respective "by state" category, and not the parent.

As an example, Category:Scouting in Washington, D.C. should be in Category:Scouting in the United States by state, and not the parent which is Category:Scouting in the United States. Auntof6 disagrees because DC is not a "state," and we have each reverted each other. I'm bringing this here to get consensus or guidance for some policy that already exists. Evrik (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While not technically a state, I think "by state" is the most logical place to put it. Possibly in "by city" category where it exists. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think both state and city ... DC is unique. Evrik (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i note that Category:Scouting in Puerto Rico, is in category:American Scouting overseas; ordinarily the territories are included as "honorary" states in parallel, in the "by location" Category:National Register of Historic Places by location. i wouldn't edit war over categories, rather go to wikidata where the schema are not broken. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC is unique, but it is not a state, it is a city and location. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tell it to english wikipedia, where they are arguing it should be "District of Columbia" before 1871. lol. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 01:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think either changing the name of the state category to include broader language, or creating a new parent category with a broad name is a reasonable compromise. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion. Maybe the "of/in the United States by state" categories should be something like "of/in the United States by state or territory". Then the states, DC, the territories, the insular areas, and whatever else there is could all be in one place. That might be even better than the "by location" categories that currently combine them (some of which I recently created). In any case, DC is not a state. Including it in "by state" categories is not accurate and will just continue to confuse people in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administratively, the USG treats it like a state. That's why UDC is a land grant college. While I think it may be a tad confusing, its simpler to place it with the states. Evrik (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the USG -- the US government? The US government does not fully treat it like a state. It has a mayor but not a governor. The US Congress can make or overturn DC's laws as it wishes. DC has no voting rights on Congress. It has no Senator. It has a House representative, but that person does not vote on anything. In any case, I hope we decide based on what's right and what makes sense, rather than based on what's simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. is not a state, so really shouldn't belong in state categories. If it was down to me I would create an extra layer above the state categoiries, something along the lines "such and such" States and Territories of the United States into which would go the state, dc categories along with Pueto Rico, US Virgin Islands etc..--KTo288 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're making the whole thing much more difficult by doing that. It also expands the scope of the discussion. Evrik (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: , which comment are you responding to? It's not clear by your indentation. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we in effect are including "territories" (and Puerto Rico's status was modeled on DC's) as if they were states, until the no nuance crowd came along. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 01:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's name the categories in a way that makes it clear the territories should be included. I don't object to states, territories, DC, and whatever else being together. I just want the category names to be clear and accurate. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are sacrificing simplicity and clarity in the name of accuracy. Evrik (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not support clarity if you include something that is not a state in a category called "by state". As for simplicity, the category structure should be just as complex as the things being categorized. The lands of the United States include states, territories, Washington, DC, and some other places. If any of these are to be combined in a category, the category name should either include each type of place, or use a generic word such as "location". Anything else just leaves things open to continuing confusion and future changes by the next person wbo sees that the name doesn't match the contents. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THis is where we disagree. Right now, I don't see a consensus to make the chnages you want. Best to leave it as it is. Evrik (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but since you started this discussion, you can't decide that it should be closed the way you want. The main category for DC isn't included under states, so why should its subcategories be? Some people (including you) have said include it in states, some (including me) have said not include it under states, and some have suggested the compromise of using a broader term rather than just "by state". With people on the yes, no, and middle points of view, why not choose the middle ground? What objection, if any, would you have to using a term such as "by location", "by state or territory" (similar to what is used with Canada, India, and Australia), "by subdivision", or something similar? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just close this and leave them as they are. Evrik (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clearer: what is "as they are"? As of the last time I looked, they were a mix of some being classified under states and some not. Are you saying to leave them as a mix? That is no solution: that would leave us still disagreeing, and I would be changing some of them again to take them out of state categories. Are you saying to leave them all under states? In that case, no: you cannot start a discussion and then declare that it be closed the way that you are advocating for. If you want the discussion closed, get a disinterested party to evaluate the discussion above and say what they think the consensus is. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which are not listed under states? Evrik (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "the last time I looked". If the ones I saw at that time are now under states, then they were changed, either by you (which would be a show of bad faith) or by others. In either case, we're discussing how they should be categorized, regardless of how they are now. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to know which ones you're referring to. Evrik (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make? In any case, I don't know which ones they were: they probably included the ones I changed and possibly others. I don't even remember when it was that I looked -- I was trying to act in good faith and not change any of them during the discussion, so there was no need to look. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few other territories of the United States, e.g., Puerto Rico, see en:w:Territories_of_the_United_States. Note that Australia also has a mix of states and other territories, and Category:Categories of Australia by state or territory covers both. --ghouston (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at {{US states}}, thta may be a big change. Evrik (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, it should also be in any by city categories. By the way, D.C. is a district not a territory. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be by state, as it is somewhat equivalent to a state, but also should be by city. MB298 (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that Washington, D.C. should be categorized as a state (even though it isn't) as well as a city (in the much less common cases were that category is applicable). An Errant Knight (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Washington, D.C. is not a state, is a city within a district (which incidentally coincide). I guess that the fellow Commoners from the United States do not need that an Italian like me reminds them that their country is a federal entity composed by 50 states (unless the 50 stars on the national flag represent something else) and that a category is a mathematic set which criteria are stated in its own name and cannot counterdict itself. Categorizing D.C. as a state is at least accurate like categorizing the Vatican City as part of Italy (Italy intended as political entity and not as geographic region, of course).
We have made an appropriate choice, I guess, by meaning the geographic categorization as "cultural" for non-administrative topics (i.e.: Gioachino Rossini was not technically Italian because he was born in Pesaro, then Papal States, and died in France as exile having left his native country when it was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy: but we all agree that he was undoubtely, by language and culture, Italian). As for the administrative and political topics we must be accurate though. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Six years old CFD. @Auntof6@Evrik@Blackcat@Jmabel: if there is no consensus, then can we close it as keep? Enwiki also has en:Category:Washington, D.C., and if enwiki gives us essential hints, then maybe we can start new CFD with concrete proposals? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 @Evrik @Blackcat @Jmabel: Enwiki has that category, but they don't categorize DC under states. If we're going to use enwiki as a model, then DC things here shouldn't be categorized under states, either. Or is that the kind of thing, that you, @Estopedist1, are saying should be in a new discussion? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Auntof6: , I find it fair to put a layer "by location" and reserve the categorization "by State" only to the fifty U.S. states (btw I just reverted a bunch of mess made by Verdy p that had moved with no consensus stuff like "People of Guam" from "People of the United States by location" to "People of the United States by state" and messed up the sort order of the states). -- Blackcat 11:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: I also think an intervening "by location" category would work, but if I recall correctly, some such changes that I made were undone relative to the topic being discussed here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep. Evrik (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about renaming US categories "by state" to "by state or territory" to be more exclusive a la Categories of India by state or territory, which might solve this Washington DC problem. There is also a category called Proposed states and territories in the United States a la Proposed states and union territories in India. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus after 7 years. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe 6 September 2014[edit]

The District of Columbia Public Schools indicated the main immigrant languages are: Spanish, French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Amharic.

Those are the most important languages other than English for this topic WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Washington, D.C.

Category:Washington, D.C.[edit]

WhisperToMe 6 September 2014[edit]

Navigation menu

Search