Jump to content

Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Edit request on 16 July 2013

You have used the wrong spelling for capitol. Capital is money. 98.118.17.235 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It may also, as in this article, refer to capital city. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Update park information

My contribution about DC's park system was recently deleted, but I wanted to point out that the Trust for Public Land statistics you have listed are outdated. According to 2013 data, Washington, D.C. has 7,679 acres (31.08 km squared), which is 19.6% of the city's total area. http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Washington

Also, I would have to disagree that including Washington's park system ranking is meaningless to the average reader. The statistic highlights that DC's cityscape and park system is one of the best among populous US Cities. The survey does not just look at acreage (which is already noted), it also factors in park accessibility, spending per residents and the number of playground's in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpogrady (talk • contribs)

It's hard to shake the sense that reporting a "6th best" ranking for a city along a dimension that is not widely covered or otherwise the subject of much current discussion (contrast, I don't know, commute time or crime rates) is more about the ranking entity than the city being ranked. I do not object to its removal. JohnInDC (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll second JohnInDC's thoughts above. The information is not useful to readers and given that the user seems to only include this information on every U.S. cities page, it also appears to be WP:spammy. -epicAdam(talk) 22:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Map Request

It would be nice to have a map of DC's historical 10 mi by 10 mi square, including land ceded by Virginia. Hermanoere (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Hi Hermanoere. I think a historic map of DC would be good too, so I've added one. Thanks for the comment. Best, epicAdam(talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Formally the District of Columbia?

Washington was formally a part of the District of Columbia, along with Alexandria. Referring to Washington DC as "formally the District of Columbia" can give the impression that what used to be the District of Columbia simply changed its name to Washington DC, when in fact this is not the case. I feel that the wording needs to be changed here, what are your opinions? Khairul Islam 04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I understand the question. There was some confusion between wikt:formally, not wikt:formerly; is that what you're referring to? Otherwise, the language is correct. For all intents and purposes, Washington, D.C. is the District of Columbia and vice-versa. The only difference is that the District of Columbia is the actual governmental entity and Washington, D.C. is a place name; however, they refer to the same area. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This comes up here on such a regular basis from US-educated editors, that I think it might be in order to put an invisible comment inline explaining that the word in English is "formally" and it does not mean "formerly". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I got mixed up between 'formally' and 'formerly' - although I've always known the distinction my brain obviously went into shutdown that day!Khairul Islam 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs)

naming

Was the City of Washington so named in 1791, during George Washington's presidency?! —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Refers to"

WP:REFERS does not forbid the use of the word, and its use at the beginning of this article is not only appropriate but the best word for the task. The word in this context means literally what it says, namely, that people "when speaking of Washington DC, people often use the terms 'Washington', 'DC', or 'the District' to refer to it". The use describes a colloquial usage. "Known as" carries a different sense. Because the introductory sentence is saying something about the word (well, words) "Washington, D.C.", and not the actual "District of Columbia", this does not involve the Use–mention_distinction that REFERS warns against, and I see no reason to expunge the article of what was otherwise a perfectly good phrasing. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JohnInDC. The "known as" makes it sound as if those other names are aliases (e.g. Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas...), whereas, here, each name is just an abbreviation of the two previous names. Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather fanatic about WP:REFERS and I'm not bothered either way: "referred to as" and "known as" are synonymous here. Nobody is proposing to make the lede "Washington, D.C. or [other names] refers to the capital city," the deprecated form. —Tamfang (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with John's analysis, though: the clause in question is not saying something about the words Washington, D.C.; it's saying that the entity by that name also has these other colloquial names. —Tamfang (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's talking about the name, "Washington, DC", rather than the geographic or political entity. In any case the use is not an example of the sort of thing proscribed by WP:REFERS, which - shorter version - in large measure just says, "if you can use 'is' rather than 'refers to', you should". Simple streamlined style will get you 90% of the way to where that explanation and analysis will! JohnInDC (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I see an explicit mention of the referent (the city/district). I do not see an explicit mention of the name Washington, D.C. as words, though a necessary consequence of the sentence is "Washington, D.C. is not the only name for the place." (Of course, most other words including Oobleck are also not the only name for the place in question.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. Not words-as-words but also not the thing itself. Anyhow your use of the term "referent" really sort of clinches the propriety of "refers" here and I wish I had used that word myself earlier. JohnInDC (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Architecture Expansion

Under the section discussing the architecture of D.C. there is no mention of the Brutalist architecture found throughout the city. Brtualist architecture can be seen throughout The Washington DC Metro (all stations feature highly Brutalist design), and in several Federal buildings such as the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, J. Edgar Hoover Building, Washington Hilton, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, James V. Forrestal Building, and L'Enfant Plaza. —Jaakkeyjake13 18:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is true. If you can find a reliable source that describes brutalist architecture as a prominent aspect of architecture in Washington, then by all means include it. However, we don't want this section to be just a list of buildings! Best, epicAdam(talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. This is the first of the major cities where there has been any resistance to this. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My very quick reaction is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Uniformity is nice, but it's not a goal in itself, and since this article is, as it stands, already clean enough to stand as a featured article I'm not sure why it needs to be restructured. JohnInDC (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with JohnInDC. I will also add that the guidelines aren't rules and clearly state that the order of sections is up to each article. In addition, I strongly object to some changes, such as including Crime under Government and inserting a "Notable People" section only to have a link to another page. -epicAdam(talk) 12:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Another way to say it, 'Best practices are better than old standards.' — Let's make this article one of the best. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your input. Regarding JohnInDC's comment, I wasn't saying that there were any problems with the article. I guess it's like if you have an art museum, you have all these wonderful articles, but then you start putting them in sets, all of a sudden the Chagall looks out of place in a row of Rembrandts and Van Dyke's. The point is that I was looking at it from a broader perspective of the Wikipedia project as whole, rather then the narrow constraints of a single page. Of the 5 FA class pages (and the 30 pages overall) I made the edits to, this was the only one to have any resistance, and I appreciate that there has been a lot of hard work on this page.
From what I've read on talkpages, most folks who use Wikipedia, don't read the entire article, but rather look for the specific topic within an article that interests them. Uniformity, while not an end in itself, aids that aspect of Wikipedia use.
Epicadam, I understand they are only guidelines, but they are guidelines that have been reached by consensus of a group of editors who look at the entire scope of City articles throughout the project. (I don't necessarily agree with the order myself-case in point, I totally agree with a comment you made to me earlier regarding Sister Cities being included under government - to me that's a no-brainer, but that was the consensus). And regarding your comment on the Notable People section, I completely agree: I don't like a section which simply links to a list. However, I included it in the hopes that someone who is more active on this page, would add a lead, neutral paragraph, which would compliment the pagelink, similar to what is currently on the page for Education or Crime. Particularly on this page, which should have one of the longest lists for notable people, it's absence should be rectified. I'd be happy to take a swing at it myself, if you'd like. But in doing these "guideline" edits, my goal was to simply re-order existing material, not add to or edit it.
Charles, completely agree with that sentiment.
Regardless, I hope you take the time to consider my points. Of course, as always with Wikipedia, will agree with the consensus. Be well.Onel5969 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This article is fairly well written. Nice is also the layout of the images. I would like to make a few comments.

1. "However, the Nacotchtank people had largely relocated from the area by the early 18th century."

This needs to be expanded. It's way too little information.

2. "In what is now known as the Compromise of 1790, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson came to an agreement that the federal government would pay each state's remaining Revolutionary War debts in exchange for establishing the new national capital in the Southern United States."

I'm not sure what is the purpose of this sentence.

3. "the inability to set a commuter tax create a structural deficit in the District's local budget of anywhere between $470 million and over $1 billion per year."

What's the reason for this?

ICE77 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ice77. Thanks for the comments. I expanded the information about the native peoples of the area. Hopefully that provides a better summary of what is a very complicated history. In regards to your second comment, that sentence explains the entire reason for why the U.S. capital is located more to the South. As for your third comment, I don't understand the question. Are you asking: 1. What's the reason for not having a commuter tax? Answer: Congress won't allow it (which I made clearer). or 2. What's the purpose of mentioning the structural deficit? Answer: It's important to understanding the structure and limitations of the District's local government. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my second question, I don't understand why the capital would end up in the South. Was there a plan to move the capital to the South in the 1790s?

Regarding my third question, I don't understand why the Congress won't allow the tax in DC.

ICE77 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. For why the capital is located in the South, there's a note at the end of the paragraph, which reads: "By 1790, the Southern states had largely repaid their overseas debts from the Revolutionary War. The Northern states had not, and wanted the federal government to take over their outstanding liabilities. Southern Congressmen agreed to the plan in return for establishing the new national capital at their preferred site on the Potomac River." So that was it. Southern states wanted a capital closer to them and they made an agreement to do so.
As for *why* Congress won't allow commuter taxes, there are too many to name: Congress doesn't want the District taxing federal officials and appointees who remain "residents" of their home states while working in the capital; the states of Maryland and Virginia (whose residents would be most affected) don't want to lose revenue and therefore their members of Congress oppose it; and some bring up the fact that it's unfair to tax the incomes of people who do not get to vote for the District's government (which would therefore be a form of "taxation without representation"). Of course that list isn't exhaustive and is probably too much to explain in this article. If reliable sources can be found, it would probably make sense to include in the article on District of Columbia home rule. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

epicAdam: thanks for the explanations. Considering the location of DC I never think of DC being in the South. Was DC considered in the South back in 1790s or even now?

ICE77 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DC was certainly considered the South back then. Today, however, there is more debate as to whether DC is the South's most northern city or the North's most southern city. If you look at development, transportation patterns, etc., I think there's currently more linking DC to the North (see: Northeast megalopolis) but you don't have to go too far outside the city in Virginia and Maryland to find people who clearly identify as being in the South. Best, epicAdam(talk) 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"The District" ?

I want to raise this issue: is that true that Washington D.C. is commonly referred as a "District" ? I think it should be Washington or D.C. or Washington, D.C.

( "commonly referred to as Washington, "the District"...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth about past (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is actually common usage, especially in the D.C. metropolitan area, to use "the District," especially when you want to differentiate the city from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

difference between the city and the district

The article doesn't mention the difference between the District of Columbia and Washington. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but "Washington" is then name of the city, and "District of Columbia" refers to the federal district, which is why it is written as "Washington, D.C." (in the style of City, State). Because they are coterminous, they essentially refer to the same entity. Without an explanation, the name doesn't make a lot of sense (i.e. why does it have two names?), and, indeed, "formally the District of Columbia" makes it seem like "District of Columbia" is the formal name of "Washington, D.C." and not the formal name of "D.C." Since this is a featured article, and I don't have a source, I didn't want to make any changes myself, but I think this needs to be addressed. -- Irn (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is, legally, no difference. The City of Washington and the District of Columbia are the same political entity. Why does it have two names? Because at the start, there were other cities and even counties in the District, but in 1871 they were consolidated into one entity. Think of Washington, D.C., as a consolidated city-district government, like how San Francisco is a consolidated city-county. As for "having a different name", I offer Orleans Parish and New Orleans, which are the same entity but with different names. --Golbez (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking into it a little more, I'm left wondering, does the City of Washington as such even exist? Is that what is, in fact meant by "formally the District of Columbia"? If that's the case, why has the name "Washington" persisted? In any event, I think this needs to be explained in the article. -- Irn (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The City of Washington still exists, it just doesn't have a government (note: the word is formally, not formerly). I think this complex issue is explained as succinctly as possible for a summary article like this one; a detailed explanation would be far too technical for the average reader. Best, epicAdam(talk) 11:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Does the City of Washington exist? I mean, "formally" implies that the official name for this entity is the District of Columbia, and that, unlike Orleans Parish/New Orleans, it doesn't have a second name. The situation to me seems to be: the capital of the United States is Washington. It resides in a federal district. However, the city and district were merged into one entity in 1871. The name of that entity is the District of Columbia. But the colloquial - if not official - name of the city is Washington. ... maybe? --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The City of Washington does, technically, exist. The 1871 Organic Act simply dismantled the individual governments of Washington City and Georgetown and replaced them with a government for the District of Columbia as a whole; but the boundaries (and laws) of each city were left in place. As the city grew outside its original boundaries, various developments were incorporated into the city. Georgetown was finally fully annexed by the City of Washington in 1895. As for the name, "Washington, DC" is the WP:common name of the city. Only in formal situations is the city referred to as the "District of Columbia" hence "formally." The word "officially" is not used because both names are "official." Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In what sense does the City of Washington exist? What does it mean for a city with no governing body or charter to exist as a city? How does that city incorporate another city? That is, how can it act as a city?
If "District of Columbia" is the formal name for the city, then "Washington" (or "Washington, D.C.") is the informal name, correct? To me, this implies that "District of Columbia" is the name for this area, and any other name simply isn't its name, even though people may refer to it by different names. Otherwise, wouldn't "Washington" be just as formal (but referring to a different, coterminous entity with no governing body or charter)?
In any event, I don't understand how this could be too complex for an encyclopedia article, especially a digital one. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it might be too complex for this article but it's starting to sound like we could have an article on the political structure and history of the district. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of cities that don't have governments of their own (typically governed by a larger county government), but are still places in their own. It's a similar case for Washington. So your question, "What does it mean for a city with no governing body or charter to exist as a city?" is mostly a philosophical question, but one that doesn't need to be answered here.
As for "How does that city incorporate another city?" This is simple. Washington City had its own set of laws, street system, land division system (for property taxes), etc. Georgetown had its own set, and the outlying areas of Washington County nominally had their own legal system as well (though mostly just adapted Maryland law where applicable). So over time the laws, land divisions, and street names of the City of Washington were applied to other areas as the city expanded (and, as I mentioned, Georgetown was also required to conform). Basically, just because the District got its own government in 1871 doesn't mean that everything changed overnight.
I would note that Washington, D.C. has an extensive history sub-article, as well as another article on home rule, and another on government (the last two should probably be merged). As for this article, it already discusses a good amount of this in the history and cityscape sections, though obviously not in such detail. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
My question of how a city with no charter or government can incorporate another city was poorly phrased, sorry. What I had wanted to ask was, without a governing body to make decisions on behalf of the city, how can that city act as a city? That is, who is actually doing the acting and where does that authority come from? I'm guessing in this situation, the city itself didn't act, but rather the governing authority - here, the District of Columbia - acted on its behalf? And as such, it wouldn't be so much that Washington incorporated Georgetown as it would be that Georgetown was incorporated into Washington by the District of Columbia.
Regarding the use of the word "formally": If the City of Washington still exists as a city, isn't the name "Washington" its formal name?
Is it too much to ask for a small section on the name? Or just one line in the lead making it more clear? Or even a footnote after the phrase "formally the District of Columbia"? All it would have to say is that today the City of Washington is coterminous with the District of Columbia (and, therefore, both names essentially refer to the same thing) although it originally formed just a small part of the larger District and, as such, has its own history distinct from that of the District, which is why we have two different names separated by a comma. -- Irn (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"who is actually doing the acting and where does that authority come from?" That would be Congress, or the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, who derived the power from Congress. But in any event, you're right. Washington didn't annex anything, it was incorporated into Washington by an act of Congress.
There are two problems with describing Washington and the District of Columbia as being "coterminus" or "coextensive." First, there is actually no law (at least none that I have found) that actually made the "City of Washington" co-extensive with the District of Columbia; the name "Washington" was simply expanded as the outlying areas of the District were populated. And that makes sense, since by that time the District already had a consolidated government so there was no need to do anything more. Second, going off the first point, calling them coextensive makes it sound as if there are two separate entities that co-exist in the same area, but that's not the case. Washington, though it still exists, is a city in name only, similar to a Census-designated place. For example, the fact that there is no incorporated city called "Arlington" doesn't stop us from using the convention "Arlington, Virginia" in a city-state format. As such, the situation is much more nuanced than you describe it. See also: [1]
I would not oppose putting in an etymology section as long as the information did not A) duplicate what is already said in the history and cityscape sections and B) is actually based on reliably sourced facts and not just conjecture. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Southern culture?

I think there should be mention in the history portion that Washington used to have a southern character to it, and still has a remnant of southern culture. Accents similar to those seen in Virginia were even common in the Washington-Baltimore area until the World War II era. Not sure how to phrase it though, but the cultural shift is an important part of the city's history - 72.33.9.153 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether this story is much different from that of nearly any other southern or western city that emerged from a sleepy existence since the 1950s, e.g. Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas - regional characteristics have almost everywhere become diluted with increased mobility, national video media and the internet. JohnInDC (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

References and notes formatting

@Epicadam:, there's hardly an article I've encountered that places the "Notes" at the bottom; if they include footnotes (not referring to references), they are without exception coded within the article body. I'll prepare a version in my sandbox soon. The options are:

  1. User:Lieutenant of Melkor/Climate/Micro/LWX Keeps the current formatting. Pro: Obviously enables multiple citations of the same footnote (but that was never likely in the first place). Con: Now Geography of Washington, D.C. and any other future transclusions must adapt, too. Not very portable
  2. User:Lieutenant of Melkor/sandbox Uses {{notelist}} as I and K6ka (talk · contribs) have attempted, converting the three pre-existing footnotes to using {{efn}}. Pro: Portable. Con: Does not enable multiple citations.
  3. The old footnotes style at Albany, New York, using #tag:ref in tandem with {{Reflist|group="Note"}}. I am not familiar with this option, though.

"My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"Thanks for the sandboxes. I prefer the second option with notelist. The problem I saw is with one the citations itself! My apologies for the confusion. Best, epicAdam(talk) 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Federal district

DC is, first and foremost, the capital of the United States. It is also a federal district but that is a collateral characteristic - DC is notable first not because of the form of its political existence but because of its role in US, and I suppose, world affairs. DC's status as a "capital district" (linked article discusses federal districts as well) was already noted in the very next sentence, and didn't need to be mentioned twice in close succession; also by identifying DC as "the" federal district of the United States on the heels of identifying it as "the" capital, the sentence falsely implied that there can be only one of the former, as there only can be of the latter. For these reasons I've removed what looks to me like a largely duplicative, and confusing, description in the first sentence. JohnInDC (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See in this article:
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Washington, D.C.
|official_name = District of Columbia
|settlement_type = Federal district
|...
and in the text of United States. For me, this notion is important and is not a duplicative or a confusing. Thank you wait until the end of the discussion before undo this change. Trackteur (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It is both duplicative and confusing - the notion is mentioned twice in the first two sentences, and as written implies that there can be only one federal district in a country when there is no such limitation. If Congress wanted, for some reason, to create another - they could. I'll leave it in (for now) but really must reword it to remove the inaccurate impression that it now leaves. JohnInDC (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Should not speculate on the future of the current organization of USA, to date and probably for a few years, there is only one federal district in the USA, if circumstances change section would be update. Your current correction is not very pleasant to read. Trackteur (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not speculation but rather clear phrasing. The US has only one capital and can only have one capital. It is therefore appropriate to say "the" capital. There is no similar logical or legal constraint on "federal district" and, as I said, by using the definite article "the", the reader is left with the mistaken impression that the U.S. is limited to a single federal district in the same way it is limited to a single capital. The better solution, in my view, is not to introduce the same concept twice in two sentences, but since you feel strongly about having it in, I'm trying to find a compromise that is at least not misleading. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose this formulation:

Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, "the District", or simply D.C., is the federal capital and the federal district of the United States. Trackteur (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, that's no different than your original formulation other than the insertion of the word "federal" in front of "capital", and as such doesn't address either of the concerns I've noted. Indeed it introduces a new issue. "Federal capital" is not a common phrase in U.S. English and is almost never used in describing Washington, DC. In this context it is awkward and a bit jarring; it's better as simply "capital". How about we just leave it as it is for now, a solution that at the moment neither of us is fully satisfied with, and see how things sort out in Talk? JohnInDC (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course, I agree, it seems to me that our discussion should be also supplemented by the views of other contributors. Thanks. Trackteur (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I too would like to keep the first sentence as clean as possible, and think its better to mention this later in the first paragraph, such as how it is now in the third sentence where it can be connected to Congressional authority. That said, looking at that third sentence, I think it can be better written to flow without the multiple clauses and comma interruptions.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As I noted previously, "federal capital" is awkward and stilted English; in spite of my comments, and the edits by Patrick that did not incorporate also removed the clumsy phrase, Trackteur has insistently inserted it restored it several times without discussing it here. Rather than edit war, I will simply highlight the continuing dispute and leave it for other editors to comment on, and remedy as they see fit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JohnInDC. The proposed construction is clumsy and makes it seem as if the "capital" and the "District" are two separate entities that happen to be co-located. As such, the original lead was accurate as written. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to read the various articles concerned: Capital city, Federal capital and Federal District in order to understand the nuances that exist between these definitions. Thank you. Trackteur (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if you were instead to explain what nuances you are trying to tease out. My criticism remains: "Federal capital" is an awkward phrasing in English, it is not a common description of Washington, DC, and the previous version was preferable for its simplicity. Right now you have two editors directly disagreeing with your phrasing, and another by implication (by declining to incorporate it in a set of edits). I plan to change it back later today absent a change in consensus in the other direction. JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Electoral Votes

The article in the lead-in paragraphs at the end reads "The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1961, grants the District three electoral votes in presidential elections."

I'm requesting this to be changed to reflect the actual purpose of the Twenty-Third: "The Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified in 1961, grants the District of Columbia at least as many electors as the least populous state, but no more than the least populous state."

I understand what the 23rd amendment says, but that information is easily obtained by reading the article about the amendment itself. In this article, we're concerned more about the practical effect. However, I have adjusted the text so that it doesn't sound as if the 23rd amendment grants three votes, but only that the 23rd amendment allows three votes in the electoral college. Hopefully that makes the phrasing more clear. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

The Transportation section should be updated to include the Silver Line for the Metro lines and stations. Cjbwvuit (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Found a recent press release from WMATA with the new numbers, and updated the page accordingly.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

In the first section, "The Washington metropolitan area, of which the District is a part, has a population of 9.3 million, the seventh-largest metropolitan area in the country." should be replaced with "The Washington metropolitan area, of which the District is a part, has a population of 5.8 million, the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the country."

This is based on the "List of metropolitan areas of the United States of America" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States 173.80.34.6 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Already done Stickee (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. Washington is the 7th largest MSA. It is the 4th largest combined statistical area, which rolls in Baltimore (among others). I left the rank at 7th and tried to clarify the text a bit. JohnInDC (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it too long to read?

I noticed that it is considered a featured article but as a (potential) reader of the article, I am honestly discouraged by the length of it!

Criterion No4 listed here is "Length. It [the feautured article] stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Well, even though I have not managed to read all the article, it seems to be that due to its length, "unnecessary detail" is anavoidably included. The thing is, well, where in the article is this detail to be found?

Thank you for your attention... Neosmyrnian (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There are guidelines for articles found at Wikipedia:Page size. This article has 49KB of readable prose, which is middle-length. There's no reason to cut it down based on length alone, but if you'd have recommendations about what "unnecessary details" are included in the article, feel free to have a go at it! Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh. And be sure to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline for more information about structure and content! -epicAdam(talk) 03:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 population estimate

I notice the population was recently changed in the demographics section to reflect the 2014 estimate. I can't seem to find the Census Bureau data to use as a reference instead of news articles like this one. Can anyone else find it? APK whisper in my ear 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey APK. It's here: [2] I'm going to make some adjustments. The question I always have is how do we want to deal with the infobox? DC is the only "city" that has an early 2014 population estimate release so the rankings are inherently going to be imprecise. For example, this terrible sentence: "Washington, D.C., had an estimated population of 658,893 in 2014, the 23rd most populous city in the United States in 2013." just seems awful. Thoughts? -epicAdam(talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the issue with the ranking. Someone at Talk:List of United States cities by population said the city estimates won't be released until sometime next year. I can't think of a way to word that sentence without it sounding odd. Maybe add a footnote clarifying it's based on the 2013 estimates? In regards to the infobox, maybe put "23rd largest city in U.S. (2013 estimate)" in the ranking field? Then again, that seems odd, since it's under "Population (2014 estimate)". The Metro and CSA fields are also the 2013 figures. APK whisper in my ear 18:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Change title to formal, not colloquial name?

From this very article: "Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown." The city of Washington hasn't existed for over a century.

The article goes back and forth between correctly noting that Washington is now a colloquialism, as in the opening sentence, "Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia", and using the colloquial "Washington" in a formal context. A casual reader would easily come away from this article thinking that the City of Washington still exists.

Other articles on Wikipedia, such as the ones on London or Tokyo, seem to be much more careful in distinguishing between the historical city and the modern-day geography. By the end of the first paragraph of the Tokyo page, readers are clear that the historic designation no longer applies. With London you don't even have to read the first paragraph before getting to the note to see the separate page on the historic City of London.

Although the first step in fixing this article would be to more carefully use the word "Washington" only where it is clearly colloquial or referring to the pre-1871 city [edit: I went through and did this], it seems the page should also be renamed. Are there other examples where a geographic entity's main page is an informal name?

PS: Generally, DC residents don't use the word "Washington". Here is a passage from the style guide of the Washington [sic] City Paper, a local alt weekly.

Washington:
Officially, it hasn’t existed since the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 repealed the charters of the District’s three component jurisdictions—Washington City, Washington County, and Georgetown—and created a unified District of Columbia. Colloquially, usage of the term indicates that you don’t live here or are an out-of-touch employee of the federal government or national press corps. link

PS2: Yes, the city does have the Washington Convention Center, but its full name is "Walter E Washington Convention Center".

B k (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please wait for others to comment here before making those kind of changes to a Featured Article? It was less than 30 minutes before you went ahead and changed the article. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 00:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. WP:COMMONNAME. JohnInDC (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


@APK: Sure, the edits are there for the regulars to reinstate if desired.

My talk above was inquiring about renaming the article, which should certainly be discussed before doing. The changes I made are factual corrections to the article, which are open to discussion but shouldn't need major permissions. Rock Creek Park doesn't go through the boundaries of the City of Washington. Describing National Airport as across from the City of Washington is barely correct. Talking about the area beyond Florida Ave as upper Northwest Washington doesn't even make sense, unless you want to imply the fiction that the City of Washington was expanded to include the whole of the District. Also, going through the article, I saw that, especially in the sections on late-1800s history, distinguishing between the City of Washington and the District clarified some points.

But I am interested to hear the arguments for keeping post-1871 references to Washington, and will not start an edit war if the consensus is to keep using the colloquialism. B k (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you'll find agreement to rename the article. The name was kept during the FA review and as mentioned above WP:COMMONNAME applies here. The common name should also be used throughout the article. APK whisper in my ear 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


I recognize that WP:COMMONNAME indicates that the article name should stay. In my intial post I asked if such examples exist, and you have shown me that they do, and that a policy addresses this question. But there are a few problems with applying that rule throughout the article, beyond the title:

--WP:COMMONNAME is primarily about the title, not content. It would be odd indeed if the rule dictated that a location must be referred to by its common name at all times.

--Where WP:COMMONNAME does talk about content, it seems to encourage us to not use "Washington": "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The historic City of Washington, which is referred to several times in the article, is a small part of the District of Columbia. This creates confusion in some parts, as readers are expected to jump from the formal L'Enfant boundaries to the colloquial name for the full District. I expect that a casual reader would come away from the article as written thinking that the City of Washington was not dissolved, but expanded to include all of the District.

--I cited the City Paper style guide to point out that the common name in DC differs from the common name outside of DC. You're welcome to check The Washington Post and see how often the Post uses the term "Washington, DC"---my search only turned up a few cases. Applying WP:COMMONNAME indicates that the NY Times usage (which does use "Washington") should take precedence over the Post usage. [But then, there's a lot of precendent for outsiders dictating internal DC issues ;) .]

My recommendation, unless somebody comes along with a factual point or a serious stylistic preference beyond `that's how we did it before', is to un-revert the edit excising post-1871 references to Washington, and then allow users to come in and change "the District" to "Washington" where they feel it stylistically preferable and unambiguous. I'm not an owner of the article and only a casual Wiki-editor, but I feel that we should start from a factually correct foundation and make approximations for stylistic purposes only where they won't hurt. My bet is that the article will read fine and nobody will bother to change any uses of "the District" back to "Washington". B k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"The District" is the predominant usage within the Beltway and for a short distance outside of it, when referring to the part of the region that is not northern Virginia or suburban Maryland. Hence, I suspect, the (very local) City Paper's style guide preference for "The District". Outside of the Washington area (not, interestingly, "The District of Columbia area"), the region and the city are invariably referred to as "Washington", or "Washington, D.C.". If you're asked, in (e.g.) Chicago, where you're from and you respond, "The District", you'll get a blank look. Answer "Washington" and the only remaining question is, "Washington Seattle Washington, or DC?" It's the Baltimore-Washington Airport (and Parkway); the Baltimore-Washington MSA - indeed, the Washington Post. Whatever the formal boundaries of the old & defunct City of Washington, nowadays throughout the world, "Washington" is virtually synonymous with "District of Columbia", and the technical distinction between the two is lost on anyone but a student of local history, young denizens of H Street who never leave town, or journalists desperate to establish their local bona fides (to echo the City Paper's snarky editorial gloss). JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@JohnInDC, did you notice that we're entirely in agreement? In my comments above, I stated twice that common usage "inside the beltway" is different from outside, and even offered references to that effect. There's really no debate that most people will colloquially call the whole diamond "Washington", and if you're meeting somebody in the context of a street in Chicago and you talk about "the District", there'd be ambiguity.
But the question is what term to use in a reference work about DC. You point out that "the technical distinction between ['DC' and 'Washington'] is lost on anyone but a student of local history", but guess who's the target audience for an encyclopedia page in large part about the history of the District? If a student of DC history doesn't come away from this page with the correct understanding of the facts, then the page needs revision.
The Organic Act of 1871 is explicit about what is formally called Washington: "this portion of said District, included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington". Organic Act. To be extremely clear, because the article as written obscures this entirely, the area that Congress designated as "known as the city of Washington" is bordered by Florida Avenue and the Potomac/Anacostia rivers, and is not the full District. [Not that it matters, but note that the Washington Post continues to locate in and cover the formal city of Washington, it makes sense to talk about a Washington area, et cetera.]
On 00:08, 24 December 2014, the article only used the term "Washington" to refer to the area between Boundary Street and the Potomac/Anacostia and only used the term "D.C." or "The District" to refer to the full square. I assert that an edit changing all uses of "the District" to "Washington"
1. makes some parts factually incorrect,
2. obfuscates distinctions that need to be made in an article in large part about geographic history, and
3. is stylistically about on par, because in the end casual readers don't really care or notice whether you call it "Washington" or "the District".
So I think that the change to replace all uses of "the District" with "Washington" made on 00:18, 24 December 2014 (which I recognize @APK did for sensible procedural considerations) was detrimental to the article. In the debate between whether the Organic Act correctly defines the term "Washington" or colloquial usage defines the term, using the term all over the article takes a solid position that the Organic Act is wrong or obsolete; by just not using the word where possible, Wikipedia remains neutral in that debate. B k (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It bears noting too that the "City Paper Style Guide" described above is not an actual style guide but rather a tongue-in-cheek article including entries such as "doughnuts: Never—ever—refer to 'doughnuts' as 'the new cupcakes.'" JohnInDC (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It's written humorously, but it actually describes what City Paper (and Post) writers do. B k (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Missed a lot! In case you don't care to read what else I've written below, the short version is I definitely agree with APK and JohnInDC on this one. The names "Washington," "District of Columbia," and their variants are used interchangeably and therefore both terms can and should be used in this article. My logic is as follows:

It is true that the "City of Washington" no longer exists as a municipal corporation; the only governmental authority (since 1871) is the District of Columbia. The portion of the 1871 Organic Act quoted by B k makes that clear; however, just because a place no longer has (or never had) its own government does not mean that it ceases to exist. In fact, further reading of the 1871 Organic Act makes that perfectly clear: "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; and the portion of said District include within the limits of the city of Georgetown shall continue to be known as the city of Georgetown"

Later acts of Congress would extend Washington's street grid and land plat system throughout the District (starting in 1888) as well as formally merge Georgetown into Washington (in 1895). The fun part is that there was never any formal move to make the boundaries of the City of Washington (and the annexed areas of Georgetown) coterminous with the whole District of Columbia. And in reality, it doesn't matter since all powers were already vested in the District government and the distinction today is essentially meaningless.

I would say the current situation is more analogous to Washington being a "Census-designated place" located within the District of Columbia; Washington exists but doesn't have a separate formal government of its own. This whole discussion situation brings up some interesting legislative history (and great trivia questions), but for the purposes of this article I think both names are equally valid and still stand. At least, that's all IMHO. :-) All the best -epicAdam(talk) 04:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@epicAdam, it looks like we've both read the same section in the Organic Act, in the same way: there is a subpart of the District that is referred to as Washington, and that subpart is not the whole District. I took the implication of that to mean that the edit on 00:18, 24 December 2014, replacing several uses of "the District" with "Washington" inserts errors and inaccuracies. Your conclusion seems to be different, that it's not only correct, but preferable to use "Washington" instead of "the District" at all uses. Since we've both read the same document the same way and somehow came to different conclusions, there's not much else for me to say.
I'm not going to attempt to modify the article anymore, but it might be worth it for others to put a few words into the article itself about the Organic Act and how it defines "Washington". Looking through the talk archive, it's come up pretty often, and there's a lot of good stuff in the talk pages about the history of the W word. Why not add that good stuff from the talk pages to the article itself? B k (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi B k. My conclusion is that it's not necessarily that either usage is preferable, but that they're equivalent. This article strives to be accessible to the general audience of readers who likely are not familiar with legal intricacies of the Organic Act. In almost every instance, from my reading, the words "Washington" and "District" are appropriately used given the context. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

White House photo

File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG was recently replaced with File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg. IMHO, the original photo was of better quality (lighting, angle, crop, etc.) APK whisper in my ear 21:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. -epicAdam(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I'll change it back. JohnInDC (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sports championships

Why is there no mention of the Senator's 1924 World Series win? Washington was the same city, the games were played in DC and their team won. This article is not a modern news piece or tabular of wins by the franchise that moved to Minnesota. It's tabular of the championships by DC teams. My father and grandfather who only ever lived in DC were at that game 7 when the Senators won in the 12th inning. We don't need that detail, but the current teams only count is misrepresentative of the facts. They still mention that win in the paper to this day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/04/capitals-advanced-to-stanley-cup-finals-16-years-ago-today/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.68.249 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about DC generally - really, a bit about all facets of its existence - and of necessity must omit details that easily warrant attention in a more focused article. This article has always listed only championships by sports teams currently calling DC home, but other articles, like Sports in Washington, D.C. and History of the Washington Senators (1901–60) note or discuss the Senators' 1924 World Championship. JohnInDC (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted then that the NBA championship was won by a team called the Bullets while playing in Maryland, that the Redskins reside in Maryland and Virginia with no presence in Washington and that MLS is not considered one of the four major sports in the US. Frankly, if we are mentioning the Kastles, I don't see how the World Series title won by a major sports team in the oldest and most popular league that was actually based in Washington can be omitted? Additionally, that factoid will become even more notable if the Capitals (or another hockey team win a title) when Washington would become only the 6th metro area with a title in all four major sports (a note made specifically in the article on Boston). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.24 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article would be improved by adding such details (some might say "quibbles") about where in the metro area those teams staged their matches when they were champions. I don't feel that strongly about adding a sentence about the Senators' 1924 win, but it is a pretty distant event now (a ninety year old title won by a team that hasn't played here in 40+ years). JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article about recent news, it's an article about the history of the city of Washington so saying it's 90 years removed is an irrelevant defense for omitting. Additionally, there is an article about metropolitan Washington, perhaps the Redskins belong only in that article if we are getting into the technical details of teams only counting if they are still in the city? The Redskins as a franchise haven't played in the city of Washington for 19 years. Finally, DC United no longer has the most MLS titles, LA passed them with 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.189.245 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a history article; it's an encyclopedia article. There is an entire sub-article to describe the history of sports in Washington. To include every team/championship/player here is not necessary. If information is no longer accurate, please be bold and fix the article, (with an accurate citation). Best, epicAdam(talk) 03:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Crime

The FBI, ranks Washington, D.C. as the worst State, in America, in terms of violent crime. It has 1,243.7 violent crimes, per 100,000 people. http://www.thestreet.com/story/12963542/10/the-most-violent-crime-ridden-states-in-america.html

This should lead the crime section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.149.144 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. While I generally find rankings to be WP:TRIVIA in most cases, ranking the District (a city) among the 50 states is a ridiculous enterprise. See also: List of United States cities by crime rate. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a fact, backed by source. You are free to disagree with facts. DC passes it's own criminal laws, and is a state, and therefore ranked by the FBI. All facts. This is why they are part of a comparative ranking system. This should be added, and the reader can decide whether a fact, about the level of crime, under a crime section, along with a comparative tool, is Trivia.

"While I generally find" is subjective. The reader, should be allowed to come up with their own conclusions, when presented with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.149.144 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that this is an encyclopedia, not a list of facts (and the District is not a state, contrary to your stated position). Consideration of what goes into the article is based on what helps the readers' understanding of the subject and is curated based on the consensus of the editors. Contrary to what you suggest, including this information would detrimental because it's taken completely out of context because we can't assume that a reader has background knowledge needed.
Just to point out the absurdity of your argument, here are the following jurisdictions make their own criminal laws and have a higher crime rate than any of the 50 U.S. states: Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis, Memphis, Stockton, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Kansas City, Nashville, Indianapolis, Miami, Toledo, Philadelphia, Newark, Houston, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City, Boston, Anchorage, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, Wichita, Sacramento, Jersey City, Tucson, St. Paul, San Francisco, Dallas, Corpus Christi, Charlotte. That is a fact, though I doubt that you will see any such mention in any of those articles for exactly the same reason. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Too emotional.

Are you from, or a resident, of DC? If the answer is yes, this bias, explains your non factual, opposition. Wikipedia attempts to be an Encyclopedia. It is not a propaganda tool, for whatever bias and beliefs, you hold. Your attempting to use cities to compare(which is a contradiction of your opposition) shows you simply do not like the facts presented, and need to counter whatever conclusion, a reader would come to when presented with the facts. If you wish to present your own counter argument, great. As long as it's backed by sources, It presents both sides. 'Encyclopedia is not a list of facts' Sigh. "Consideration of what goes into the article, is based on what helps the readers' understanding" Facts tend to help with understanding. Your own subjective beliefs, and attempt to foster on the reader, your own biased understanding, through exclusion of a material facts, is contrary to any objective attempt to fill the reader in, on a subject. Censorship of facts, that oppose this narrow view, should never be allowed gain a foothold in an Encyclopedia.

"because it's taken completely out of context " The 'go to' phrase when a fact is uncomfortable or you wish it were not so or had not said something. Violent crime of 1,243 per 100,000 people, under a crime section, cannot really be anymore stark and within context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.149.144 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When DC becomes a state then the article can note that it ranks first among states in violent crime. Until then it's nothing more than a meaningless made-up POV comparison. JohnInDC (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
"DC passes it's own criminal laws, and is a state" what --Golbez (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015

In the section on utility suppliers for Washington, DC, insert a paragraph break before the details of the gas company. This way, each utility will have its own paragraph. AjayGuptaUSA (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. → Washington, DC – I understand that there is divided opinion in American English about whether to use periods in initialisms, however this ngram demonstrates that DC without the periods is the more WP:COMMONNAME. For those of you worried about influence from English speaking countries which don't use periods in initialisms this ngram only examines books in American English and has near identical results. Many United States organizations such as the FBI and the DOJ do not use periods. As is demonstrated in both ngrams this shift in favour of not using periods occurs in the 1970s which I am led to believe is the consequence of a change in how the United States Postal Service designated abbreviations for states and territories. Ebonelm (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposed - Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but "Washington, DC" is a postal address, not a place name. I'm not surprised that the postal abbreviation is found much more often than the usage with the periods. For example using your method of evaluation, "Richmond, VA" is used more often than "Richmond, Virginia" but that's not a basis to move the page. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

In the "Voting Rights" section, I think there is a mistake; the motto and link show "Taxation..." instead of "No Taxation". Fjorellana (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that the latter makes more sense as a rallying cry, the phrase on the license plates is in fact the former - JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 Not done this is a variation on the original motto, as is explained at No taxation without representation#Washington, D.C.
They are taxed but not represented - they are not arguing that they should not be taxed, but that they should be represented. - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to Sq. Kilometres of Original Size of DC

Under the section, "Foundation", it lists the original dimensions of DC as being 100 mi². It then uses a convert template to convert it to km². I noticed it has a slight error: it converts 100 mi² to 260 km², but according to Wolfram Alpha, it's actually 159 km². This is corroborated also by Google's own conversion tool.


Wolfram Alpha:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+mi%C2%B2+to+km%C2%B2&dataset=


Google:

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=100+mi%5E2+to+km%5E2&oq=100+mi%5E2+to+km%5E2&gs_l=hp.3..19j35i39.140.3733.0.4200.18.13.0.0.0.1.1061.2686.1j5j2j0j1j7-1.10.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..9.9.2258.HhBjI9nZUn4

– SarahTehCat (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you're seeing - both those tools are yielding 259km². Which makes sense - if 10 miles is 16.something kilometers, the squaring each gives you 100 and about 260. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
... no? --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not aiming to round here to the nearest ten km².

The value given in miles has an accuracy of 3 significant figures, and as it's the primary unit here (see WP:Units), we have to keep the converted value to the same accuracy. Each side being 10 mi converts to 16.09 km per side, which when squared comes to 258.89 km², which rounds up to 259 km² when rounding to 3 sig figs.

See http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16.09%C2%B2. – SarahTehCat (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is true, but in your original post you said it converted to *159*, not *259*. That was the source of our confusion. You didn't say the problem was a rounding error, you said the problem was we were 100 square kilometers off. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(looks up) Indeed, this is true. My apologies. (bows) Twas a mistake and not intended. In any case, it nevertheless converted it to a number that was not correct. It is not 260 km², but rather 259 km². This should be corrected, should it not? – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's likely a rounding error. But that should probably be mentioned over at Template:Convert and see if the editors who work on that template can help! Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you for the referral! SarahTehCat (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an error in {{convert}}; the template is designed that way to avoid false precision (per MOSNUM). It is usual practice not to count zeros as being significant (unless they're after a decimal point) and the template rounds accordingly. Of course, there will be cases like this one where they are. In these cases the rounding can be adjusted; e.g. {{convert|100|sqmi|0}} gives "100 square miles (259 km2)". For other rounding options see the template documentation. Jimp 19:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot tell you how freaking annoying the ambiguity in consensus on sig figs is and has been to me. A total disgrace to the spirit of scientific precision...

And thank you. Duly noted. SarahTehCat (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo montage

I confess that I liked the original one better - I think there was a slightly better mix of subjects, the photo of the African-American Civil War Memorial was more legible (can you say "legible" for a photo?), and I thought the panoramic view of the Washington Monument gave a better view of the Mall than the very nice, but quite confined, replacement. I would change it back. JohnInDC (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not wedded to the original, but it's preferred. If there is to be a new montage, it should not focus on exclusively national sites. -epicAdam(talk) 23:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well. APK whisper in my ear 23:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry about the commotion I appear to have caused. If you wish, I'd be happy to redesign the montage to fit the desires of the community. The only reason I added the new version was for quality reasons rather than what sites I prefer. While I too like the original montage, I believe the actual quality of it was quite poor.Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Can you make a new montage and then link to it here first so we can all come to a consensus? APK whisper in my ear 18:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ryanicus Girraficus. The montage image could certainly use an update. Personally, I think there are too many images of national landmarks. Instead of having separate images of the Mall/Washington Monument/Capitol, a decent aerial/skyline shot that contains all three could suffice as a primary element on the image, but then have other non-national landmarks. DC is extremely diverse and the montage should reflect that. Thanks for your work on this! Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are the proposals I have created. I have selected the images to cover five important aspects of any area - education (smithsonian), tourism (botanical garden), government (national mall), history (vietnam memorial), and culture (cathedral). Feel free to suggest any changes, and apologies for my inability to find a better photo of the National Mall or the Washington D.C. skyline.
I hate to sound like a Debbie Downer, but I'm not really a fan of the proposals. The middle photo in the first and third samples is too cropped and dark. (people unfamiliar with D.C. might not know the Washington Monument is the building in the foreground because only a portion of it is shown) The Botanical Garden isn't really something that represents D.C., IMHO, many people won't recognize the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as the lower left photo, and if we're going to show the National Cathedral, it seems an exterior shot would work best. The current montage has two photos associated with the National Mall and I think that works well. (doesn't have to be those photos, of course) I think we should include photos of other areas in D.C., like a neighborhood or landmark. (examples: Dupont Circle Fountain, C&O Canal in Georgetown, or current depicted landmark the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site since it's in an area underrepresented in the article's other images) Another suggestion is a photo of the Metro. The Smithsonian Castle shot in the proposals is a good one. Others may disagree, but these are just my thoughts. APK whisper in my ear 05:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with APK. (Sorry!). Every image except the cathedral is from around the National Mall, which I just don't think is at all representative of the city. Along with APK's suggestions above, I'd also throw in perhaps the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens or the National Arboretum in Northeast DC, the National Shrine at Catholic University (though, truth be told, I don't really like the idea of picking religious structures as a featured image), Howard Theatre/U Street (local culture), and the image of Frederick Douglass's home (one of the lone featured images from east of the Anacostia River). And, while this may be a bit of stretch, I think images of Victorian rowhomes may be appropriate considering that it is the single most predominant architecture in the city. Instead of creating new proposals each time, maybe other editors can chime in with their thoughts on the composition of the montage first? Thanks again for all your work on this, Ryanicus. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologise guys - it's nice to collaborate. I'll upload new versions of the proposals in the next two nights. Just out of curiousity, do you prefer the wider aspect ratio for the centre image or not? Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay guys. I was a bit confused with what you mean by not creating new proposals epicAdam. New proposals are created based upon everyone's comments, so that you can see what it will actually look like rather than simply picturing it. If you have any more advice on the composition, I'd create a new proposal to see if you like it :) In addition, the proposal images will be removed once we come to a conclusion (don't want to waste server space). I searched for high quality photos of the places of interest epicAdam and APK suggested (including a photo I have only just realised APK uploaded), and have replaced some of the photos: the newest montage now contains rowhomes instead of the botanical gardens, Frederick Douglass' home instead of the Vietnam memorial, and the Howard Theatre instead of the National Cathedral. It is worth mentioning that the photos within the montage are of a much higher resolution, so if you feel that some photos should be cropped slightly that shouldn't be a problem. Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks good Ryanicus Girraficus and thanks for incorporating photos from around the city. I'll let others comment to see if they have any suggestions or further thoughts. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryanicus Girraficus! First, I think this is good but I had a few thoughts. If there's going to be an aerial shot, it should probably be centered on the Capitol building. Not sure if this one is high enough quality? [3]. Alternatively, I think the composition of this image is perfect, even if the quality is a bit lacking: [4].
Additionally, on second thought, maybe the rowhouses are a bit too generic? Perhaps a photograph that shows some of D.C. natural geography? One of the defining characteristics of the city is how much open parkland there is. For example, I think many people would be surprised to find scenes like this in Rock Creek Park [5] are just minutes away from downtown. Just a thought! Thanks again for all your work on this. I do agree that is an improvement. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate that Ryanicus is willing to spend the time to revise these montages and offer up new combinations for consideration, but so far I haven't seen one that I like better than the current version. While I agree - and have said - that the montage needs to include more than just the Mall and monumental views of the city, this proposal I think has too few. Or, maybe it's not that it's too few but that only one is immediately recognizable as "Washington, DC". I would suggest an oblique angle of the Smithsonian castle, to capture a more familiar view of it (this one is a nice photo but just looks like a building made of red sandstone). Sadly though the U.S. Capitol seems like a tough omission. Also while the photo of the row houses is nice, the angle at which the photo is taken seems awkward up against the Smithsonian as portrayed here. One of the two needs a natural border around it - some sky perhaps - so that we don't have brick abutting brick in an apparently continuous way. Thanks for your patience, Ryanicus - JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the massive delay everyone - real life decided to catch up with me (sigh). I have completed the 6th proposal, and have made two amendments. The first amendment is that the image of the Smithsonian Institute has been replaced with an angle that User:JohnInDC has suggested would better suit the montage. The second amendment is that the image of the rowhomes has been replaced with an image of Rock Creek Park, in accordance with epicAdam's suggestion. I have kept the national image the same due to resolution limitations. While the other images suggested were of improved composition they would have to be enlarged significantly, which would produce a very poor quality image. On the other hand, if anyone believes that the central image should be replaced with a different landmark, I believe it will be possible as there are high-resolution images of individual landmarks available on Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.
I've went ahead and changed the image. Feel free to revert it if you still have an objection. Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Please fix the caption. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The pic is fine but I reverted it pending a caption fix. Ryanicus? JohnInDC (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I knew I had forgot to do something when I made that change. -.- The montage has been changed again and this time so has the caption.Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word 'formally'

The word 'formally' is about the 3rd in the whole article. I am pretty sure that the original writer meant to say that in past times Washington was the District of Columbia, i.e. 'formerly'.

Formally would mean with due ceremony or adherence to rules, the opposite of informally.

Anyone agree?

I have come across this error 2 or 3 times in my reading. BTW this is my first venture into Wikipedia editing, what happens now?

--Pickyant (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The intended word is "formally" - the actual name of the place is not "Washington", but "the District of Columbia". So it's good as it is. Welcome to Wikipedia though! Broadly, the editing procedure is no different than what you just did here at the Talk page, only you do it on the article page - just go in and make your changes. I would advise going slowly at first, making a tweak here or there, until you get a feel for the place. But it can be a lot of fun, really rewarding. I hope you enjoy it! JohnInDC (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we change the sister city section to match others?

From the article: "Washington, D.C., has fourteen official sister city agreements. Listed in the order each agreement was first established, they are: Bangkok, Thailand (1962, renewed 2002); Dakar, Senegal (1980, renewed 2006); Beijing, China (1984, renewed 2004); Brussels, Belgium (1985, renewed 2002); Athens, Greece (2000); Paris, France (2000, renewed 2005); Pretoria, South Africa (2002, renewed 2008); Seoul, South Korea (2006); Accra, Ghana (2006); Sunderland, United Kingdom (2006); Rome, Italy (2011); Ankara, Turkey (2011); Brasília, Brazil (2013); and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (2013).[182] Each of the listed cities is a national capital except for Sunderland, which includes the town of Washington, the ancestral home of George Washington's family.[183] Paris and Rome are each formally recognized as a "partner city" due to their special one sister city policy."

The format for this section seems messy. Tokyo's sister section in Wikipedia shows a ordered list. This is apparent in Berlin, Mexico City, and other cities that have a dedicated sister city list.

Thanks, Rhetoriks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoriks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"Petition to change name"

This - event may be facetious, tongue-in-cheek or a political stunt; whichever, it is hard to imagine that among all the options, it is serious. In any case however, in my view, it needs a lot more than a few stray mentions in the media to warrant inclusion here, particularly in light of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Comments welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. APK whisper in my ear 01:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. So agreed that it's almost not even worthy of discussion. It's just SPAM. -epicAdam(talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Just setting up a 3RR report (which turned out not to be necessary). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The petition at http://wh.gov/iRRL6 to change the name is serious. George Washington was a large slave owner. So, having the nation's capitol named after such an individual may be considered a micro-aggression to many individuals who live within the District and those who live in the U.S. To immediately reject the petition or discount it and remove information about it because it is not aligned with your personal beliefs is a bit disingenuous to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed2death (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be serious, but so is the McDonalds down the street, and it has more people who care about it than the 9 people who have signed this petition. It is eminently unnotable. I could find 10 people to sign a petition calling this petition a horse, but I don't think you'd support including that in the article. Furthermore, this petition has nearly zero press about it, which is what we care about here. So, no, it's not happening, but thank you for actually trying to discuss before putting it back in the article. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of petitions. Here's one to strip "Ronald Reagan" from National Airport. http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/06/liberals-start-petition-rename-ronald-reagan-national-airport . Ironically this "liberal group" would change the name of the airport back to "Washington" National Airport. If we include the one to change names away from Washington, we should include this other for balance, eh? Maybe better to include neither. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my. I thought Golbez was being hyperbolic ("hypobolic"?) in dismissing this for its mere 9 signatures, but no - it really has, nine signatures. End of discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"2014 Best Place to Start a Career"

I've removed this fact, and the associated link, a couple of times because it strikes me as trivial (why this, out of all the things you can say about the city?), inconsequential, and questionably sourced. Perhaps I'm being unfair but there's a whiff of link spam about it too. The best thing is of course to Talk it out - thoughts, comments? JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Mm, also DC appears to have slipped to 32nd in 2015: http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-cities-to-start-a-career/3626/#main-findings JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Definitely trivial. These lists are just ads for their respective publications. -epicAdam(talk) 23:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No Natanster9000 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

On http://dcgop.com it displays the DC Republican logo. Apart from the elephant, the logo consists of entirely typeface and simple geometric shapes (circles, stars) and the elephant logo is in the public domain, so would it be PD or fall under fair use? MB298 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: East Coast

Although the term "East Coast of the United States" may refer to a region, its literal meaning is the actual shoreline, and the use of the preposition "on" suggests this literal meaning; but of course DC is some distance inland. I suggest that the words "on the country's East Coast" in the lead section should be replaced with "near the country's Atlantic coast" or "in the country's Eastern Seaboard" or some other variation not subject to the same misreading.

There is a second use of "East Coast" later in the article, but that one is in a context where it clearly refers to a region and therefore it can stand. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_6&oldid=1137309855"