Jump to content

Talk:Washington, D.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleApril 6, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 24, 2004, July 16, 2010, July 16, 2012, July 16, 2013, September 9, 2016, and September 9, 2021.
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Arlington National Cemetery and other things that are not in D.C.

[edit]

This article has a major problem with staying on-topic.

Dmford13 has restored an off-topic paragraph I removed about Arlington National Cemetery. The cemetery is one of several details I've removed from the article lately because it is not in Washington, D.C. Dmford's argument is

Also appropriately mentioned on this page despite not actually being in DC: Pentagon, Washington Commanders, Rosslyn, Tysons, Silver Spring, BWI, Reagan National, Dulles Airport, almost the entire private sector part of the economy section, US Air Force memorial, National Harbor, Old Town Alexandria, 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, Mount Vernon, tomb of the unknown soldier, PBS, MARC, VRE, numerous bus systems. They're mentioned because they all relate to DC and the people who live there or visit.

To be clear, there are obviously some cases when not-in-D.C. locations would be due to mention here: Namely, when secondary reliable sources discuss them in the context of D.C. The only secondary source cited for Arlington National Cemetery is this listing in a USNWR list of "Best Things To Do in Washington, D.C." However, the cemetery is ranked 15th on that list. All of these are ranked higher, but not currently mentioned: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the WWII Memorial (also wow what a horrible pick for #4), the Korean and Vietnam War Memorials, the MLK Memorial. the Air & Space Museum. the African American History Museum, the Holocaust Memorial & Museum, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, the Natural History Museum, and the National Cathedral. But instead we mention four semi-arbitrary spots in D.C. (Jefferson Memorial but not White House??) and then, inexplicably, an entire paragraph on a place in another state, most of it sourced to its official website.

Now, if there are secondary sources about the impact of Arlington National Cemetery on D.C.'s tourist economy, by all means, let's cite that. I don't know if they exist, and they probably still wouldn't justify a full paragraph, but certainly such sources exist for the relevance of a number of things Dmford mentioned. But otherwise, yeah, a lot of these shouldn't be in the article, at least not unless someone can show sources discussing them in the context of D.C. This is an article about D.C., not about the D.C. Metro area, not about the United States federal government. Those things are covered in their own articles; they only belong here where sources show their relevance. So of the remaining examples Dmford gave, I would propose that, in addition to removing the Arlington paragraph (without prejudice against mentioning it more briefly per the USNWR source, if someone gets the Tourism section to a decent place), we should also remove:

  • Media companies based in nearby jurisdictions. Washington metropolitan area § Media already covers this.
  • The paragraph about companies based in Northern Virginia. (USA Today and Gannett, despite not being based in D.C., manage to get mentioned in two separate sections this way.)
  • The paragraph about landmarks in Northern Virginia and in Maryland, including the utter trivia of the National Spelling Bee being held in Maryland.
  • Probably more, but this is just based on the examples Dmford gave

... unless there exists adequate reliable secondary sourcing showing that they are relevant to D.C. or its residents. Even there, the prose should be phrased in that context, e.g. Many D.C. residents work for businesses in Northern Virginia, such as... (which I imagine one can find sources for).

What do others think? This is a featured article in name still. I don't see any way to give it even a chance of staying that way without cutting all this bloat and meandering. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for raising this here. Your presentation is much better than the one I wasn't going to get around to doing anyhow.
It's a little sticky, because "Washington DC" is shorthand for so many things that aren't necessarily confined to the District's actual borders, and this article is a handy place to collect them. Tourist activities, headquarters of national organizations - it seems at some level a little pedantic to exclude them from mention simply because (in the case of Arlington, since we're talking about it) they may lie immediately across the river.
But at the same time I agree about bloat and cruft, the desperate need to pare the article down. I further believe that most of the other examples offered by DMFord do not warrant mention here. Maybe linked (almost as a See Also) in a separate section, "Nearby points of interest" - I don't know. Passing mention at most. The article of course is not, in the end, a Tourist Guide. There are websites for that.
What I do think is that, whatever rule or principle we strive toward, it should be as simple and objective as possible. Maybe 3d party sourcing is the way to go. Part of me fears that then instead of arguing about our own opinions we'd probably wind up arguing about how much 3d party sourcing is enough; but it still seems like a step in the right direction. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One approach, which would sidestep some of this, is to put the article on a sort of primary source "diet". For every primary source in the article that doesn't have an accompanying secondary source showing its relevance, slap an {{npsn}} on it. Anything someone tries to find a non-primary source for and fails, or only finds limited coverage that would not satisfy WP:DUE/WP:BALASP, remove it. I think this would be needed to survive FAR regardless, so the only radical part of this idea is doing it in an aggressive push rather than piecemeal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about the surrounding attractions, sure. A paragraph dedicated entirely to a single attraction not in DC? No. I agree with the OP that it should have been removed. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either of these approaches could be made to work, and I would vote for the one that is more likely to help this article claw its way back firmly into FA category. I do kind of like the raw utility of a quick-list of "Washington" type things that aren't actually in the District, but acknowledge that that can get quickly out of hand. Arlington National Cemetery, sure. (Not that it really matters but Arlington was part of the District when the Lee Mansion was built!) Likewise the FBI, if it moves to the 'burbs. But the NRA in Fairfax or NIST in Maryland? I don't know. Of the list at the top of this topic I can see mentioning the Pentagon and whatever new name FedEx field just got, if directly tied to the Washington Commanders, but everything else just seems - adjacent.
I appreciate the "secondary source" approach but wonder if that will work for anything but tourist attractions. You won't find many that assess different agencies or attractions along the measure of "Washingtonian-ness". JohnInDC (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that as long as something is in D.C., there's a presumption that it's relevant to this article (although not necessarily DUE). The idea of a source establishing D.C. relevance is only for things that lack that presumption.
But my point about secondary sources really runs deeper than the concern that led me to post this section. For instance, § Federal government has
  • one sentence sourced to a primary source
  • one sentence that stealthily has no source
  • one sentence sourced to a tangential source and bordering on SYNTH, which is just regurgitating White House stats anyways
§ Diplomacy has:
  • one sentence sourced to a .gov
  • one sourced to washington.org, run by the local tourism industry
  • one sourced to two self-published works
  • one to populartimelines.com, which does not appear to be an editorially-reviewed source
  • one to a second .gov
So between those two sections, there is not a single source that is independent, reliable, secondary, and actually about D.C. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you know what, here's a breakdown of every source currently in the article:
136 government sources
[4] [8] [21] [25] [29] [34] [38] [42] [46] [50] [54] [58] [62] [66] [70] [74] [78] [79] [83] [87] [91] [96] [100] [104] [108] [112] [116] [120] [124] [128] [132] [136]
40 other non-independent sources, including tourism organizations
[140] [153] [157] [161] [165] [169] [173] [176]
10 historical societies and preservation organizations (degree of reliability and independence varies)
[180] [184] [185] [186]
24 unreliable or questionably reliable third-party sources
[191] [196] [200] [208] [210]
10 (probably-)reliable third-party sources not about D.C.
[214] [218] [220]
168 (probably-)reliable third-party sources actually about D.C.
[224] [228] [232] [236] [240] [248] [252] [256] [260] [264] [268] [272] [276] [387] [388]
I'm sure I made a few mistakes in there, and the boundaries between some of the categories is a bit blurry, but I think overall this paints a picture of what we're up against: With an FA you'd expect most sources to fall into that last category, none from the fourth, and a moderate amount from the others in the cases where those are the best sources. Instead, only 43% of the sources are in that category, and the overuse of non-independent sources allows room for stealthy SYNTH and undue weight.
As you can see, I also uncovered a significant reliability issue among even the independent sources in the course of this audit, but that's easier to fix, and if I have time tomorrow I'll get to replacing or removing those as appropriate. The awkward middle ground of reliable-but-not-independent is where it's a bit tougher, but again I think dramatically cutting back on our usage of such sources would fix a number of this article's problems. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was called in as a experienced FA source reviewer and writer as a consult. What I see from reading the article is that it is currently is trying to be the article on the DMV such as things that are in NoVA or MoCo. The article needs a trim down to a focus on the city itself. It also take a very east of Rock Creek, transplants, and visitors-focus on the city. See the passing line about Go-Go next to paragraph about Dischord Records. Chocolate City and other high-quality RSes about the Black experience in DC are nowhere to be found. I am willing to help, but this is more than surface-level work. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero and Tamzin: - based on the above, does this need to go to WP:FAR? Hog Farm Talk 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I think, yes --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please ping me when it does. Depending on availability, I may try for a save, although it'll be a tall order. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth"

[edit]

There are two instances where the proposed name of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is spelled incorrectly as "Washington, Douglas Commonwealth" (with one s in Douglas). It should be "Douglass" with two s's seeing as the name is for Frederick Douglass, as the article linked states (Reference 07:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both are now corrected. —ADavidB 10:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit. request.

[edit]

The main page of dc.gov shows Washington, DC with a comma and no full stops. Is that reason enough to edit this article? or move the page?

testing redirects:

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing.

--173.67.42.107 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Commonname of the city's full name includes both the comma and the periods - this is the dominant form used by sources, from the Washington Post to international media to local organizations, etc. The officially used nomenclature is relevant, but not a justification for moving the article or editing its name usage. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No section on how Washington D.C. has voted in Presidential Elections.

[edit]

The article says that Washington D.C. has had the vote for Presidential Elections since 1961 - but there is no section how the people of Washington D.C. have voted in Presidential Elections since 1964. Every county has a section giving this information. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:AD82:3AFB:2C62:B4B2 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why this information is not present may be that the right margin (including in the 'Federal voting rights' section) is filled with images, leaving little space for the table that usually accompanies such a section. It would probably fit easily within the History section of the District of Columbia federal voting rights article, though that is a relatively hidden place for it. —ADavidB 15:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found that a presidential election results table was in the Washington, D.C., article as recently as March 2023, and is now located in Elections in the District of Columbia article. —ADavidB 16:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington City" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 16:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington (city)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington city" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"City of DC" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 16:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington,_D.C.&oldid=1278938976"

Follow Lee on X/Twitter - Father, Husband, Serial builder creating AI, crypto, games & web tools. We are friends :) AI Will Come To Life!

Check out: eBank.nz (Art Generator) | Netwrck.com (AI Tools) | Text-Generator.io (AI API) | BitBank.nz (Crypto AI) | ReadingTime (Kids Reading) | RewordGame | BigMultiplayerChess | WebFiddle | How.nz | Helix AI Assistant