Talk:List of traffic circles in Washington, D.C.

Untitled
This page can still use some work. I made it as a result of a discussion with my co-workers, we had thought every circle was named after a general. We were wrong. Perhaps I will merge this with Squares in Washington, since they often serve a similar purpose.--Niro5 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial Circle
What about the cirlce around the Lincoln Memorial? Does that count? SDC 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hesitant to add either the Lincoln Memorial circle or Observatory circle because neither of them acts like a traffic circle as described in the link at the top of the page. I purposely did not include either of these circles or some others (like Kalorama Circle) for that reason. Let me know if you agree .--Niro5 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By the capitalization of "Circle" in the article's title, I took it to refer to any roadway named "Circle" which is why I added Observatory Circle, but not The Ellipse for example. I don't believe the circle around the Lincoln Memorial is named and so wouldn't qualify. It also doesn't for a complete circle. This standard also has the advantage of avoiding the dozens of tiny, unnamed traffic circles around the city (e.g. 3rd & G, SW) not to mention the hundreds of circular driveways. --dm (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at a map, I see it is officially "Lincoln Memorial Circle" and thus am adding it. --dm (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanton Square?
I don't think Stanton Square should be on here, since it's technically not a roundabout - it's a square. Plus according to Google, it's called Stanton Park, and there is no street called Stanton Square - I think the actual road is called Seward Square. But if we add Stanton/Seward Square, we'd have to add Lincoln, Franklin, Farragut, McPherson, etc. Maybe they could be a separate section in this article for squares? Thoughts? --Awiseman 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and I removed it. I removed Mt Vernon Square from this page for similar reasons. —dm (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After extended time for discussion, consensus in favor of the move has become clear. BD2412 T 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

List of circles in Washington, D.C. → List of traffic circles in Washington, D.C. – For clarity GnocchiFan (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Writehydra (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (STRONGLY) per nom, and per WP:ASTONISH. The current title seems like it's talking about the shape. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy support, clearly a confusing name. Probably could have been boldly moved. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to, but the article seems to have been at this title for a long time, so wasn't sure if I was ignorant of some road-related Wikipedia style convention. (FWIW, "traffic circles" still feels odd to me as a Brit...) GnocchiFan (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Proposal is much clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. These are named circles (Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, etc.), like streets or squares elsewhere. They are usually not simple traffic devices. They are moderately large and usually have parkland, often with large commemorative sculptures. One contains the entire Naval Observatory and Vice President's mansion. Another contains the Lincoln Memorial. Aside from that, the current more concise title would simply redirect back to the unnecessarily longer title, so there's not much point. We have List of squares in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Malta, Florence, Saint Petersburg, etc., as well as Squares in London and Squares in Paris and really no one thinks they're referring to shapes. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per @Station1; it's my understanding that the "circles" in D.C. are are more representative of parks or neighborhoods in the city. Modern "traffic circle" car lanes may or may not surround the circles today. Barney Circle, for example, is a neighborhood and former traffic circle according to its article. The article seems to be a list of the historic circles from the original city plan rather a list of any current traffic devices. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Barney Circle, the neighbourhood, is not a circle at all. It is a neighbourhood named for the traffic circle. But the traffic circle is still a traffic circle. Looking at the articles linked, nearly all of the them describe their subject up front as a traffic circle. Two say roundabout instead. The outliers are:
 * Dave Thomas Circle - which is not a circle at all, nor an official name. Dave Thomas Circle is the unofficial nickname for a small triangular block.
 * Truxton Circle, like Barney Circle is a neighbourhood named after the eponymous traffic circle, so yes, a traffic circle.
 * The Lincoln Memorial Circle roadway is indeed an exception. This is a ring road. ETA: Actually no, it is a traffic circle with a monument in the middle. Much like the BFI IMAX in Waterloo, London. such large roundabouts are not uncommon worldwide. But then, are beltways also circles? Seems like a problem with the inclusion criteria. This one is much smaller than a beltway, of course, and there are some very large roundabouts in the world that are called roundabouts (a handful of bigger ones than this can be found in London alone). If included it would need a line of explanation - which it has.
 * Observatory Circle is not a circle at all, it is an arc detouring around the US Naval Observatory. For some reason this one has a second stub page, Observatory Circle (Washington, D.C.). I'll say more below.
 * Scott Circle was formerly called a square. It is a neighbourhood that took its changed name from a traffic circle. So yes, a traffic circle.
 * Now the page is a list. Lists must have inclusion criteria, and this one states up front:
 * So this should be a list of the 36 roundabouts or traffic circles. It is not a list of neighbourhoods called "X Circle" - especially where they are not even circles. It is a list of the 36 roundabouts in the district, and those that are not roundabouts should not be on the list. That is scope creep caused by the imprecision in the title. The fact of this scope creep shows that the current title does not provide sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. It does not meet WP:CONCISE. However an alternative that would provide that precision, would follow the text in the lead, and would be exactly the same number of words as the current title would be List of roundabouts in Washington, D.C.. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think "List of roundabouts in Washington, D.C." is particularly notable or what people want when they open this article. The interesting and unique things about these "L'Enfant Plan circles and plazas" platted for the city in the L'Enfant Plan are their usage as public parks and neighborhood anchors, not the car traffic aspects.
 * "These "grand avenues" intersected with the north–south and east–west streets at circles and rectangular plazas that would later honor notable Americans and provide open space."
 * List criteria should be updated to reflect the historical L'Enfant Plan circles, and others which have been developed in the same manor in the years since the city was originally planned.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or if you are saying it is not notable, perhaps AfD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A title which specifies that these are "roundabouts" or "traffic circles" is inappropriately reductive and carries an implicit POV that the sole or overriding purpose of these features is the transit of automobile traffic. That was indeed (and unfortunately) the prevailing view in the 1940s and 1950s, when city planners sliced roadways through several circles in an effort to prioritize car traffic. But the pendulum of D.C. urban planning swung back in the other direction, and today the circles serve many purposes -- they are public spaces, historical monuments, neighborhoods, parks -- not merely traffic circles. The inclusion criteria is not "36 roundabouts", it's more like "urban features in Washington D.C. referred to as "circles" (despite not always being circular), with roots in the intersecting avenues of the L'Enfant plan, since developed into important public spaces and neighborhoods throughout the city". Jfire (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the page is not about what it claims to be (i.e the 36 roundabouts in the district), there would be questions as to whether it meets WP:LISTN. You are proposing changing the inclusion criteria and scope of the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the page is not about what it claims to be (i.e the 36 roundabouts in the district), there would be questions as to whether it meets WP:LISTN. You are proposing changing the inclusion criteria and scope of the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * support. current title is amusingly unclear. ltb d l (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. I expect there are a lot of circles in Washington, D.C. Most of them aren't traffic circles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per clarity and so it’s not confusing (although an article about circles in Washington woulda been cool…). DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.