Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015
There is a duplicate entry in the section Demographics: "1% is Buddhist" is listed twice.

Current: Of the District's population, 17% is Baptist, 13% is Catholic, 6% is Evangelical Protestant, 4% is Methodist/Pietist, 3% is Episcopalian/Anglican, 3% is Jewish, 2% is Eastern Orthodox, 1% is Pentecostal, 1% is Buddhist, 1% is Adventist, 1% is Lutheran, 1% is Muslim, 1% is Buddhist, 1% is Presbyterian, 1% is Mormon, and 1% is Hindu.[102][e]

Suggested to be changed into: Of the District's population, 17% is Baptist, 13% is Catholic, 6% is Evangelical Protestant, 4% is Methodist/Pietist, 3% is Episcopalian/Anglican, 3% is Jewish, 2% is Eastern Orthodox, 1% is Pentecostal, 1% is Buddhist, 1% is Adventist, 1% is Lutheran, 1% is Muslim, 1% is Presbyterian, 1% is Mormon, and 1% is Hindu.[102][e]

Jorishilhorst (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed they were, that's a mistake. Fixed now.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhap it's a sign to embrace non duality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.148.69 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Nine Capital of the United States
Over the years it took a while for Washington, D.C to be the capital of the United States. Their have been several capitals before it being Washington, D.C. Several of the previous capitals were Philadelphia, Baltimore, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New York City. It depended where the Continental Congress were being held such as where the Articles on Confederation and Constitution were being written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleeyayleen (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2016

 * 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: Do not move.  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. → Washington, DC – No need for the periods. No one's going to type them. Yes, "Washington, DC" already redirect here, but it should be the other way around.  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "D.C." is the proper, formal abbreviation for "District of Columbia".  "DC" is a USPS addressing code and not suitable for an article title.  The existing redirect clears up any confusion.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons mentioned here. APK whisper in my ear  17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As APK mentioned (or at least linked), this same request came up around this time last year, and I don't think anything has changed in the last twelve months. The city government uses periods so Wikipedia should as well.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:00, 16 May 2016 (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.

How come clicking on District of Columbia re-directs to Washington, DC?
There is a difference between Washington and District of Columbia, also the areas of both areas is not exactly the same. Although Washington is the most important part of the District of Columbia there are other land areas that are part of the District such as Midway Islands, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Jarvis as well as former military zones like the Green Zone (2003-2012) and other kinds of Zones like the Canal zone (1904-1979) were administered as part of the District of Columbia. These other Areas are special and even require American citizens to ask the government based in the City of Washington based in the District of columbia in order for permission to enter them in order to gain a Visa to enter these other parts of the District of Columbia lands under its jurisdiction. to have this redirect going like this is implying that they are the same thing when there is clearly a distiction to be made. 2602:306:32D8:24D0:D44C:7EA7:259A:9EEF (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's mistaken. None of those areas are part of the District of Columbia.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * i agree with JohnInDC. see U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. they have never been part of DC. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016
there is a good chance in the next few years d.c will most likely become the 51st state Goldiefash (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Thanks for the comment! However, we can't really do much with this at this point as it's mere speculation, and Wikipedia is based on verifiable information found in reliable sources. If you have a specific change you would like to see to the article, please explain what exactly you want changed (i.e. change [x] to [y]) and why, providing reliable sources for your reasoning. Cheers! -- Irn (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016
The second paragraph of the Demographics section states that the Washington Metropolitan Area is the seventh largest in the U.S., when it is in-fact now the sixth according to Wikipedia's List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas: List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas.

Here is the line which should be changed: "The Washington Metropolitan Area, which includes the District and surrounding suburbs, is the seventh-largest metropolitan area in the United States with an estimated 6 million residents in 2014.[2]"

Peter177 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have included a reliable source. Please read my answer in full next time. I have provided the internal link to the Wikipedia article describing the List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas. This source is already cited in the article. All you need to do is update the text from: "The Washington Metropolitan Area, which includes the District and surrounding suburbs, is the seventh-largest metropolitan area in the United States with an estimated 6 million residents in 2014.[2]" to: "The Washington Metropolitan Area, which includes the District and surrounding suburbs, is the sixth-largest metropolitan area in the United States with an estimated 6 million residents in 2015.[2]" YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE ANY SOURCES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter177 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The current referenced link actually appears to be broken. Sorry, toggling again for now. An internal link to List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas is not enough, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. — Andy W. ( talk ) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion
Either am I visually challenged, or there is no sufficient information about religion and sacred architecture. Who can help? --Kolya (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The demographics section mentions religion. The architecture section mentions the Washington National Cathedral. APK whisper in my ear  20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Montage
This was discussed last year, so I'm just looking for input from other editors about the latest montage. Does everyone prefer it over the previous one? The new one includes sites on or near the National Mall (minus the Washington National Cathedral). The old one includes other areas of the city. There's more to the city than the Mall. APK whisper in my ear  03:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the old one. Or maybe a few old sites and a few new sites? --AW (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Slow to add my voice here, sorry, but yeah, I agree. The new one is nice but kind of skimps on areas outside the Federal district.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the new one is good for a montage of the National Mall, but less so for the whole Washington comma the District of Columbia. I think we'd previously discussed spreading out where the images came from, trying to get a variety of locations across the district. In this new montage I note the Lincoln in visible in two photos, as is the Smithsonian Building. There could also be some discussion of six verses five photos, and I do think less is more in this case, and some of these montages have gone overboard to my eyes. For the old one I have to mention that the Howard Theater is a bit weak as a photograph, and that there's a small overhang where the Douglass House extends below the other photo, so its not like that one's perfect either.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2017

 * 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) Brycehughes (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. → Washington, DC – Washington, DC (without periods), is the common‐name as demonstrated by this ngram; and this ngram demonstrates that DC is the common‐name even in American English. In addition, DC is used on the District of Columbia government page, the United States Department of Justice, the AMA Manual of Style, and the The Chicago Manual of Style. For these reasons, I believe we should move the page. – MartinZ02 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the same reasons as when this same proposal was made last May (see here) and before that in May 2015 (link). JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the proposal that was made last May, you opposed because "'D.C.' is the proper, formal abbreviation for 'District of Columbia'"; however, according to WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also note that in fact the Department of Justice uses "D.C." when not referring to its own postal address (e.g. this press release; this note about the D.C. US Attorney's Office; this job posting); the AP Style guide prescribes the periods; and the two major local newspapers, the Washington Post and Washington Times both use the proper name as well. Also the free weekly City Paper, as well as the NY Times, LA Times and WSJ.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – yes, 2-letter postal codes are common, but they are not the typical or formal abbreviation of states and D.C. in running prose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons mentioned the last time this was brought up for discussion. APK whisper in my ear  04:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons above. Not much else to say, though a moratorium may be in order.  Calidum   04:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is District of Columbia. A redirect solves this non-problem anyway. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: D.C. is an abbreviation for the District of Columbia. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can an uninvolved editor wrap this up, please? Thanks -  JohnInDC (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2017 (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 24 February 2017
198.24.31.111 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Large map
A large map with the caption "Map of city and neighboring jurisdictions" was recently added to this article. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Manassas, Virginia regarding the appropriateness of that map. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

District Versus City
Frequently throughout this article, Washington, DC is referred to as a city, but it is actually a District. It has a District Council not a City Council. Etc...Perhaps this is too pedantic to change the usage throughout the article, but it should probably be noted therein.

I believe Columbia is the District and Washington is the city within that district. That's why the address is Washington, District of Columbia. In practice the city takes up the whole district (I think - various public monuments are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, not the city or district government), but they're two entities, if for no other reason than to be consistent with other US addresses which specify a city or town, then a state or territory. thx1138 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This comes up periodically. The District of Columbia and "Washington" are the same thing; they occupy the same area and have no separate existence from one another.  See (by way of example):  Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_6; Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_5; Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_4; and Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_4.  In addition, Washington is indisputably a "city", and the description is correct.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we get an FAQ in the banner and mention in this there please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Washington is a city and Columbia is a district. So what that they occupy the same area? In New York, Brooklyn Boro occupies the same area as Kings County but there is a boro hall and a county building. Kings County is represented in state government in Albany, and Brooklyn Boro is represented in City Hall in NYC. Formerly the city of Brooklyn was the same as Kings County and they had a city hall and a county government as well. The city of Washington is coextensive with the District of Columbia but they are two different entities. There are city cops and city fire department, because cities have those things...Congress does not collect garbage or write parking tickets.... but you cast your vote in federal elections as a voter in DC, a district separate from the states. You don't vote as a resident of Washington, no city has a vote, you vote as a resident of DC. Leave my wording.DigbyDalton (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you go back and read the prior discussions (the first linked one is pretty comprehensive), it should become clear that there is no separate, legally recognized, "City of Washington". Washington, D.C. is a large collection of people living in one place, so it is a "city".  The term "city" is a perfectly good, understandable and common description of what the place is.  The colloquially described "city" is, however, organized formally as a federal district.  There are no "city" police, no "city" elections - there are DC Police, and elections to the DC Council, and so forth.  There is no law or statute that separately establishes a "city" distinct from the District (at least none that I'm aware of) so it is in fact incorrect (or at the very least, unsourced) to describe a "city" of Washington that is "coterminous" with the District.  They're the same.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd add that, even if it were sourced and accurate, it's not a suitable lead sentence. Rather than being a succinct statement of the subject matter, it is confusing and likely raises a question in the reader's mind; a question which is not resolved on in the text of the article.  So I'd leave it as is even if the assertion were correct, and to the extent there is more to be said about it, cover it in the body, in passing.  ("Technically, Washington DC is two entities, the federal district, and a separately incorporated city that is coterminous with it."  Like that.)  JohnInDC (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could look to Manhattan for advice. The borough is coextensive with New York County. There a simple succinct statement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If it read as it does, then at the end said, "The City of Washington is co-extensive with the District of Columbia" - that would improve on the confusing wording. Except "Washington" and "DC" are the same thing.  They are not co-extensive, but identical.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This from the body of the article: "Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, and created a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia".  There is no "City of Washington" or "City of Georgetown" any more.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While that does seem clear, it's buried deep in the article, and if you read the article on the act itself, it's not as clear. According to that article, Regarding a city of Washington, it stated that "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". I'm not sure what to make of that quotation, but I think it might be useful to include a simple line in the lead explicitly stating that calling DC “Washington” is merely colloquial, and that Washington is not co-extensive with DC but rather an informal name for DC. -- Irn (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a bit confusing, I agree. But the lead now reads, "Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as 'Washington', 'the District', or simply 'D.C.'".  That seems to capture both the formal designation - "District of Columbia" - as well as various other common, or colloquial, terms by which it is called.  Maybe the next paragraph could say something about the "City" not being something distinct from the "District", in connection with the Act of 1871, but even there it seems kind of shoehorned in.  I have trouble imagining that that really answers a question present in most readers' minds as they're reading the first 2 paragraphs of the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks.DigbyDalton (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the formal name is not used as the title of the article. Is there precedence for colloquial national terms for something to be supreme to the true legal governmental entity? It seems like the article title should be changed and the lead sentence should say "the District of Columbia, commonly known as Washington, D.C...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.120.130 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME. JohnInDC (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research
In the lead the talkpage is being used as a reference. Is this not a form of WP:OR? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have twice deleted it because it uses a talk page discussion as a source, but User:Id4abel has twice reverted it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet again, "Can we get an FAQ in the banner and mention in this there please?" Again, that is not a reference, it is what Emir of Wikipedia asked for, with the adjustment for the fact that I do not know how to add a "FAQ in the banner." Abel (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked for an FAQ in the banner, not for anything to be used as a source in the article. If you don't know how to add a FAQ to the banner then ask someone on the talkpage to do it, but don't ruin the article in a desperate attempt to request it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "not a reference" Abel (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it not a reference? It uses the reference template at the end of a piece of information it is attempting to support. Please revert, and we can try to find out how to add a FAQ to the talkpage banner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the problem can only be addressed by adding a FAQ and no other method is valid, but rather that we can't use the talkpage to reference or note something. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:Id4abel, two experienced editors now have asked you to revert your edit. And while you're at it, perhaps you can remove the enormous map you added to the article, which occupies half the page and has tiny overlapping text.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:20 is well before ‎22:59 Abel (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404012136/http://www.alexandriahistorical.org/history.html to http://www.alexandriahistorical.org/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118053203/http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf to http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220124318/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521222438/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/flight.93/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/flight.93/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906034159/http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/ to http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510113118/http://favoritearchitecture.org/afa150.php to http://favoritearchitecture.org/afa150.php
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_us/adult_literacy
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/c/11/rcms2010_11001_county_name_2010.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011085230/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_guns_m.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_guns_m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707055321/http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/ to http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516004214/http://kennedy-center.org/programs/specialevents/honors/about/home.html to http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/specialevents/honors/about/home.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119081010/http://www.marinemarathon.com/MCM_Vault/MCM_History.htm to http://www.marinemarathon.com/MCM_Vault/MCM_History.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511193725/http://www.dcappleseed.org/library/DC%20Appleseed%20Report.FINAL.pdf to http://www.dcappleseed.org/library/DC%20Appleseed%20Report.FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624204729/http://www.dcvote.org/newsletter/spring05.pdf to http://www.dcvote.org/newsletter/spring05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160403161510/http://next.paris.fr/english/paris-a-city-with-an-international-profile/international-action-cooperation/friendship-and-cooperation-agreements/rub_8139_stand_29940_port_18784 to http://next.paris.fr/english/paris-a-city-with-an-international-profile/international-action-cooperation/friendship-and-cooperation-agreements/rub_8139_stand_29940_port_18784
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010331105135/http://dc.gov/index.asp to http://www.dc.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918042009/http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx to http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231041158/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/winter/DC-Winters.htm to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/winter/DC-Winters.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019060441/http://www.marineband.usmc.mil/WHO_WE_ARE/ensembles/marine_band/index.htm to http://www.marineband.usmc.mil/WHO_WE_ARE/ensembles/marine_band/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081210/http://www.navyband.navy.mil/History.shtml to http://www.navyband.navy.mil/History.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830222103/http://www.galatheatre.org/history.php to http://galatheatre.org/history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610144435/http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/travel/10surfacing.html?ref=travel to http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/travel/10surfacing.html?ref=travel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092629/http://www.militarybowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/EMERGENCE_OF_THE_EAGLEBANK_BOWL1.pdf to http://www.militarybowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/EMERGENCE_OF_THE_EAGLEBANK_BOWL1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117031522/http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/pages/dc-home-rule to http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/pages/dc-home-rule
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112065946/http://thehill.com/component/content/article/275-john-fortier/4948-the-dc-colony to http://thehill.com/component/content/article/275-john-fortier/4948-the-dc-colony
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010331105135/http://dc.gov/index.asp to http://www.dc.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbia District
Since "District of Columbia" ends up here, I think that little disambiguation header (that links to the state of Washington and the disambiguation pages for "United States capital" and "Washington") should also mention the historical Columbia District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.253.34 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea; the word order is simply reversed, so it probably should be mentioned. Added. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017
Add "Trinity Washington University" to the list of private universities in Washington DC under the "Education" section. A hyperlink to the university from Wikipedia can be used from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University 208.184.153.1 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little iffy on this, but it is the 6th highest enrollment private school in the district, higher than Johns Hopkins, so adding it. Gallaudet is smaller but notable otherwise, so that didn't enter into the calculation; I was going to remove JHU but that seems to fit as otherwise notable as well. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017
In the section on Economy []

Change from

The gross product of the Washington Metropolitan Area was $435 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest metropolitan economy in the United States.

to

The gross product of the Washington Metropolitan Area was $435 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest metropolitan economy in the United States. Between 2009 and 2016, GDP per capita in Washington, D.C has consistently ranked on the very top among US states. In 2016, at $160,472, its GDP per capita is almost three times as high as that of Massachusetts, which ranked second place in the country. Truthreigns (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Truthreigns (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017
In the section on Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#Economy []

Change from

The gross product of the Washington Metropolitan Area was $435 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest metropolitan economy in the United States.

to

The gross product of the Washington Metropolitan Area was $435 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest metropolitan economy in the United States. Between 2009 and 2016, GDP per capita in Washington, D.C has consistently ranked on the very top among US states. In 2016, at $160,472, its GDP per capita was almost three times as high as that of Massachusetts, which ranked second place in the country. Truthreigns (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Note that Wikipedia pages cannot be used as sources, so I only used the source from bea.gov. Thanks again for your request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Truthreigns (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115081257/http://www.itcdc.com/About-Us/Our-Building.aspx to http://www.itcdc.com/About-Us/Our-Building.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016042143/http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/Briefs/images/DCPIBrief_CrimeByBlockFINAL_2.pdf to http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/Briefs/images/DCPIBrief_CrimeByBlockFINAL_2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115081252/http://dmv.dc.gov/node/156462 to http://dmv.dc.gov/node/156462
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928205737/http://www.consortium.org/consortium/index.cfm/students/finding-resources/dc-tuition-assistance-grant-program/ to http://www.consortium.org/consortium/index.cfm/students/finding-resources/dc-tuition-assistance-grant-program/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122121841/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/hm10.htm to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/hm10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801205217/http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5749 to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5749

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002180131/http://www.dcfpi.org/national-health-care-reform-is-a-win-for-dc to http://www.dcfpi.org/national-health-care-reform-is-a-win-for-dc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202114846/http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Individuals-Living-or-Working-in-U.S.-Possessions to https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Individuals-Living-or-Working-in-U.S.-Possessions
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119043507/http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Strategic+Documents/School+Opening+Report/2010-2011+School+Opening+Report to http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Strategic+Documents/School+Opening+Report/2010-2011+School+Opening+Report
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627045418/http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Bicycles+and+Pedestrians/Bicycles to http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Bicycles+and+Pedestrians/Bicycles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119183510/http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/DC10.pdf to http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/DC10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017
Error in the article. Bestest-ever (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804230047/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab23.pdf to https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab23.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228053245/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0659.pdf to https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0659.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228053242/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0687.pdf to https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0687.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Change every instance referring to congress as "the congress" to simply "congress".

This is how Congress is typically referred to and using the phrasing "the congress" is awkward and clunky.

Velocibadgery (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

D.C. no, A.C.T. yes?
I'm here just because i want understand why Australian Capital Territory has its own page and District of Columbia no: they look like as the same thing. --Wind of freedom (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The same reason San Francisco and San Francisco County don't have separate articles - they are legally, politically, and geographically the same entity. Same with New Orleans and Orleans Parish. And yes, same with Washington and the District of Columbia - there is no distinction between the two.
 * On the other hand, Canberra and the ACT are not the same entity. The ACT contains towns and area other than the political borders of the city of Canberra, I believe. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"All three branches of the federal government"
To head off a potential edit war, I'm commenting now on this issue. The U.S. Government consists of three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch (Congress) is located in Washington, DC. The President (executive) officially resides in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court, also located in Washington, DC, is the head of the judicial branch and indeed is the only federal court the existence of which is established in the Constitution. Various occupants of those offices may from time to time leave town, but the official location of all three branches (as well as the buildings that house them) is Washington, DC. JohnInDC (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104214726/http://www.nbm.org/about-us/about-the-museum/ to http://www.nbm.org/about-us/about-the-museum/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Bug in infobox
In the infobox, the section Government contains a drop-down list, which opens when clicking on "show" next to its heading Council members. However, the latter overlaps with the button "show" – which is not a particularly pleasant sight for an aesthetically trained eye. Personally, I am sorry to say, though, that I do not know how to resolve this issue.--Siebi (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you leave the title blank, it will default to the word "List", which fits. Not a fix though.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106040826/http://www.pepco.com/welcome/ to http://www.pepco.com/welcome/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018
Why is this...

"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and deliberately crashed the plane into the Pentagon in nearby Arlington, Virginia. United Airlines Flight 93, believed to be destined for Washington, D.C., crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers tried to recover control of the plane from hijackers."

...in the Civil Rights and Home Rule Era section? The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the Washington DC, the location, it's history, civil rights, or the home rule era; it is about the Pentagon in Arlington Virginia. The second sentence only has a presumed relationship with Washington DC; it is about the 9/11 attacks and the crash in Pennsylvania. This fragment of unrelated information should be removed. 75.173.122.38 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree, and I removed it. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018
Washington DC has hit a population of 700,000. Change population from 693,972 to 700,000

https://ggwash.org/view/66649/dcs-population-hits-700000 https://dc.gov/release/washington-dc-population-closing-700000 http://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/dcs-population-hits-700000/65-522662009 https://www.popville.com/2018/02/dc-is-now-home-to-at-least-700000-residents/ Ringkampk (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We use official Census sources for population estimates.  APK  whisper in my ear  05:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photoset
Hey everyone!

As some of y'all may have noticed, I've recently just been rather superficially editing the article with image replacements/reorganization, topical info addition, etc. One aspect I really thought was lacking was the current photoset in the infobox: cathedral photo is dark, both the Capitol and Smithsonian photos are taking from their least iconic PoV's, and the white house image is a bit of a zoom out. I have no problem with the photo (so I don't mean to step on toes if anyone's taken them), but I've put together a tentative montage for the infobox.

The images I chose all are of exceptional quality, good view perspectives, and, in my opinion, a more matching visual representation for the type of iconography that DC is known for. An added benefit would be switching from a flat montage photo to a montage template, which will allow for future ease in changing the infobox when deemed necessary.

I look forward to hear what the you guys think! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I like your pics but worry that it’s too - Federal. Prior collages have included more local stuff, indeed I thought that the current one did too and only realized that it didn’t just now. I see it was changed without discussion in this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington,_D.C.&diff=748635381&oldid=748372737 - and would like to take this opportunity to talk about what kinds of images the montage should show. (For the record I prefer the one from before). JohnInDC (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely get what you mean by "too federal", but to counter that I'd say that its not so much about the subject of the images but more so their relevance and notability. If you visit the London and Paris pages, for example, their infobox montages are made up of their most iconic landmarks (for Paris: the Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame de Paris, the Louvre, and the Arc de Triomphe; for London: City of London skyline, Trafalgar Square, London Eye, Tower Bridge and Big Ben). These cities, arguably more so than DC, have numerous notable neighborhoods, squares, gardens, etc. of great notability or fame, but the most internationally-recognized landmarks are put in the infobox. Cities much like DC (meaning planned capital cities), such as Brasilia and Canberra, exclusively show either national government buildings and cultural landmarks (memorials, cathedrals, etc), largely due to those cities primarily serving as political and cultural, rather than economic centers. Ideally there would be space for a montage that showed the diversity of the DC landscape from Dupont Circle to RFK Stadium to NoMa and beyond, but with the limited space I am a firm believer that quality images of iconic, recognizable landmarks should inhabit the infobox. Given that DC is a city noted for its political and cultural significance (AKA it does not have a notable skyline, famous financial district, skyscraper, or other landmarks of the sort that might characterize cities like NYC or Chicago), I think the greatest relevance is to display the iconic federal buildings and national monuments, as they are without a doubt DC's visual callsigns. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's let folks weigh in. Those are indeed iconic, but at the same time the District has its fair share of local iconography, and I'm not entirely sure that displaying just what people in the main expect to see in an article about DC is the correct approach.  Separately, I agree with the editor who tagged the article as now having too many photos and am going through to remove what appears to be a bit of extra clutter.  It's helpful to bear in mind that this article had achieved Featured Article status, and that large scale changes probably warrant a bit of discussion first.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've whittled down the photo count quite a bit, giving reasons most of the time why I removed the ones I did. There have also been a lot of photos replaced recently too, without any real comment or rationale, and TBH in some cases I liked the prior photos better.  We can discuss any and all of these choices - and should, both what I've just done, what went immediately before that, and going forward.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said the last time this was discussed, I prefer images related to the federal government as well as local landmarks. DC is more than just the National Mall and surrounding buildings. I also think a few of the photos that were replaced are not an improvement. It also became too cluttered with images (at least it did on my computer).  APK  whisper in my ear  19:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior discussions (cursory search): One, Two, Three.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links to the prior discussions: it was helpful to read over them. Tough discussion here, because it's not possible to include every great landmark in DC, so in my opinion it's important to pick the ones which do the best job at showcasing a variety of them, i.e. I don't think they should all be of places on the National Mall. While I think the proposed montage is an improvement in some ways, I think a few things could be changed. Regarding which pictures are included, I think the way New York City does it is nice, as it shows landmarks that aren't as frequented by tourists and ones which may not immediately come to mind when picturing the city, such as the Unisphere in Queens and the Headquarters of the United Nations. What do others think about including a picture of Rock Creek Park and another cultural landmark in the city, maybe Union Station? I think the current picture of the Capitol in the article is too zoomed in, but the proposed one is too zoomed out in my opinion. Both versions don't do a great job showcasing the Washington Monument: a picture closer-up might be better. If we're going to keep the picture of the Jefferson Memorial, having one showing a little bit of the Tidal Basin with the cherry blossoms would be nice, but I think one of the war memorials would be better suited to contrast with the Lincoln. The National Cathedral one would be better if it were more evenly lit, but it is definitely better than the previous picture, which was too dark. I think it might also be helpful to increase the size of the montage in the infobox so the individual images are easier to look at and possibly to include one or two smaller pictures. Maybe not as big as New York City's is, but somewhere in between. I do think the proposed montage might be a little too large vertically, however. I don't mean to be so critical: I'm just trying to make suggestions. I would also like to take a moment to thank Cristiano Tomás for his substantial edits outside of images on this article! –Daybeers (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I should have recognized Cristiano's efforts from the get-go. JohnInDC (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just remembered this discussion. Is it possible to make more headway on this? –Daybeers (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

City of Washington
I added this edit:

•••

Washington, D.C., formally the City of Washington and the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington or D.C.

...and it was reverted. The user who reverted it recommended that I take it to the talk page before adding it, so let's discuss. I propose adding the City of Washington and that it is a Federal City to the article given that it is about both Washington and the District of Columbia.

-- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Check the section right above this one. It's not that it's about "both" Washington and the District; Washington and the District are the exact same political entity. Also, that source is inadequate to say that it's "formally" (meaning officially) the City of Washington; it was written back when the District and City were different entities. They aren't now. They haven't been for over a century. --Golbez (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871's article: The Act did not establish a new city or city government within the District. Regarding a city of Washington, it stated that "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". In the present day, the name "Washington" is commonly used to refer to the entire District, but DC law continues to use the definition of the city of Washington as given in the Organic Act.




 * that seems to indicate that there are some differences between the City of Washington and the District of Columbia. Even if it isn't, I think the relationship between the two would best resemble a consolidated city-county, except it would be a "consolidated city-district". Even the consolidated city-county article includes Washington, D.C. as one where it says, "Washington, D.C. – While the District of Columbia is a federal district and not a county, the city has had a consolidated municipal government since 1871. Prior to then, Washington, Georgetown, and the unincorporated County of Washington were separate jurisdictions within the District of Columbia. Prior to 1846, when it was retroceded to Virginia, the south bank of the District of Columbia was the County of Alexandria (now the independent City of Alexandria and the County of Arlington)."


 * The talk sections, Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 6 and Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 4 also point out that Washington is still technically a city.


 * -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising these issues here. This comes up from time to time.  As Golbez notes, the District of Columbia and the City of Washington - once separate entities - are now coterminous; and to the extent that the "City of Washington" was ever a discrete, separate, formal entity - it's gone now.  Indeed the Organic Act of 1871 revoked the charter of the City - wiped it out as a separate legal entity.  The two are now the same, and they're both subsumed under the single name, and government, of the "District of Columbia".  You can of course still find an occasional anachronistic reference to the "city" as an apparent separate entity, but it's at best misleading and confusing to say, in the first line of the article, that Washington, DC is still "formally" the City of Washington.  More importantly, it's synthesis to boot.  To include this we'd need a recent, viable, direct source that says indicates that the "City of Washington" is a formal name of the political entity known and governed as the "District of Columbia".  JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What about this code from 1981 that references both the District of Columbia and the City of Washington? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it was first enacted in 1905, which hardly gives it great currency. To me it's just an atavistic anomaly.  (Kind of like the way you can still find "Bell System" manhole covers here and there in town.)  Second, as I said before, if we're going to say that the District of Columbia is also formally known as the "City of Washington", we really need something current & present day that - well, sets forth that as an alternative formal name.  It's WP:Synthesis to cobble together bits and pieces of stray - and old - information to arrive at that otherwise unstated & unsourced conclusion.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This page from a D.C. government website uses the words, "federal city". Oddly enough, it's used to refer to the district itself, so it may help strengthen my other proposal. That proposal being "...I think the relationship between the two would best resemble a consolidated city-county, except it would be a "consolidated city-district". Even the consolidated city-county article includes Washington, D.C. as one where it says, "Washington, D.C. – While the District of Columbia is a federal district and not a county, the city has had a consolidated municipal government since 1871. Prior to then, Washington, Georgetown, and the unincorporated County of Washington were separate jurisdictions within the District of Columbia. Prior to 1846, when it was retroceded to Virginia, the south bank of the District of Columbia was the County of Alexandria (now the independent City of Alexandria and the County of Arlington)."" -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My lay reading of that is that it applies to the areas of the District outside the City when the City was still a separate entity; after all, 1-107 defines the "Limits of the City of Washington", and 1-104 declares the District as the successor corporation to the cities of Washington and Georgetown, as well as the County of Washington. So I would say your linked law is not sufficient to overrule the article, we'd need some substantial further analysis. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need analysis - which would just lead us into a morass of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. What we need is a reliable source that says that, in 2018, the District of Columbia is also formally, officially, known as the City of Washington.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The government website that I provided above states that the District of Columbia is a federal city, which was one of the things I was proposed to add to the article. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Washington, DC, is federally chartered by the Organic Act, as the "District of Columbia".  And a "District" is what Section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to create.  The District of Columbia is, by law, a federal district.  Washington, D.C. is also a "city" in the common sense of the word, so it can be spoken colloquially of as a "federal city", but that's all I read that DC page to be saying.  "DC is a city, but one that's inextricably bound up with the federal government.  A federal city."  I don't think it's any kind of formal designation or definition.
 * Am I missing the point entirely? JohnInDC (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To save a bunch of clicking and tabbing, here's the quote: "As the nation's capital, the District of Columbia is a federal city and its complex economic and policy touch points with the national government have created both successes and distinctive challenges. The District's deep economic ties to the federal government bring both benefits and costs. Stable federal employment can provide an anchor during recessions, much like it has in the last few years, buttressing the city's office market and cushioning sectors like retail that are sensitive to residents' disposable income."  JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that the "City of Washington" and the "District of Columbia" are distinct entities (Code § 1–107), but the City of Washington has no self-government, and is governed by the government of the District of Columbia (Code § 1–102). Napleabeau (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, that doesn't make it clear at all. This is the same logic that causes some people to say the United States is a corporation, not a country. What you'd require is reasonable sourcing saying so, not a lay interpretation of a single law. --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Each of the entities deserve a separate article. 24.51.63.14 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. First, there is no "City of Washington" any more.  There is only the "District of Columbia", commonly known in the US and throughout the world as "Washington, DC".  The very statutes you all are citing say (paraphrased), "DC succeeds to all authority of the defunct corporations of Washington and Georgetown".  That's point one.  Point two is, as Golbez says, it's not for us to read the primary sources, arrive at our own uncommon interpretation, and begin changing articles wholesale based on it.  We need third party reliable sources to say that the "City of Washington" and the "District of Columbia" are, today, separate legal entities and that it's incorrect to wrap them up together as "Washington, DC".  So please, as has been noted on both your Talk pages, don't continue to make this change without consensus from other Wikipedia editors.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The "City of Washington" there is as much as there is the "District of Columbia", so much that it is mentioned at the end of various submissions of federal government documents (Doc. 1), (Doc. 2).Napleabeau (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, see, I read those documents to mean that "Washington" and "District of Columbia" are one and the same. That's the trouble (well, one of them) with primary sources!  JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure I'd place too much stock in the Washington City Paper as a definitive source of historical research and reportage, and this particular example concludes precisely the opposite of what you're claiming, this is the kind of reliable, third party source you'd want to have for the assertion that the "City of Washington", and "Georgetown", and the "District of Columbia" are all separate, cognizable entities today. JohnInDC (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I see the discussions remain the same. Napleabeau (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Library size
The picture caption for the Library of Congress in the education section states that the library is the largest in the world. The Wikipedia list of largest libraries says otherwise, however, the relevant page says it claims to be the largest library. Wouldn't it be better to use this phrasing in this case, or say it "is one of the largest libraries in the world", given contradictory information, even on Wikipedia, or at least provide further clarification with this information Shadowssettle (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering if there is any consensus about this, there seems to be discrepancies. Maybe this is wrong, or maybe this is referring to the size of an actual library building, compared to a library system. Anyway, some clarity would be sincerely appreciated Shadowssettle(talk) 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018
Under the Culture > Sports subheading, the article states that DC United plays at RFK Stadium. As of this month, they now play at Audi Field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Field) which does have it's own Wikipedia entry. Thanks, 38.140.202.122 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not cite itself. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... the internet? You essentially said "we should keep false info because it has a source attached". I mean, yes, we expect people making statements to source them, but in this case they were pointing out an error in the article that they were unable to directly fix. Your response just seems rude and unhelpful, that's all. Furthermore, a momentary glance at the linked article - which would have taken far less time than your response did - would have shown multiple sources stating this fact. I just don't understand why you bothered with this statement when it took so much more time than actually vetting and making the change. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for actioning the request, Oh wait, you didn't, you just into drive-by criticism :P -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh... again, maybe you're much more into complaining than doing, but if you had actually looked at the article, you would see that someone else already fixed it. I couldn't "action the request" because it had already been actioned. Also, drive-by? Really? I've been active on this article for fifteen years, how fucking dare you call anything I do here "drive-by". --Golbez (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Happy editing. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Corcoran Gallery of Art
.. seems to be closed to me. Can someone (who has the rights) pull it from the museums sections? Thanks! Lino Wirag (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018
I think a citation should be presented to justify the "formally the District of Columbia" portion of the opening sentence. 38.104.237.237 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is cited further in the article and per MOS:LEADCITE, we generally don't add citations in the lead.  APK  whisper in my ear  18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why no District of Columbia article?
Has the decision been made that DC doesn't deserve its own article? I had occasion to refer to the former Virginia part of DC (Slavery in the United States) and am astonished that there’s no article on the District. deisenbe (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is the article for the District of Columbia. Washington & DC are one in the same. While DC once included separate cities of Washington and Georgetown, the district has long been consolidated into one political entity.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This comes up periodically. The District of Columbia and "Washington" are the same thing; they occupy the same area and have no separate existence from one another.  See (by way of example):  Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_7; Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_6; Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_5; Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_4; and Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_4  JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am just a random page stalker throwing in my two cents. I concur that "Washington D.C." and the "District of Columbia" refer to the same place, therefore, a District of Columbia page would be redundant and unhelpful. As with many municipal jurisdictions (is Washington, D.C. also a municipal jurisdiction?), its boundaries have changed over time. Editing articles on the history of a city must account for annexations. For example, New York City before 1900 did not include Brooklyn. Walt Whitman lived in Brooklyn as a child, but he did not live in New York City at that time. In the case of the history of Washington D.C., editing must account for a deannexation. George Washington owned a townhouse in Alexandria, VA. Alexandria, VA at some point was included within the bounds of Washington, D.C. To evaluate the claim that "Washington owned a townhouse within Washington, D.C., but south of the Potomac River," would require other facts, but this is a situation similar to other cities. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You’re missing my point. I have no problem with DC and Washington being one and the same today. But for decades they weren’t. Different boundaries and different legal systems. To say D.C. doesn’t deserve an article is like saying there should not be an article on Mosquito County, Florida because the county no longer exists.


 * Error in the above: Alexandria was at one time part of D.C., but never part of Washington, D.C. deisenbe (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a more apt comparison would be whether or not we should have an article on the county or city of San Francisco before they merged. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How would the new and entirety separate article differ from this one or History of Washington, D.C.? JohnInDC (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The difference regarding San Francisco is that San Francisco County never had any other incorporated towns than the city of San Francisco. Not true of DC.
 * I could see the District being a section within the History of Washington, D.C., though I think it deserves its own article.
 * The District came into existence about 1790, but Washington not until 1802.
 * 12 boundary stones of the District are in Virginia. (Boundary Markers of the Original District of Columbia)
 * As of 1801 DC included five political entities (see Washington County, D.C.). How can anyone say that DC and Washington were the same thing at that time?
 * I've said my piece on this and have nothing else to contribute. But I think that by limiting District of Columbia to a redirect to Washington, D.C., and not having an article on "the Original District of Columbia", as nicely put above, you're doing a disservice to those interested in antebellum U.S. history. deisenbe (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Deisenbe and JohnInDc:


 * I have changed my mind. I now believe there should be a distinct article for the District of Columbia. My original position was based on the assumption that the District of Columbia and the federal city of Washington are coextensive, and have always been coextensive, even as those boundaries contracted. This is an incorrect assumption. According to Carl Abbott (1999, p. 26) (italics mine):"Washington, D.C., was George Washington's city on George Washington's river. The city gained its name in September 1791, when the three commissioners who had been appointed to manage the construction of a federal capital announced that the new federal district would be 'Columbia' and the federal city within that district would be 'Washington.'"


 * Washington was the federal city contained within the District of Columbia in 1791. Furthermore, there were unincorporated parts of D.C. on the Maryland side, including Fort Totten (Washington, D.C.) and Anacostia. The part of D.C. on the Virginia side was Alexandria County, which itself, as Deisenbe has already pointed out, had at least five municipalities, most notably, Alexandria (city). I was also incorrect in believing that Alexandria had been annexed to Washington in the 1790s. So the article about the District of Columbia would document the differences between the federal district and the federal city over time. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Only two of the five political entities were in Virginia: Alexandria and Arlington. Another was Georgetown, which "remained a separate municipality until 1871, when the United States Congress created a new consolidated government for the whole District of Columbia. A separate act passed in 1895 specifically repealed Georgetown's remaining local ordinances and renamed Georgetown's streets to conform with those in the City of Washington." (from Georgetown (D.C.)) The other two I don't know what they were. Washington County and the city of Washington? deisenbe (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well - the District of Columbia was established in 1790, covering a space that enclosed the pre-existing towns of Washington and Alexandria. Over time the boundaries of the District changed, and, came to be coterminous with the City of Washington.  All of this is covered in the current article, and in greater detail at District of Columbia retrocession and History of Washington, D.C..  Perhaps there is more to be said about the way in which the boundaries of the District changed over time, and how the municipalities within it were absorbed and consolidated.  If so I suggest adding that material to one of the other two articles, perhaps renaming the result in an appropriate fashion.  Otherwise - the District of Columbia exists today, as the same fractional diamond that it became after retrocession in 1846.  Whatever the new or revised article is going to be called, it can't be "the District of Columbia" - this is that article.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "Municipal History of the District of Columbia". JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC: I just read District of Columbia retrocession and it's quite good. I'll read History of Washington, D.C.. The Washington, D.C. article as it is currently written combines two jurisdictions that don't cover the same territory. Duval County, Florida and Jacksonville, Florida are now coextensive after annexation, but there are still separate articles for the county and city. By analogy it seems like there should be separate articles for city and federal district, since they have not always been identical.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Duval and Jacksonville are mostly but not completely the same. Some communities like Baldwin, Florida and Jacksonville Beach, Florida opted out. deisenbe (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I just can't see my way clear to having different articles for "Washington, DC" and "District of Columbia". They are co-terminous today, and the terms are synonymous in modern usage.  (See WP:COMMONNAME.)  Again, an historical article - or a separate one, suitably titled (like, "District of Columbia (federal district)" if that's the kind of thing you have in mind).  But not a separate article called "District of Columbia".  That should always be a redirect to this page.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would expand the Retrocession article to include the history of the separate municipalities once included within the District of Columbia, rename it as above, and then make "Retrocession" a redirect to the part of the expanded article that deals with the issue. This strikes me as the proper way to deal with the historical distinctions between the District of Columbia and the separate entities that it once encompassed.  COMMONNAME would preclude appropriating "District of Columbia" for this new or expanded article.  (As an aside, it is interesting that to the extent there is any vernacular distinction between "Washington" and "District of Columbia", it is to use the former to refer to the federal aspect, and the latter, the local; which is precisely opposite the genesis of the two.)  JohnInDC (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * JohnInDc: All good points, particularly the one about contemporary local usage. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

People have repeatedly given inaccurate analogies. No, it's not like Duval County and Jacksonville, because those are separate political entities. Washington and the District are the same entity. They are not merely coterminous with each other, they ARE each other. The only apt comparison is with a consolidated city-county, like San Francisco or Denver. So there is absolutely zero point to a separate article for the District because it would be exactly the same as this one, past 1871. So at best you can argue for a separate article for "District of Columbia (before 1871)". --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * An article on "District of Columbia (before 1871)" would be great. deisenbe (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ... as a link to an updated History of Washington, D.C. article? —ADavidB 09:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If I put in a stub for District of Columbia (before 1871), is someone going to delete it? deisenbe (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't do anything about it, but I can't guarantee "no one"! I'd suggest starting it in your sandbox and tweaking it until it was substantial enough to move to article space.  I'd also suggest making it different enough from the existing articles that cover about the same terrain, to insulate it against the criticism that it's duplicative.  If it just mashes together existing material and then adds a bit here and there, it may be a problem.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m not the best person to write the article. Remember this all started, for me, because I was _looking_ for an article on the District. My proposal was a stub of no more than a paragraph. deisenbe (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems if I don't do it, nobody will. So I've put several hours into the following. Is it offering a perspective not in the History of Washington, D.C. article? In other words, should I continue? To remind you how this all started, I was _looking_ a few weeks ago for an article on the antebellum District, not Washington, and was quite surprised to find that at present there is none. deisenbe (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a start. It needs references, and a bit of adjustment to the tone (it needs to be a bit more "just the facts"), and references.  I suggest that you find a sub-user page to put this on, where others can work on it - rather than the Talk page of a related article, which isn't really for that purpose.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with JohnInDC: please move this to your sandbox or other User page. A Talk page is not the space for creating a new article. Also, I think there shouldn't be a dab page for it, just a main link to the article in the History section, and possibly a hatnote. –Daybeers (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I won’t do any more on it here, you’re right this isn’t the place, but the reason I put it here is that I didn’t want to put in time on something that would get a dismissive reaction, which doesn’t seem to be the case. deisenbe (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An article on the "District of Columbia before 1871" has been created and can be found at District of Columbia (until 1871). I seriously question whether the article is, or can be made, sufficiently different from what's already here to warrant a separate article, and have raised the issue at that article Talk page for anyone who'd like to weigh in.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pew study display
In the demographics section, the Pew study displays weirdly. Could someone with the requisite expertise prevent it from taking up so many lines in collapsed form, and maybe right-justify it? - Sdkb (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

History: Modern Era?
The History section of this article stops abruptly in 1975. What do others here think about adding a brief subsection to the History section covering the time periods between 1975 and 2019?

Other articles about cities seem to do this. For example, San_Francisco explains in a few sentences how in the 90s and 2000s San Francisco experienced a few economic and population booms due to the influx of tech companies--something that materially impacted all facets of the city in its modern era. D.C. has certainly changed from 1975 to 2019, so this subsection could cover that.

Cheers, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

FORMERLY the Disctrict of Columbia ??
Does the D.C. in Washington, D.C. no longer stand for District of Columbia? 71.226.227.121 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Formerly" is a different word from "Formally". --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned! Time for a new pair of reading glasses.  Thank you.  71.226.227.121 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)