Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 8

City of Washington vs. District of Columbia
Other articles on Wikipedia give conflicting information:

Some say Congress still treats the original City of Washington as a distinct area within the District. Another article says the City of Washington no longer exists, and it's all the District. Are the City of Washington and the District of Columbia coterminous? Is there really no such thing as the City of Washington anymore? Or is the City of Washington used only to refer to a specific part of DC?

In the olden days, were the City of Washington and Georgetown considered separate from Washington County, or were they the only two incorporated municipalities within Washington County (prior to the Organic Act)? 71.226.227.121 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * Which articles say Congress treats the city as a distinct area?
 * Correct, the two were merged in 1871.
 * No, they are not coterminous, because that would mean both entities exist. They do not - only the District exists. (This is not a purely pedantic point. The City of Philadelphia, and the County of Philadelphia, both exist, and are coterminous with each other. But, the City of San Francisco and the County of San Francisco are not coterminous because they are literally the same political entity.)
 * Correct, there is no such thing as the city of Washington anymore.
 * The City of Washington was one of three cities in the district, the other two being Alexandria and Georgetown. Nowadays it is used to refer to the whole district.
 * I believe Georgetown and Washington were cities within Washington County, but that is just my guess, I don't know. However, our article on Washington County states that the 1801 organic act specifies it was all parts of the district east of the Potomac, so that presumably includes Georgetown and Washington.
 * Standard disclaimer that I am not a scholar on this, this is just what I've picked up from Wikipedia and my own research over the years. I'd be happy to be shown to be incorrect, but this does appear to be how things are. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article: District of Columbia (until 1871) seems to refer to Washington, Georgetown, and unincorporated Washington County as three separate entities, implying, but not outright saying, that the cities of Washington and Georgetown were independent of Washington County.
 * Wikipedia article: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, under EFFECT, read the second paragraph: The Act did not establish a new city or city government within the District. [So, it seemingly replaced and effectively abolished the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and Washington County as independent entities. Instead of a merger, it seems to be a removal of lower tier government within the already-existing district.]  Then it continues: 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.  [Now, the Act abolished the former City of Washington as an incorporated entity, but, according to the Wikipedia article at least, the area of DC that was once the incorporated City of Washington is still known as "the City of Washington."]
 * Not trying to split hairs, but how is SF any different than Phila.? Consolidated government, yes, but I believe the county and municipal city both exist in the same space in both instances.  San Francisco is an incorporated municipality (city), but it is also a county, at least within the eyes of the state of California.  Indeed, some governing boards refer solely to the county of San Francisco.  As the City of SF is indeed a municipal corporation, and as a county of SF still exists, the city and county are coterminous.
 * 71.226.227.121 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the education section of the page:

"District of Columbia ranked 27th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 73.4 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

District of Columbia posted a B in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 15th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. District of Columbia received a mark of NA and finished N/A for School Finance. It ranked 42nd with a grade of D on the K-12 Achievement Index."

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: Csmithepe (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide a source unrelated to Education Week for this claim.  Spintendo   20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Geography section correction
The geography section of the article states that "The District is bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland to the northwest; Prince George's County, Maryland to the east; Arlington County, Virginia to the south; and Alexandria, Virginia to the west." This is incorrect; it has Arlington and Alexandria mixed up. Arlington is west of Washington and Alexandria is south of Washington.

RobiRahman94 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Photos
I think that this page should include a photo of the DC skyline, a residential area, or something other than the cathedral/the mall.

https://assets.urbanturf.com/dc/images/blog/2017/01/logan-lead.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0c/3d/5b/0c3d5bdb025f184077c1df7e2d1acea0.jpg

https://washington.org/s3/files/styles/editorial_aligned/public/rock-creek-park-fall-foliage-taft-bridge-ddc-photo.jpg?itok=7vNhKrc2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.241.35 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019
Add "Named for: Christopher Columbus" to the "Named For: George Washington" as Washington, D.C. is named for George Washington as well as Christopher Columbus "District of Columbia" Br229 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Makes sense, if we're going to have that in the infobox then it needs to handle DC (which this article is also about) as well. --Golbez (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Washington (city)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington (city). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—106.207.108.104 (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Culture and Food
I would like to write a section on the food scene here in DC. It's growing and gaining more and more notoriety (measured in michelin stars). Does anyone disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aintnopoblano (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As long as Wikipedia's policies (e.g. neutrality, verifiability, and no original research) and guidelines are applied, no disagreement. —ADavidB 01:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated Media Information
The Media section states that "The Washington Post Company also publishes a daily free commuter newspaper called the Express, which summarizes events, sports and entertainment, as well as the Spanish-language paper El Tiempo Latino". The Express shut down in 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokushino (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is updated to reflect the Express's (2019) demise. —ADavidB 01:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020
Change leader_title3 and leader_name 3 to the following. Atwalker1993 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sister cities WP:UNDUE?
The sister cities section takes up a fair bit of space. How important are they actually to the city? Would it make sense to streamline a bit? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I dispute whether four short sentences, and a multi-column bulleted list of 15 cities is undue. I reduced the column width so they should display a little more compactly. —ADavidB 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020
In the opening sentence of the entry, it states that Washington, D.C. is the "ugly" capital city of the United States. There is no reason for the city to be described as "ugly". Upon research, there is no correlation to the term "ugly" other than it's regular use of an insult. Please change this. Owlhicks (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Constitution ??
The district is authorized by the Constitution itself in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

The reason for it was to prevent undue influence of a state where the Federal government might be established on it, which was a continual issue during the Revolution when the Congress was in Philadelphia. And the authority to govern the district may not be alienated or abrogated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that DC is a creature of the federal government. The arrangement is somewhat antiquated that days because the federal government generally can stand up for itself, it had large police and military forces of its own. Back in the day the federal government had virtually no muscle, so states couldn't easily bullied it by depriving it of police protection or threatening it with their own forces. The federal district gave it a small buffer of land from which it could support and protect itself independently at least. As it's grown though the lack of democratic rights afforded to other citizens has become more intolerable. And the federal government has attained muscle that could absolutely crush anything else.2601:140:8900:61D0:B859:9627:2B00:9084 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Constitution is the supreme book of the land, where all documents governing a country was enacted. AKINYEMI OJO ADEBAYO (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Shortening top hatnote
Is there any way to shorten the hatnote at the top of the page? It currently goes onto three lines, which I think is too many. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Washington or Washington, D.C.
This may be a rather complicated or simple question, depending on who reads it, but isn't 'Washington' the name of the city itself, and then 'D.C' ('District of Columbia') the political entity in which the city 'resides' in? If this is true, shouldn't this page be 'Washington (city)'? Or are the two entities too dependent on each other to be made into separate pages? --Cartophilic (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This question is not new. See:
 * Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 8
 * Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 7
 * Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 6
 * Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 5
 * —ADavidB 12:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Short version: There aren't two entities. The single political entity is the District of Columbia. --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, but, if your argument is about city life (cityscape, economics, demographics, etc.) versus political life (the political entity that is DC), there might be something there, but I don't think that works. In every other case where the city is equal to its county, we don't have separate articles, (San Francisco, New Orleans) and this isn't analogous to Philadelphia as the city and county of Philadelphia are distinctly existing entities. There is no entity of Washington as separate from the district. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Building on what Golbez said above, after the Civil War, the city of Washington expanded beyond its previously set boundaries and at that point it became legally indistinguishable from the District of Columbia. Many years later in 1973, the Home Rule Act enabled an elected local government. Worth noting that if you look at the logo used by the mayor at https://mayor.dc.gov/biography/muriel-bowser, you'll notice that it reads "Government of the District of Columbia" on line 1, "Muriel Bowser, Mayor" on line 2, and to the left of both in this logo is the text "We are Washington DC." This reinforces the notion that these are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that separate articles are not warranted..I also agree with the OP's notion that the city is called Washington and that it exists in the District of Columbia, the borders of which entities are coterminous. Just as how the NYC borough of Manhatten sharesn its geography with the County of New York (sort of). However, DC is closer to the level of state than of county. The three electoral votes that goes to its people go to the District of Columbia. The municipality is the city of Washington. The seat of government is technically the distinct, which effectively makes the city the capital city, and in international diplomatic contexts the American government is properly referred to as 'Washington'.


 * Thus, the only issue I have is with the way the lede sentence is written..I might take a shot at rewriting it. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox collage
Five of the six images currently in the infobox are of the National Mall, and all six images are of the exterior of some monumental building. While that might be representative of the city from a tourist's perspective, it's not really representative of the city from a more comprehensive encyclopedic perspective. Can we introduce a little more variety? (We should be converting to a multiple image format rather than a static collage anyways, so this is a good opportunity to do so.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pinging, who I see has brought up the collage previously. I think your selection of File:National Mall, Lincoln Memorial 04448v.jpg would be a good replacement for the current Lincoln/Mall photos, and I think your choices for the White House (more zoomed in) and National Cathedral are superior to the current ones. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, following up, taking a stab at this myself, here are two options. Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way as the other times this was brought up. I don't like that the infobox collage is basically a tourist's vision of DC. There's so much more than the National Mall. I like having neighborhood photos and appreciate you included one. My only concern is it shows the buildings and not the street scene really. Also I think the photo of the Air & Space Museum interior could be swapped with something local, like the Dupont Circle fountain, local university, or Nats Park.  APK  whisper in my ear  19:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the views from the Cairo rooftop is another idea.  APK  whisper in my ear  19:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , those are cool photos from the Cairo rooftop! At a small scale, though, they become fairly generic, so I'm not sure the infobox would be the best place for them. I like the Adams Morgan Day photo since it's vibrant enough that it pops even at reduced scale (I'll turn a blind eye to any possible saturation boosting from the photographer), but agreed that it would be nice to have a bit more of the street — let me know if you come across any alternatives. I looked for M Street photos from Georgetown as well, but couldn't find anything good there. For the Air and Space photo, I'd be okay with swapping that if we could find a good alternative. I'm not sure the Dupont Circle Fountain is quite iconic enough (we do need some balancing between local flavor and visual calling cards), and Nats Park might be a stretch given we have no stadium photo for Boston/Philadelphia (more sports-focused cities than D.C.). I looked for a good photo of Georgetown (probably Healy Hall), but I wanted something that included a bit of the quad in addition to the building (to help fight the dominated-by-monumental-buildings issue), and we don't seem to have any featured-quality photos with that. Btw, do you have a preference between option 1 and option 2? I'm not sure how many photos we really need; other cities vary a lot. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other thoughts: we could try a photo of Pennsylvania Avenue, similar to File:2015-06-20 16 55 36 View southeast along Pennsylvania Avenue from 9th Street NW in Washington, DC.jpg but at night or File:Pennsylvania Ave - Old Post Office to the Capitol at Night.jpg but at street level and not so focused on the Old Post Office.
 * We could also try a protest photo, such as File:Marching towards the Capital - September 15, 2007.jpg or (dare I suggest it) File:Women's March on Washington (32593123745).jpg. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a protest photo would go over so well with a lot of readers. I'm going through the edit history and this was the montage photo for quite some time. (not sure why it was replaced) Here's another one that lasted for a while. I like photos 1-4 and 7 in your 1st suggestion, but like you said a street scene that shows more than just buildings would be nice. DC has so many streets full of historic rowhouses like this, so that might be an option. (but the angle and lack of color in that linked photo is a bust)  APK  whisper in my ear  21:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I definitely like the idea of rowhouses! Swann Street is my personal favorite; here's a photo I have that I just uploaded, and there's File:1500 block of Swann Street.JPG for something a little more traditional (the main issue is all the cars blocking the view). Adams Morgan might still be best, though, since it's commercial and can thus be "bustling" in a way residential areas cannot. Those old collages are...honestly not great. The Capitol photo would be fine if end up wanting a horizontal Capitol one, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Swann Street is wonderful. I should've taken that 2nd photo during street cleaning. I'll look for other possibilities when I'm done with my current project.  APK  whisper in my ear  01:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that photo was you haha! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that photo was you haha! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not rowhouses (still looking), but what about the C&O Canal?  APK  whisper in my ear  03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I like that! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are two more potential rowhouse pictures (one from you): File:1300 block of Q Street, N.W..jpg (a little desaturated) and File:Logan Circle Heritage Trail Preview 16068 (8041258802).jpg (has a random person in it). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Between the two I prefer the first and not because it's mine. There's more color and the 2nd one features modern houses on the corner that were built in 2001 to look like demolished older buildings. I'll be busy today, but will try to look for something tonight either on Commons or flickr.  APK  whisper in my ear  13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we did want to use a photo of Georgetown, I just noticed File:Georgetown Day.jpg, which I think is fairly good. Is anyone else interested in weighing in on the options we've been brainstorming so far? (APK and I have been having a good discussion, but it's always helpful to have more voices.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That Georgetown photo is pleasant, though I expect a size likely to be included in the article would be too small to have much recognizable detail. Regarding a rowhouse picture, I also prefer the Q Street one. For a canal photo, my favorite is File:USA-Georgetown C&O Canal.jpg, or possibly File:Tourist barge on the old C&O Canal in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C LCCN2011632165.tif. —ADavidB 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I love that first canal photo.  APK  whisper in my ear  04:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Change it. At present, it's like an empty theme-park, but the article is about a city, where people live. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Option 1 is great, love the picture of the Metro. Please change it! This page is semi-protected otherwise I would myself, the current collage is a myopic view of DC as a City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8102:E300:59FF:2C5A:398:6980 (talk) 2:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for changing it now.  APK  whisper in my ear  20:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and make the change. I had been meaning to get over to the Swann St. 1500 block to get a good rowhouse photo with fall foliage during a street cleaning window without cars, but unfortunately that season is gone. There might be an opportunity for a snowfall photo of that block if there's a blizzard, but otherwise we'll have to wait until there's some nice foliage again.The metro, Air and Space Museum, and White House photos duplicate ones already on the page, so I'm going to swap those out where they appear elsewhere on the page. We've also uncovered good photos in this discussion of Georgetown University and Georgetown, so I'm going to add those in.We can definitely discuss and modify further in the future, especially if new photos become available; the nice thing about switching to Multiple image is that it'll be much easier. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020, re: use of "the district" as locality name
Suggest changing the opening sentence from '...also known as D.C. or Washington...' to something like '...also known as D.C. or Washington (or, to locals, simply as "the district"...)'.

This form is actually used throughout the article, without an introduction. Skemmer (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. The usage refers to how DC is a district and not actually the nickname. Please find a WP:RS for this nickname. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this is an interesting suggestion; many locals certainly do call it "the District". If you can find good reliable sources that affirm that this is a common name, I'd be open to considering it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Washington D.D. is part of what state
Hello, I am not from the US. I came here to find out the Capital of the United States was in which state. But I have to admit I could not understand it. Shouldn't this be in the opening statement. It does say that it is near a river, and that the river borders two states. But it does not say in which of the two states is the city part of. Or if it is not part of a state but has a special jurisdictcion it should also clearly stated. BTW, I am not a wikipedia editor, so apologise if I did not ask the question in the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.97.224 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph states that Washington, D.C.'s land was "formerly part of Maryland and Virginia", and that Virginia was given back its land in 1871. Washington, D.C. is not in a U.S. state, though it's land used to be part of Maryland. There are efforts to make it a state of its own. —ADavidB 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is there not a clear map showing where Washington D.C. is in respect to Maryland and Virginia, and the Potomac and its eastern branch? It should be the first picture shown. The first picture shows a tiny red dot and no rivers. WordwizardW (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021
Washington, D.C Weather

96.232.40.214 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Already at Geography_of_Washington,_D.C.. Putting it here would clutter up the page unnecessarily. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice involving possible statehood.
Congress is considering promoting Washington, D.C. to become a state. This notice may be removed if this bill is not passed. 21:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi PointBlankAlpha, H.R. 51 was introduced and passed in the 116th Congress 2nd Session (Roll Call No. 121 click here for how house members voted) 232 representatives voted yea, 180 representatives nay, 19 representatives Not Voting and 0 representatives voted present and as a result of the United States Senate not responding to the consideration of the bill it basically died during that session of Congress. In April 2021 a similar bill also entitled H.R. 51 was introduced and passed (Roll Call No. 132 click here for how house members voted) 216 representatives voted yea, 208 representatives voted nay, 6 representatives not voting and 0 representatives voted present. The bill has been sent from the House to Senate for consideration. Hope this information helps. YborCityJohn (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

CME and AME church merge?
I started a conversation at Talk:Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church. Input would be appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Cityscape - Newseum
Under "Cityscape" this text currently appears: "home to many of Washington's iconic museums, including the Smithsonian institutions, the National Archives Building, and the Newseum. "

I can't edit yet or I would propose this: "home to many of Washington's iconic museums, including the Smithsonian institutions, the National Archives Building, and (prior to December 31, 2019) the Newseum. "

This is because, according to the Wikipedia article on the Newseum, "As of December 31, 2019, the Newseum closed its doors and is seeking a new site, while many exhibits and artifacts went into storage or were returned to their owners. "

AuroraGazer (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * With the Newseum already gone for a year and a half, I'd suggest omitting its mention and adding something else to the short list, though nothing comes to mind immediately. —ADavidB 19:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021
In the Cityscape section, in the final paragraph, the Newseum is said to be located on the national mall. This fact is no longer true and should be removed since the Newseum closed in December 2019 and is relocating. Schadamco (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021
Should we exclude "sister cities" section? so it exists on main list title. 49.150.110.214 (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021
In the Climate Data chart, the "Mean monthly sunshine hours" value for the year is incorrect. The current value is just the sum of monthly values. This value should be 210.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.46.41 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's just saying that 2527.7 is the mean number of sunshine hours per year, which seems correct. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no consensus for this change. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The row is "Mean monthly sunshine hours", so to sum that row and say it applies to the entire year is confusing since there aren't 2500 hours in a month. If the value in the "year" column is what should be presented, then I alternatively suggest removing "monthly" from the row title since for all other columns that constraint is already implied. 108.18.46.41 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article currently has nine "citation needed" tags, which would warrant an automatic fail for an article nominated for GA or FA. That being said, this needs to be addressed, or else we will need to do an FA review. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of citations needed is now 'seven'. —ADavidB 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"DC Washington" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DC Washington and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass image additions
can we get a few more eyes on the mass image spaming going on here causing accessibility problems...as as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY. Also see mass linking of catagories for see also links. -- Moxy - 16:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you have reverted the mentioned edits. —ADavidB 17:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not judging by the amount of pics in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep being added back in...have a 3RV complaint in. Some additions are fine ...but with no edit sumarries have no clue what is what. As of now article has huge accessibility problems. Should we just restore again? or wade thru all the image additions see what is viable? As of now I have to sidescroll to view text. Anyone know why they removed this? Anyway to stop them from editing and join talk? FA level is going down hill fast.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. full name
Isn't the full name of Washington, D.C. "Washington, District of Columbia"? So shouldn't this article be named "Washington, District of Columbia" instead of just Washington, D.C.? 2600:1009:B016:5CBE:4D96:5321:5B2:C4A4 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles here are named based on the commonly used name of their subject, not necessarily the full name. See WP:COMMONNAME —ADavidB 19:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Is DC a planned city?
The text currently says "Washington, D.C., is a planned city", referring to all of DC (what Wikipedia calls Washington). The City of Washington is famously planned by L'Enfant, as is Columbia Heights (a planned community developed as a suburb of Washington), Ledroit Park (same, independently developed), and other such pockets. There is a clear street grid covering most of the District (esp NW), but it often falls apart in the full District: South of the river has many roads of convenience, Georgia Ave predates the city, Trinidad is at an odd angle, I believe Kalorama Ave was originally somebody's driveway, and so on. Do all these separate plans add up to the statement in text that "[The full District] is a planned city"? B k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the level of pedantry to deny Washington DC being a planned city is outside of the scope of an article. To say that we can only claim it was planned if it belonged to a singular plan, which has never been deviated from ever, or that 100% must be fully compliant with L'Enfant's plan as it was written out, is unreasonable.  For the level of detail of the sentence in question, it's sufficient.  At the level of detail that B k seems to want to be true before we call Washington a "planned city" would imply that literally no actual city in the world could be called a planned city.  The details of the evolution of the streetscape of DC is a fascinating topic, but not necessary here.  Calling Washington a planned city is fine, and its pedantry to say that it isn't.  The distinctions between "full district" various current neighborhoods and former entities, etc. are not really needed for the analysis here.  -- Jayron 32 18:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jayron, we do have a definition of planned city here on this very web site: "A planned community, planned city, or planned town is any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land." Several dozen examples are given there. Perhaps the key part of the distinction is "undeveloped land". Bras%C3%ADlia is the first example that comes to my mind. There is a complete initial plan of the city, implemented on completely undeveloped land. Other examples on that page are also capital cities where a government deemed by fiat that a city that had not existed needs to be made, or examples of undeveloped land designed to be city-scale new housing projects (If you're from near DC, you know about Columbia,_Maryland).
 * The question here is whether a city with some level of planning but not on a nearly blank slate (like the dozens of actual cities on that page) will count as planned by the definition used on this site. The plan of DC grew around many large, already-inhabited areas outside of the former City of Washington, like Columbia Heights, Ledroit Park, Georgetown, or the parts around now-Georgia Ave. It seems to me that if you swallow another city in creating the District, then that's not "carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land." — Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we say something to the effect of "Washington began as a planned city, which later annexed other already existing communities as it grew"? That would be fine by me, and capture the history concisely, but without any unnecessary details for an introductory sentence on an overview article like this.  -- Jayron 32 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds very reasonable to me. Perhaps we could make more of a distinction between the City of Washington and the District of Columbia which wholly replaced it. "The City of Washington was a planned city. In the present day, many of the District's streets are on a grid extending the street grid of the original city." B k (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022
Please two links in sports from Washington Football Team to Washington Commanders it should have been updated 3 months ago 70.59.86.99 (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both instances are changed to 'Washington Commanders'; only one was a link.—ADavidB 00:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Formally the District of Columbia
This is inaccurate and is like saying London is formerly called Greater London. The fact that we don't have a separate article for the District of Columbia due to it being concurrent with the city boundaries doesn't mean Washington is formerly the "District of Columbia". The name of the city (settlement) appears to be just "Washington" so a better lead would be something like "Washington is a city that is the capital of the United States, since 1871 its city boundaries have been concurrent with the District of Columbia, the only federal district of the United States."  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd take it a step further and point you to the page of the District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871, which states that "the Organic Act 'revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown ... to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia.'" There is no city of Washington. As truthy as it may sound, "Washington" is a fiction, a metonym for the US federal government, not a modern city.
 * This may partly be a conflict between Wikipedians who live in or near DC, where the District is never referred to as "Washington", versus Wikipedians from around the world, who know the city only from the metonym used by news outlets around the world.
 * This has real implications! You'll often have people from other parts of the USA come to some part of DC thinking they can "send a message to Washington", because of the frequent confounding of "Washington" and "DC". This happened last week, when a Texas governor "sent a message to Washington" by bussing some people to a shelter somewhere on 5th street, but there's another such event every week.
 * @Crouch, I 100% agree with you that this page is loose with naming, and hope I've given you more reasons why that's the case. But you're fighting a losing battle. Although it would be trivial to replace uses on the page of "Washington, DC" with correct, non-fictional naming, there is a massive amount of resistance. The title needs to conform to Wikipedia's rule that people will search for a common, non-technical name, but many users insist that that rule must be applied to every use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Washington" may no longer exist as an administrative city but the settlement (what may be described as being a "populated place") still exists as far as I can see. A city in an administrative sense can be abolished but the buildings which are named as such will still be there, for example Brighton was merged with the post 1974 Hove to form Brighton and Hove but both settlements remain.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great point! The region between the rivers and Florida/Boundary streets still exists in our collective memory, and those buildings are for the most part still there. Is that what's happening here on the page, that people are persisting in using the old word to refer to the old region South of Florida/Boundary Street? Or, using your example as a metaphor, do people refer to areas in Hove as "in Brighton"? Let's have a look at the article:
 * > Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia, also known as just Washington or simply D.C., is the capital city and only federal district of the United States.
 * ❌ This first sentence is using "Washington" to refer to the entirety of DC outside of its original boundaries. This is probably necessary for the rule about using the title in common usage, regardless of correctness.
 * > The geographic center of Washington is near the intersection of 4th and L Streets NW.
 * ❓ I couldn't verify which of the two uses this refers to. Maybe you can resolve the ambiguity.
 * > Rock Creek Park is a 1,754-acre (7.10 km2) urban forest in Northwest Washington
 * ❌ I know the great majority of Rock Creek Park is outside of your proposed use of "Washington"; I think it may in fact be _all_ of Rock Creek Park.
 * > The U.S. Department of Agriculture operates the 446-acre (1.80 km2) U.S. National Arboretum in Northeast Washington
 * ❌ Back to your excellent metaphor, this is definitely using "In Brighton" to refer to something outside of Brighton.
 * > Washington hosts 177 foreign embassies
 * ❌ Not gonna count, but most of Embassy Row is outside of your proposed use of "Washington".
 * > Washington was the 24th most populous place in the United States as of 2010
 * ❌ The Census Bureau absolutely does not care about a former settlement.
 * There are a few uses that are technically just fine, by the way. Many seem to be just by coincidence or luck. For example:
 * > Washington is home to many national monuments and museums
 * ✔️ The monuments are indeed mostly concentrated South of Boundary Street
 * > Blizzards affect Washington, on average, once every four to six years.
 * ✔️ True of both the correct and affectionate uses of the name.
 * TL;DR: using the former name of "Washington" to refer to what was originally called "Washington" makes some sense, as per your argument. But that's absolutely not what's happening on this page, where the "truthy" usage of the metonym is applied over and over. Your example of the Brighton and Hove wikipage is, to the best of my ability to discern, a great example of honest care in accurate language. It'd be great if we could maintain that level of care on this page too. B k (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: I tried changing a few uses of "Washington" to "The District" and a page owner reverted it without explanation. The page owner seems to think the terms are identical, but resists substituting one for the other. So I dunno, this page is cursed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing instances of "Washington" to "The District"
I'll soon be changing many instances of "Washington" on this page to "DC" or "The District".

I've often been frustrated by page owners who just don't like that, and without justification will revert the change.

My entry here is long because I've made a good faith effort to address all counterarguments. I desperately encourage you to engage with the discussion if you are a partisan to calling DC "Washington". What did the Mayor of DC get wrong? Why is it actively beneficial to Wikipedia to go against the text of the Organic Act?

Q: Why should I care?

A: If you believe that in the present day, "Washington" and "The District" are interchangeable, then you shouldn't care about my edits. Under that premise, I am making a neutral edit. Please don't revert a good-faith edit if you believe it does no harm, even if you personally like one word more than another.

Q: Why not leave "Washington"?

A: I'll first answer this question via this article, which gives us two lessons. The first is that "Washington" isn't the name of the city:

"[In 2013,] then-mayor Vincent Gray ordered that all [license plates] bear “District of Columbia” instead of “Washington, D.C.” His reasoning? It’s the city’s real name.

... According to [the mayor's] spokesman, the justification for the change is simple: it’s the city’s official name. “We are just realigning ourselves with what is the historical name of the District,” he said, pointing out the “District of Columbia” is listed in the Home Rule Charter and is used by city agencies.

It’s true: For as much as the nation’s capital is known as Washington, D.C., that name comes up exactly zero times in the city’s Home Rule Charter."

Maybe the Mayor's office said so because they read Wikipedia. Our page on the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 says that "Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia."

The Organic act itself specifies a territory "created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes."

That is, there is no city of Washington in the present day. If you go downtown, you will not find City of Washington offices right next to District of Columbia offices. You'll only find DC offices, with that name.

Q: But seriously, I think the place is named "Washington".

A: This is the second lesson I am hoping you got from the article I linked to above: people get confused, and it does damage.

If you clicked through, you saw that the article is not about DC switching to diver's licenses that say "District of Columbia", but switching _back_, because too many people had no idea that the District of Columbia is a part of the USA. People confuse it with Colombia. Or from an article linked from the one above, when a person presented a license that said only "District of Columbia":

"“I explained to the lady that the nation’s capital is in fact part of the U.S., but she did not believe me,” said Mann, a 29-year-old Fort Totten resident. “She said, “that makes no sense, D.C. is part of Maryland.”"

People don't know what the District of Columbia is, and Wikipedia can help them to understand what it is.

Q: Why do you care so much?

A: Let's go back to that article: "For many locals, the historic moniker is a way to distinguish the city they live in (D.C.) and the from the [sic] so-called “swamp” many Americans know only for its federal politicians (Washington)."

That is, there is a distinction to be made between the District, which houses 700,000 people; and the houses of federal governance, which are dots on the full map of the District and to a very large extent staffed by people who live in Maryland or Virginia.

When you read about "Washington" in a newspaper, you are almost certainly reading about the US government and the buildings housing its decision makers. I encourage you to pause here, go to your favorite news source, search for "Washington", and see how many of the articles you find refer to the whole of the District of Columbia and its 700,000 residents.

The problem for us as residents is that there needs to be some way to distinguish between that political Washington, and the real-world Washington of people who live in this geographical diamond who go to grocery stores and take our kids to school. And there is a way: call the District by its correct name,"The District".

Q: But I found somebody official, not a media outlet, who use the term "Washington".

A: Not all parts of the world are in a city, but databases often require all parts of the world to have something in the "city" field. Many organization that have forms with a "City" field will use "Washington" to fill that blank. This is irrelevant to our discussion.

Making up a city name for an area that has none is common. There are unincorporated places around the USA (and the world); these are typically but not always rural areas outside of any town. When people in those areas fill in a form, they make something up. That does not make the name into something relevant to Wikipedia, even when there is complete consensus about what to put in the "City" field.

In the United States, the legal code assigns names. The US Postal Service (USPS) and the Census Bureau are not official name providers or official name registrars. The Census has an unbelievably complicated system for designating places, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/geodiagram.pdf and they often need a name to fill in a blank. That does not make the name law, or even something many people outside the Bureau would even use. USPS assigns names for standardization of mail delivery. I believe those assignations are sometimes weird and in contradiction with legal boundaries when doing so makes mail routing easier.

As per the above article, the DC government is often forced to use the name by others' ignorance or habits, not because it is correct. Use by an employee on an agency page you found somewhere does not constitute an official endorsement. Find a resolution by the DC Council and then we'll talk.

Q: What about the Washington Convention Center, right in the center of Washington?

A: Do you mean the convention center named after Walter E Washington? That has nothing to do with our discussion of what the city is called.

Q: But it used to be called "Washington", and sometimes names don't entirely disappear.

A: It's true that that portion of what is now the District that was in L'Enfant's plan was called "Washington".

Back to the Organic Act of 1871, it said 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".

Crouch, Swale in a topic above points out that areas that lose an official name still get called that name all the time. This fits: we can call the former City of Washington "Washington".

I am making an effort to maintain that distinction here, and recommend that others do. It is even sometimes beneficial to refer to the area inside of L'Enfant's original plan as "Washington", because that area sometimes gets special treatment.

Q: Isn't the article clearer if we use "Washington"

A: No, quite the opposite. This page often talks about the history of the City of Washington, and the transition from that city to the modern District is incoherent if the text suddenly switches from first using Washington to mean L'Enfant's plan, to then using the same word to mean the entire diamond. Pick one usage and stick with it, just as the Organic Act and the DC code did. "That portion of said District included within the [1871] limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington". That is so clear; why not use that rule in law to guide our page?

Q: I still have a lot of friends who call DC "Washington". I hear it all the time.

A: As somebody who lives in DC, I don't have any friends who call it that. The comment above about "the swamp" reads true to me, that people who live here know to call the District "DC" or "The District". That's why what we write on Wikipedia isn't about what you commonly hear on the street—we all hear something different depending on where we are.

Honestly, when I talk to somebody in person who calls the District "Washington", I immediately know that they either just got here or are visiting from out of town. When a Wikipedia editor insists on "Washington", I assume they have never been here outside of a tourist visit.

Q: If something is called a name often enough, doesn't that become its name?

A: This is addressed a little bit above: not everybody always calls it "Washington", and the great majority of uses of "Washington" are about the federal core and not all of DC. If you omit uses of the word to refer to the federal core, you may not have a lot of uses left.

But also, this way lies truthiness. If enough people call a certain toad "a frog", it is the obligation of Wikipedia editors to clarify that the usage is wrong, not to concede to mass preferences. The word "Washington" in its present day usage has a meaning: "That portion of said District included within the [1871] limits of the city of Washington", both under the Organic Act and DC Code [Edit: please see my update/correction below. It's more complicated]. To use that word with a clearly defined meaning (L'Enfant's plan) for a different thing (the whole of DC) is calling a toad a frog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Q: What about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UCRN ?

A: Those rules refers only to the tile of a page. This makes sense for what Wikipedia wants to do: if somebody has the wrong idea about something, we should make it as easy as possible for them to find the page they're thinking about, and then teach them what's correct. These rules absolutely do not require us to use a common-but-incorrect name throughout the text.

Also, "The District" or "DC" isn't jargon or over-formal. It isn't Latin, and is easier to read than the full "Washington, D.C.", which we often see on this page. See above about its use in everyday conversation.

Q: I _still_ think "Washington" and "The District" are interchangeable in the present day.

A: That's fine. Then you have no reason to revert my changes between two things you believe to be interchangeable. The arguments above about the law as written give cause to change the customary-only "Washington" to the correct-under-law "District", and if the only cause to change in the other direction is æsthetic, then please walk away and let the changes stet. B k (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * An update: I fact-checked myself on the DC Code, and it's a little more complicated: what the DC Code now calls "The City of Washington" is what until the late 1800s was called Washington plus what had been called Georgetown. From DC Code §1–107:
 * "That portion of the District included within the limits of the City of Washington, as the same existed on the 21st day of February, 1871, and all that part of the District of Columbia embraced within the bounds and constituting on February 11, 1895, the City of Georgetown (...) shall be known as and shall constitute the City of Washington"
 * https://law.justia.com/codes/district-of-columbia/2021/title-1/chapter-1/subchapter-i/section-1-107/
 * This is especially awkward because this use is only partially expressed by the Organic Act, which says [p428] "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington; and that portion of said district included within the present limits of the city of Georgetown shall continue to be known as the city of Georgetown." So the Organic act and the DC Code disagree as to whether the word "Washington" includes Georgetown or not.
 * It's my opinion that the later DC Code would take precedence; that means I've made some incorrect statements above. But I expect which is to be used in this article or others on the history of the District might be more open to debate. B k (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an appropriate way to engage with other editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the vaguely ad hominem comment. I'm engaging with editors with fact-checks and information, and am not sure how else to do so. How is it not appropriate? What would be a better means of engagement? You use the plural; are there other editors who have commented, or do you mean yourself?
 * Procedure aside, you, Magnolia677, have had many chances to explain why you think changing "Washington" to "DC" is, in your words, "Disruptive". But you have not yet done so. I gave you many reasons for; please give some sort of reason against. Please engage with the content. What in the above is incorrect? What did the Mayor of DC get wrong? Why is it actively beneficial to Wikipedia to go against the text of the Organic Act?


 * As long as you keep reverting without stating any cause, I will keep undoing your reversions. You're welcome to call it an edit war, but it's one where one side has given many, many reasons for an edit, and the other side has given none beyond not liking it.

B k (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hoo boy, let's get some responses here, shall we?
 * "That is, there is no city of Washington in the present day. If you go downtown, you will not find City of Washington offices right next to District of Columbia offices. You'll only find DC offices, with that name." Correct, just as you will not find Rhode Island offices next to the State of Rhode Island offices. The difference is that, in this case, the formal and informal names are uniquely different. But "Washington" absolutely qualifies as an informal name, just as Rhode Island did [until recently].
 * "That is, there is a distinction to be made between the District, which houses 700,000 people; and the houses of federal governance, which are dots on the full map of the District and to a very large extent staffed by people who live in Maryland or Virginia." ... no? I lived there a good half of my life and I never once encountered any schism like this. Yes, 700k live in Washington, DC. The federal offices are in Washington, DC. This has never confused anyone with any knowledge of geography.
 * "Q: What about the Washington Convention Center, right in the center of Washington?" Oh, we're doing this? Was Walter Washington also the namesake behind everything else in Washington with that name, or did you just cherry pick one example?
 * "This fits: we can call the former City of Washington "Washington"." No, we can call every square inch inside the district Washington, the same way Jamaica, New York, is still also shockingly part of New York City. You can call it Jamaica, you can call it New York, and guess what, you're both right.
 * "As somebody who lives in DC, I don't have any friends who call it that." I counter you. The rest of your point is now 100% invalid. Congrats!
 * "Honestly, when I talk to somebody in person who calls the District "Washington", I immediately know that they either just got here or are visiting from out of town." Civility prevents me from responding to this one.
 * And anyway, it doesn't matter: You're edit warring. Stop, and seek wider discussion before you touch the page again. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. There is still an edit that needs reverting on the article.  Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Golbez, I first want to thank you for engaging with the question at hand. You make some good points (and some I disagree with), but there are still a number of points unresolved.
 * [I will reply to one thing you said, though: "This has never confused anyone with any knowledge of geography." We can't assume that half-decent knowledge of geography. We're writing for everyone from DC residents, to eight-year-olds in London who only know the word "Washington" from TV news, to people who can't distinguish DC from Colombia.]
 * Strictly technically, the Organic Act of 1871, the DC Code, and the former Mayor of DC are, technically, correct: there is no City of Washington, or at best the City of Washington refers to L'Enfant's plan. At the technical level, this seems to not be under debate, because the texts are so clear.
 * Procedurally, Golbez and Magnolia677, a reversion is an edit, and should be motivated. DC is technically precise while Washington is less so. There needs to be an active reason to reverse a good-faith edit to make the page more precise without harming readability. Why is "Washington" better in all cases? If you read through Golbez's replies, you won't yet find an answer to this question; the editor who has been actively editing the page to remove "The District" has not yet made any effort to explain why.
 * The DC government itself discourages the use of the W word to describe DC. That seems relevant to me. Although the government is not the land, it is the elected spokesbody for it. When you strip away the documentation and technical facts, the core debate is between what DC calls itself and what other people call DC. A serious question: How common is it to have WP articles where the subject states that some popular name is incorrect, but WP uses it anyway?
 * That gives some distance between the DC example and Golbez's Rhode Isand example. I don't think the RI gov't actively disfavors and advocates against that term.
 * The thing about the Walter E Washington Convention Center is mostly an amusement that I always laughed about. More seriously, it is an example of how the DC government (which was heavily involved in the convention center) successfully stuck to its rule. They knew people like Wikipedia editors want to see the word Washington; the DC gov't doesn't want to use the incorrect term; this was the clever compromise. I love it.
 * One compromise here on our page might be to extend the naming section to clarify that the District government and all relevant documents indicate that there is no City of Washington and that the name is disfavored. In my text above, I give all the relevant references. Then, as per the preferences of page owners, use the name Washington thereafter. This allows the reader to understand the history and the fact that the DC gov't deems the term to be invalid, at the same time preserving what is evidently strongly preferred style among the page owners.
 * Above, I offered a compromise of using Washington any time we can get away with it with precision. Fort Totten is in The District and not Washington, but "Washington has had a significant African American population since the city's foundation" is true regardless of whether you want to read the word formally or informally. Doing this gives the page some variety in language, and is a definite improvement in readability over using "Washington, D.C." throughout.
 * I asserted that it creates ambiguity when the formal documents are directly contradicted, especially on a page where there is a large historical section discussing the L'Enfant plan meaning of "City of Washington" at length. Even if you think using "DC" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, please don't use "Washington" anywhere near the history section to describe the modern-day district; doing so absolutely trashes clarity. I cleaned this up in one place, though I worry there are other points I didn't have the energy to fix.
 * My point about how people in DC refer to it as The District is that what is "common usage" depends where you are, especially outside the context of the "City" field in forms and references to the federal government. For example, the Washington Post (named after the original city but covering an area from MD to VA) doesn't use the name Washington except for occasional reference to the federal gov't (and one other context; I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what it is---and don't @ me if you found a counterexample somewhere). A few years ago I posted the style guide of a local paper that explicitly states that they don't use the word Washington, but the page owners at that time rejected it out of hand. As one last piece of fun, the song "The District sleeps alone tonight" by the band The Postal Service was popular a few years ago. Yes, that was about DC, though no, The Postal Service is not an official registrar of names. But it's an example of how, if you're primed to it, you'll see "The District" used often (also, it was a joke). Wale is a rapper from DC who has had a couple of gold albums in the last few years; I don't think you'll find any use of the W word anywhere in his songs, such as the appropriately-named "DC or Nothing".
 * I expect that with time and as DC's self-determination gains greater respect, "The District" and "DC" will be more common, at least within the USA.
 * I'm out of arguments for why my edits changing a single word to another single word to improve precision shouldn't be actively removed, and aren't "destructive". I'm giving up again and will try again in a few years, maybe, with whomever the page owners are then. If there are editors who actively oppose more precise language, but won't articulate why, no amount of discussion is going to change anything. B k (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too long; didn't read think it's best you ask for more opinions. My POV is that the norm is easier to read. reverted before I say there was a talk...revert me at will Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To respond:
 * My point with "This has never confused anyone with any knowledge of geography." is that we don't have to cater to them. We don't have to make up some fiction about Washington not being equal to the District just because some people don't get it. Nor do we have to care what they think.
 * "Strictly technically, the Organic Act of 1871, the DC Code, and the former Mayor of DC are, technically, correct: there is no City of Washington, or at best the City of Washington refers to L'Enfant's plan. At the technical level, this seems to not be under debate, because the texts are so clear." Correct, the City of Washington no longer exists. However, "Washington" is still a valid informal/short form for the District.
 * "Procedurally, Golbez and Magnolia677, a reversion is an edit, and should be motivated." You've been here way too long to pull this kind of rule lawyering. Yes, reverts are edits, but that doesn't mean you get to undo them just because you don't like them. WP:BRD is a very useful guideline.
 * "Why is "Washington" better in all cases? If you read through Golbez's replies, you won't yet find an answer to this question" Because it wasn't asked, probably. I really don't care about the substance of your proposal, just the manner in which you're attempting it.
 * "How common is it to have WP articles where the subject states that some popular name is incorrect, but WP uses it anyway?" A short list: East Timor, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde, and until stupidly recently, Burma. But I'll also bring up things like the Statue of Liberty and 875 North Michigan Avenue. I don't include these as endorsements, simply answering the question.
 * "They knew people like Wikipedia editors want to see the word Washington; the DC gov't doesn't want to use the incorrect term; this was the clever compromise." Pretty bold claim, is there an actual source for these shenanigans?
 * "One compromise here on our page might be to extend the naming section to clarify that the District government and all relevant documents indicate that there is no City of Washington and that the name is disfavored." Find a source that says they specifically "disfavor" it (as in, this isn't some synthesis of sources), and you've got a deal. One line. No other changes unless the section is being otherwise edited, just like how we didn't like people changing date formats or km to miles (or vice versa) just for the hell of it.
 * "Fort Totten is in The District and not Washington" You may want to bring that up at Fort Totten (Washington, D.C.), which contains the word "Washington" 23 times. Or the fact that all Fort Totten addresses - like all other addresses in the District - are "Washington, DC". (Of course, the Pentagon does too, but I feel like we can paint that as an exception rather than anything that has to do with the borders of the District)
 * "Doing this gives the page some variety in language, and is a definite improvement in readability over using "Washington, D.C." throughout." Can't disagree, but that doesn't mean you get to do it.
 * "For example, the Washington Post (named after the original city but covering an area from MD to VA)" Again, do you have a citation for this? It seems suspicious, considering that the Post was founded six years after the City of Washington ceased to exist.
 * "A few years ago I posted the style guide of a local paper that explicitly states that they don't use the word Washington, but the page owners at that time rejected it out of hand. " Tip: We don't like being called "page owners." You accused Moxy above of an ad hominem that was very wildly NOT an ad hominem, so I will ask you to stop accusing people who disagree with you of "owning" the page.
 * "I'm giving up again and will try again in a few years" Maybe by then you'll realize the problem is you, not us. Vaya con dios. --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Golbez, I won't engage further. I still don't understand why my change of two instances of "Washington" to "The District" was reverted. WP:DONTREVERT advises "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article)" and even after all this I'm not seeing how those changes harmed the article. If I keep going I don't think I'm going to get an answer.
 * I'm not going to dig up more references because it won't change anything.
 * But I will apologize for misusing "ad hominem". My comment was addressing how the reply by Magnolia677 commented only on form and avoided substance; I'm not sure what the Latin for that is for but you're right that "ad hominem" isn't it. B k (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you asked, instead of posting a ten question survey, you might actually get a useful response. But hey, as long as you never change, I'm sure you'll eventually get what you want. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The notion that "The District" is the proper way to refer to this topic is so bizarre that it leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. Maybe a small group of local obsessives use this self-referential description but the rest of the world ignores this strange and rare formulation. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the terminology "Washington" or "Washington, D.C.", is the most common usage. Also, any attempts to make changes to a page without consensus, tends to lead to getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"District of Colombia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect District of Colombia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay  13:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Washington, DC should be listed as Northeastern/Northern
Most government agencies consider DC a Northern city, in fact most citizens do as well. The compromise of 1790 represents a different definition of southern than what it implies today, perhaps using just mid-atlantic would suffice, but northern would fit the current reality. A minority of people will use the census bureau definition of southern as evidence against, however, I believe this ignores the fact that the census bureau isn't the authority on geographic definitions but rather one part of the overall government. And since the government has many different regional definitions depending on the needs of the respective department, using only one definition doesn't seem accurate. As such, since the majority of government places DC in either the north or mid-atlantic this seems like the better region to place it in. 4cloves (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You've made a lot of statements without anything backing it up. Do you have sourcing on "most government agencies" consider it northern? Also, you might want to check with Northeastern United States because they seem pretty sure that Washington is not included. --Golbez (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 GFCI Ranking for DC is incorrect, and let's update to 2022
For 2021, DC is ranked sixth after New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston respectively for US cities. (In the current article, it is listed as fourth). Though we might as well update this to 2022, where it is also ranked sixth after New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston. Sources are here: https://www.longfinance.net/programmes/financial-centre-futures/global-financial-centres-index/gfci-publications/global-financial-centres-index-31/ https://www.longfinance.net/programmes/financial-centre-futures/global-financial-centres-index/gfci-30-explore-data/gfci-30-rank/ Goodbyehellofresh (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No disagreement. Are you seeking approval? Someone else to make the change? —ADavidB 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Geography
FWIW, the Census Bureau, as cited here in Wikipedia, clearly locates D.C. in the South.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_States 138.88.135.8 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022
Change File:LincolnInauguration1861a.jpg as Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1961, the U.S. Captiol dome was still under construction. Slightly a week later, on April 12, the Civil War would commence at the Battle of Fort Sumter to File:LincolnInauguration1861a.jpg As Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, the U.S. Captiol dome was still under construction. Slightly a week later, on April 12, the Civil War would commence at the Battle of Fort SumterNKS1597 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Lists Abraham Lincoln being inaugurated in 1961!
Lists Abraham Lincoln being inaugurated in 1961! 2600:1700:4B36:60E0:21AC:E9C8:A1EB:76 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This has already been corrected. —ADavidB 22:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Rhetoric of Health and Wellness
— Assignment last updated by Mgoyena (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected talk page for a week
Dunno what's happening but it's new and not coming from a particular IP. --Golbez (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022
X The city was named for George Washington a Founding Father of the United States, and the federal district is named after Columbia, a female personification of the nation.

Y The city was named for George Washington a Founding Father of the United States and the federal district is named after Columbia a female personification of the nation and a derivative of Christopher Columbus, the first documented European explorer of the Americas. Jdemich889 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "Columbia" being a derivative of Christopher Columbus and him being the "first documented explorer of the Americas" require additional sources for verification. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please change x to Y. Jdemich889 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable source provided. —ADavidB 17:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sourses for my Nov 11 substitutions
Reliable Source: Online Etymology Dictionary:  https://www.etymonline.com/word/columbia

As for Christopher Columbus being the first documented European explorer, this is common knowledge such as Wikipedia's example that " Julius Caesar was a Roman". Jdemich889 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "not done" notice specifically also says a source is needed for Columbia being a derivative of Christopher Columbus. If common knowledge, a reliable source should be easily identified. —ADavidB 18:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From the ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY, quote:
 * " Columbia - poetic name for the United States of America, earlier for the British Colonies, 1730s, also the female personification, from name of Christopher Columbus " Jdemich889 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will change my Y submission to the following
 * The city was named for George Washington a Founding Father of the United States and the federal district is named after Columbia, a female personification of the nation and a derivative of Christopher Columbus, an early European explorer of the Americas."
 * Jdemich889 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessary; the link between Columbia and Columbus is handled elsewhere in the article and in its own article. We don't need to give every link of the chain. Perhaps instead of saying "make this change," you'd like to share with us your reasoning? Why is this change important? --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The change I propose is important because it completes a statement that is grossly incomplete and by its stark omission appears to be intentionally so. In Washington, DC there are statues to George Washington. In the heart of the City in the traffic circle in front of Union Station is a large white stone statue to Christopher Columbus, who lends his name to the District. To leave the current narrative as merely a feminine personification of the nation, fails to complete the educational circle to tie that personification to
 * its ultimate source, Christopher Columbus. Jdemich889 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Links are used to allow interested readers to readily find additional information. The second paragraph of the Columbia article includes that the toponymic name originated from Christopher Columbus. If it were the "District of Columbus", the linkage would likely be more direct. —ADavidB 14:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "grossly incomplete?" You realize the article does reference Columbus as the origin of Columbia. No change needed. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Per all of the above, the article already says that Columbia is the feminine form of Columbus. No need to mention it twice.  -- Jayron 32 17:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023
In the D.C Council list, change the Ward 5 councillor from Kenyan McDuffie to Zachary Parker. 23.115.137.65 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 02:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 07 March 2023
There's a typo in the introduction to the History section:

[...] inhabited the lands around the Potomac River when Europeans arrived and colonized the reguion [...] SR Jaycee (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Not anymore. Thanks —ADavidB 17:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link
The link for Interstate 95 under infrastructure does not lead to i95 MorganTrib (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It leads to I-95 in DC, which is specifically only a few feet of the Wilson bridge. --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

New photo montage
I made this new montage changing a bit of the layout and adding captions under the images, should it be added to the article? &#58;) (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * shouldn't the captions go at the bottom of the montage, as with similar montages across wikipedia? SilverRobinson (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that since other pages of American cities like Los Angeles, Houston, New York City, and Miami also have captions under their images. Wow (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Two things
This map was added to the infobox. I don't understand the purpose? It doesn't include most of the neighborhoods and the ones that are included, the boundaries are way off. I also think there's a ridiculous amount of photos up and down the article. Looking at it on a desktop, it's way over the top, spilling over halfway into the reference section. I get that we have an abundance of great photos to use, but this is too much of a good thing.  APK  whisper in my ear  07:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

So does anyone have an issue with me removing some of the clutter?  APK  whisper in my ear  07:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @APK, I agree that there are way too many images. Some of the subsections like Research and non-profit organizations, Rail and Bus could each have one image instead of two. Wow (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)