Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 2013–2022

Stuff about the city's layout

If it hasn't been said already, the larger avenues with state names generally cross other streets at diagonals or at least non-perpendicular angles (Examples include Nebraska, Wisconsin, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Kansas, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Utah, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Florida, Montana, South Dakota, Virginia, Michigan(for the most part) , Hawaii, Alaska, Tennessee, Minnesota, Arizona, South Dakota, Kentucky) and I can only find 3 streets that don't conform to this rule (Oregon, California, Georgia) ......

Also, at the very northern tip of DC heading south the names of the streets are mostly related to flowers or nature in reverse alphabetical order (Verbena, Tamarack/Tulip, Spruce/Sycamore, Redwood, Primrose, Orchid, ""Northgate"" (the only exception to the rule) , Myrtle, Locust, Kalmia, Jonquil/Juniper, Iris, Hemlock/Holly, Geranium, Floral/Fern, Elder, Dahlia, Cedar, Butternut, Aspen) 173.79.68.101 23:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln

I agree that File:Abraham Lincoln sitting in his memorial.jpg is a better lead photo than File:Lincoln Memorial Lincoln 2424.jpg. There's nothing wrong with the latter (except perhaps for the angle looking at Abe's crotch), but the first is more striking and visually interesting. LtPowers (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it's not just me, I'm going to revert back to the prior lead photo. The lighting is a lot more striking, it avoids the "crotch focus" and I tend to think perfectly centered images can be a little boring. --Peter ^Talk 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the point about the crotch focus, but I think the lighting looks really murky and the focus seems a little off. And I don't mean that it has to be perfectly centered or anything, but I think the off-centeredness in the current photo looks like an amateurish accident rather than an intentional way to frame the pres'. There are over 100 photos in the category on commons. Perhaps we can find something better we can all agree on? Texugo (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The lighting in the memorial is kind of "murky," although I think the effect the architects were going for was more Temple of Zeusian "mysterious." --Peter ^Talk 21:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've been in the photography mood today, and wouldn't mind heading down there late tonight to see if I can't do better. I need to come up with something for the Mall anyway, and shockingly there isn't anything very good on Commons!? The scaffolding covering the Monument is an impediment, though. --Peter ^Talk 21:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I think I'm going to start a band and call it "Lincoln's Crotch". Texugo (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So I definitely had Lincoln's Crotch on the brain when I went down there, but my camera battery died right as I was about to capture it... I'll have to go back. --Peter ^Talk 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Transit needs desperate articles

Really, what this article needs is a completely desperate article for getting around, with links to a new Dulles and National article, the DC metro, and parking. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you could write about that isn't already covered under the Get around section. I've been to D.C. on a few occasions and found the info here to be more than adequate (also, I want to point out that there is a Dulles article) Scratch that. PerryPlanet (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

While I like the concept of a desperate article in general, I agree with PerryPlanet. What content do you think is missing from Washington, D.C.#Get in and Washington, D.C.#Get around that is needed? --Peter ^Talk 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Near Northeast (Atlas District & Gallaudet) should not be combined in the same district as Petworth, Brookland, and Takoma

Near Northeast is a district for nightlife - the other neighborhoods aren't. Also, why is Petworth included in Northeast? Petworth is mostly in the NW quadrant. —The preceding comment was added by 50.195.72.217 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing the ~ key 4 times in a row. I mentioned on your user talk page that I don't know enough to have a view on districting for DC. However, the best thing you can do if you'd like to get support behind your unilateral actions on districts is to give a clear description of what you did and what, if anything, you propose as further actions, and why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through Talk:Washington, D.C./Districts discussion#ELIMINATE districts, it seems that at some point the two articles were separate, but they were later deemed too slim on content to justify remaining split. Here's the relevant comment, dated May 19, 2008:

...both Washington, D.C./Northeast and Washington, D.C./Near Northeast might be insufficiently travel-dense to merit individual articles, but my approach has been so far to treat them each separately & to wait and see whether they can survive on their own, since they'd be very easy to combine in the future.

And to be fair, if you go back through the page history for those two pages, they were very skimpy back in 2008, so the merger looks like it made perfect sense back then. However, looking through them now, I have no problem with them being split. However, it looks like you've just reverted the pages back to their pre-merger state, so if we're going to keep them split, someone needs to go in there and make sure the content is up-to-date and we're using the current listing template.

As for the matter of Petworth, I imagine it's because from a tourist perspective, it made more sense to use Rock Creek Park as the dividing line between neighborhoods than the more arbitrary quadrant division. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Were this a recent change, simple reversion to pre-merge states would be justifiable, but not at this late date. I recommend reverting to the merged state and developing a split in more detail before actually executing it. This is a Star article, after all. Powers ^(talk) 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

United States Botanic Garden quandary

So, After deciding "Hey, I have contributed to wikipedia for awhile, AND contributed to Openstreetmapp for awhile now, looking through the WikiMedia projects, Wikivoyage seems like a great place for me to help out" I ended up doing just that. One of the places I had in mind when I first decided to contribute here was one of my favorite tourist attractions in Washington, D.C., the United States Botanic Garden. I had expected that There would be something on it here, but nope, nada. I started looking by going to DC's page, then navigating to the National Mall's page Not finding the gardens listed, I was a bit confused at first, then I saw how on the map, the mall stops just before the area where the gardens should be. So, then I navigated to the adjacent district, Waterfront. It wasn't there either. I searched for pages with the phrase "United States Botanic Garden" and then "United States Botanical Garden" and got no results. Now I intend to add the place myself, But I am not sure where to place it. It seems llike a logical thing to place in the Mall, because it is just right there on the end of the southern line of museums, right across from the National Museum of the American Indian, and what is a botanical garden if not a sort of museum for living plants? Also, I imagine tourists to the area would be more likely to associate the gardens with the Mall than with the Waterfront area. So what I'm asking is if it's ok to list the United States Botanic Garden on the Mall's page even if that little green area marking out the Mall's designated area. Responses would be appreciated, Thanks! Sarr Cat (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If the garden is at least partially located within the boundaries of the Washington, D.C./National Mall, or on the border of that district, then listing it in that article makes perfect sense. If it's wholly located in another district you could consider adding a brief mention in the Mall article (something like "other attractions, such as the National Botanical Garden, are located within a short walk from the Mall on the Waterfront"), with the full listing in the Waterfront article. In general it's best to list destinations within the article for the area in which they are geographically located. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Botanic Garden has already been listed at Capitol Hill for some time (it's also on the static map for that district). It's listed as "U.S. Botanic Garden", which might be why your search results didn't turn up anything. Eco84 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that make sense, thanks for the response! Sarr Cat (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I just knew there was no way User:Peterfitzgerald had omitted such an important listing. =) Powers ^(talk) 23:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Could add 'alt=United States Botanic Garden' to the listing - imagine search would find it then -- or change the name field and use U.S. Botanic Garden as alt field. Just a thought. - Matroc (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Which name should take precedence in this situation? Does WV have a policy on that? Sarr Cat (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If the official name is "United States Botanic Garden", please feel free to simply edit the listing to make that the name. It's completely reasonable and not a big deal to make that kind of change. Unless you have a reason to think it would be controversial, do it any time you like in any article where it's appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, making the change now! :) Sarr Cat (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

When you wonder whether a POI (Point Of Interest) already exists or not on Wikivoyage English, here is the first thing I would recommend to do:

• Go to http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/gpxmap.php?lang=en
• Zoom to your region and select a zone of about 10 articles around the place
• Press the "Download GPX file" button in the upper left
• Open the GPX file with any maps program or app (for instance OsmAnd)
• You now have a map showing all POIs in the area. You can easily find the POI, even if it is in the wrong neighbour.

This is also a great tool to spot what POIs should be moved from an article to another. All of this only works for POIs with latitude/longitude though. Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits (August 2015)

I scarcely know where to begin with these edits. While their size makes it hard to see what changed, it's clear that much of User:Peterfitzgerald's light but informative tone has been excised in favor of dry encyclopedic facts. This is contrary to our Wikivoyage:Tone policy. I have grave concerns over this change in tone, but it's extremely difficult to isolate those changes from the factual data that has been updated. Powers ^(talk) 00:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Erm, did you mean to link to an edit to the D.C. page? Because that link goes to some edit on Niagara Falls. But yes, looking at the Understand section, I agree that there's some very dry language in there that should be excised—I don't think we need detailed census data or an eleven paragraph history section for the broad purposes of a travel guide. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Okay, yeah, I just looked over the August edits, and I am not liking what I'm seeing. The lively prose of the History and People sections has been gutted, and I'm particularly dismayed at the cluttering of the Film section; the main appeal of the movie selection before was that it wasn't full of a bunch of standard political thrillers; do we really need The Day the Earth Stood Still in there? PerryPlanet (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are the edits . The initial resolution seems straightforward to me, which is to revert the entire 'Understand' section to before the edits. Would anyone object to do this?

The second step is harder. The 'See' and 'Do' sections have been factually updated, but possibly too far. Can someone knowledgable of DC make a judgement call on these sections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad link. I agree with reverting the Understand section and I'm tempted to revert the rest of it too. Powers ^(talk) 15:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking through it, I think we should revert all of it too. The only additions I think are worth keeping are the stuff about D.C.'s recent history (albeit rewritten to be far more lively) and some of the updated transportation info, and that's easy enough to pick out. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits (November 2015)

I'm noting with some concern about the heavy changes to Washington DC from one anonymous user, the same as above. Even more so that they are performing the same edits on the WT site.

AFAIK, creating the same content for both sites is not against policy as such (as long as license issues are respected) however is there anything we could or even should do to curb this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit due to strong changes to the article's tone, and the user re-instituted the edit with (most of) the tone changes removed, which is good. I'm fairly content with these changes, though I don't understand the change from "If you are willing to make the trek" to " Although it is out of the way of the tourist attractions". Powers ^(talk) 13:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Rider etiquette

Is this captain obvious?

Rider etiquette is key to smooth travel in the heavily-used system. Try not to obstruct train doors when passengers are leaving the train. Keep belongings off of the seats. When using escalators in stations, stand on the right, and leave the left side free for those who want to pass. Strollers must be folded at all times on the trains and in elevators.

I'm inclined to delete it from the article, or if not, to move it to "Respect" (right now, it's in "Get around/By public transportation/By Metrorail"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty captain obviousy to me, though I notice that D.C. riders are unusually harsh to those who violate rider etiquette, much in the same way that many Manhattanites get unusually passionate about sidewalk etiquette. Still, all of the advice above applies to virtually every transit system in the world, which would put it firmly in captain obvious territory. PerryPlanet (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's my feeling. So delete or move it to "Respect"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd delete it. Though even if I was inclined to keep it, I'd say it's more fitting in the Metrorail section than in Respect. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no objection in 24 hours or so, I'll delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Washingtonians are notorious for their lack of tolerance for breaches of subway etiquette. That, at least, ought to be mentioned if not the specifics of the etiquette. I would also ask you to consider that not all travelers are familiar with transit systems and their accompanying etiquette. However obvious it seems to frequent users, lots of people live in places where these things might not be thought of, especially when trying to navigate an unfamiliar system. Powers ^(talk) 14:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have seen many visitors to New York flout basic aspects of rider etiquette like not holding onto poles while the train is moving and falling into other people. So I won't delete anything, but if anyone wants to try their hand at editing or moving any of that text, they have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Large edit(s)

Please have a look at this. I accidentally hit rollback on that, but now we should have a debate about this. We should also look whether this was copied from somewhere as such large changes often are. I have never been to DC, but as a hunch I am skeptical of such large change by a not-registered user that happens in one or two edits rather than a large chain of smaller edits. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

An IP user has been updating the DC article here and on WT for some time now, so I would assume that the edits you reverted are from the same person. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem these edits are from the same WT editor, which regardless of the merits of their contribution will have a potentially negative impact on our SEO. I would suggest reverting on the basis of WV community consensus. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not by a dynamic IP user but by User:50.195.72.217, who has a track record here and has participated in discussions at his/her User Talk page. I object to making decisions by "consensus" without inviting him/her to comment here. I also object to chasing a motivated editor away from here by talking behind his/her back on a talk page thread s/he hasn't been informed of. I will specifically post on User talk:50.195.72.217 to invite him/her to comment, but my point wouldn't be for him/her to stop editing, but to summarize and paraphrase, rather than quoting from, text that s/he's been adding to Wikitravel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the undo on the basis of your observation. We can certainly invite comment first. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the best possible outcome would be for the editor to chose our site over the other site. Unfortunately I jumped the gun by hitting rollback by accident and I probably should have notified the editor when creating this talk page discussion, for that, I apologize. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyscape does a good comparison between this page and the corresponding one on WT. It would be good to change them without losing the decent prose. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The words that were changed were the same in WT and WV for years, so not sure why all of a sudden it is a big deal that they still match in some areas since I changed both. But if someone wants to go paraphrase so they dont match, it would be much better than reverting to inferior text. —The preceding comment was added by 50.195.72.217 (talk • contribs)

Templated listings

This bot edit converted 6 text listings to templated listings. We aren't supposed to have any templated listings except in district articles, right? So what should we do about this edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a prohibition against listings except in the lowest level of the hierarchy, but if there was a discussion or policy I've missed then I can modify the bot to never convert anything to a listing except in bottom-level city & park articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Exceptions are sometimes made, for example for airports, train stations and bus stations, but definitely not for "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" or "Sleep" listings. Wikivoyage:Huge city article template may not be quite as definitive as I was, but language like It's best to use general descriptions formatted as paragraphs and avoid making point-form lists as individual listings belong in district pages, not here. is fairly clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikivoyage talk:Huge city article template#Listings belong in district articles, where User:Peterfitzgerald points to Chicago#See Chicago#See has no templated listings and was made a Star article on that basis. I don't think that Washington, D.C.'s Star status should be threatened by not being more like Chicago and introducing templated listings for restaurants, et al. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#When is it okay to leave bulleted lists untemplated? I understand the desire to keep business listings out of huge city articles and am supportive of that effort, but if a huge city article already contains a bullet list of businesses/attractions, I don't understand why those listings would not use the listing templates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that there shouldn't be a bullet list in the first place? That's actually why I asked what we should do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with bulleted lists, but I agree with Ikan that we shouldn't be encouraging the addition of listing data in huge city or region articles. We wouldn't want anyone adding a phone number, for instance, to any of these Buy or See listings (assuming they each have a full listing elsewhere in the hierarchy). That kind of addition is invited by making these templated listings. Powers ^(talk) 14:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war?

Looks like an edit war is going on - if so any reason why the edit is wrong? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Have a gander. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, maybe we want to consider a semi-protect of this article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an altogether bad idea, all told. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected, hope no-one regards this as too harsh. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection actions must be listed on Wikivoyage:Protected pages. Powers ^(talk) 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with districts

There seems to be a problem with this article's districts. We have three separate articles (Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights, Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C./Columbia Heights) with a lot of overlap. I'm guessing we should either stick with the first one or stick with the other two—which option would be better? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be the same problem with Washington, D.C./Brookland-Petworth-Takoma, Washington, D.C./Brookland, and Washington, D.C./Petworth. MartinJacobson (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in both cases the larger district was split without discussion by IP user 50.195.72.217. The IP user didn't finish the job, in the sense that they left the original districts rather than redirecting them, and not all of the listings in the original districts made it into the split districts. If there's someone who's knowledgeable enough about DC to clean this up, that would be perfect. If no one volunteers, I guess we should undo the split by redirecting the smaller districts back to the larger districts and editing the city article so that it links to the larger districts again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. If someone more knowledgeable comes along, we can always split the districts again or change them in other ways, but having redundant articles is just inviting confusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultural divide

This edit removed the following text, which seems pretty significant to me:

"D.C.'s culture is in no small part defined by a divide between black and white, native and transient, as well as cultural diversity from around the world."

Wouldn't we want to restore that text? If not, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes we want, it's apt and significant and truly describes the situation about the place, to which I've been last year and can testify. I'll restore the bit. Ibaman (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are the route numbers in the static map so big they go out of their route markers

Title. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For me the route numbers in the static map are just as big as possible, still fitting the shield (or what you'd call it). It makes sense to use all available space. Do you think that is ugly or do you see something else? –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be ideal if the size of the shield is increased if we want the font to stay the same size. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As it is a static map, I suppose it is a design decision on the specific map – you might not want bigger shields that would overlay important information. I don't think that is a problem in this article, but neither do I find the current look a problem. –LPfi (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Once second fiddle" to New York

Granted, I'm a New Yorker, but while D.C. has fantastic cultural attractions, as the nation's capital, isn't it still the case that by virtue of being the most populous and international city in the country, New York is ultimately the preeminent city in the U.S.? We don't have the Capitol or the White House, but we have the U.N. Headquarters and the New York Stock Exchange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but as someone who remembers the image of DC in the pre-Obama years, it was often compared very unkindly to New York, especially when it came to its food scene by the likes of NY Mag and the Times and they still can't help themselves, I mean look at the introduction to this article, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/18/travel/what-to-do-36-hours-in-washington-dc.html. I'd say since the 2010s at least, its definitely recognized as a city with its own identity and the old jokes no longer work. Its not New York but it definitely holds its own against Chicago, San Francisco and Miami 71.241.232.213 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, well some people were really stupid, then, because I visited D.C. in the early 90s and again in 2000, and I ate really well and loved visiting museums and walking around. But I think the point here is that the language in the article needs to be rephrased for accuracy. Without including links in the article, would you like to replace the current phrasing with some of the language you used here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. I guess the key is to emphasis the change without the need to mention other places Duke Lamington (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)