Jump to content

Talk:Georgetown (Washington, D.C.)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demographics

[edit]

The demographics section currently only deals with historic statistics, mainly from the 19th century. Are any 21st century demographic statistics available? Ordinary Person (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ordinary. Georgetown was stripped of its city charter in the 1870s and was fully absorbed by the City of Washington in 1895. As a result, there is no longer any census data done specifically for Georgetown. The best we can do is check out the 2010 Census Map and add up the census tracts; the population that currently resides in what is now "Old Georgetown" is about 14,000. Unfortunately, we can't use that in the article because it's all Original Research. I have not seen an reliable source that provides that same info. Best, epicAdam(talk) 11:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Many neighborhoods in DC have demographic information obtained from someplace (see Bloomingdale & Columbia Heights Articles). As of now I've changed the heading of "Demographics" to "African-American History" as that's literally all it is. If anyone has any actual Demographics information, I'd suggest an edit or the creation of a new section. BROBAFETT (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Georgetown (Washington, D.C.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what year between 1827 and 1835 did Georgetown catch on fire and what Congressional Act provided $10,000 for its rebuilding?

[edit]

There is an associated story about this fire involving a famous letter to Congressman Davy Crockett from one of his constituents that Crockett's vote for the above appropriation was "unconstitutional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.72.216 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Georgetown (Washington, D.C.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2018

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per Option 1. This is a very difficult close, for a number of reasons. First, we have inconsistency across a range of titles, so we can't leave this as is. Even if there is no consensus for a specific solution, some group of pages must be moved. Second, as a Washington, D.C. area resident, I am personally keenly aware of the strange nature of the jurisdiction as something more than a city but less than a state, and of the fact that the neighborhoods of D.C. are not separate legal jurisdictions. It is also worth noting that the comma disambiguator is more prevalent within this group, meaning that it would be less work to conform the others to this title. Nevertheless, I find it to be an overriding consideration that comma disambiguation for these titles would mislead readers into thinking that these were formal, legal distinctions comparable to those of cities in states. There is no neighborhood portion of the District of Columbia that is not part of the city of Washington, and we should also avoid constructions which might suggest to unfamiliar readers that there are multiple Bloombingdales in the District of Columbia, in the same way that there are Bloomingdale, Carbon County, Pennsylvania, Bloomingdale, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Bloomingdale, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Even without a policy specifically saying so, it is bedrock common sense that titles should not mislead readers about characteristics of the article subject. There is also no consensus for omitting the internal punctuation from "Washington, D.C.", which would be inconsistent with the parent article, Washington, D.C.; that may be fodder for a separate discussion. bd2412 T 15:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– I would like to determine if there can be a consistent naming format for articles about Washington, D.C. neighborhoods. A similar move request five years ago fizzled out with no consensus. I attempted to move these pages to a consistent naming format a few weeks ago, but I didn't know about the previous requested move until JohnInDC told me about it. In the interest of gathering consensus about a consistent naming format, here are five options for moving all of the pages listed above:

  • Option 1: Move all pages to the format <Neighborhood name> (Washington, D.C.) - this naming format is used by this article. It has the benefit of avoiding a double comma, and it fits with the name of the city's main article, Washington, D.C.. However, it may not follow WP:NCPLACE since settlements in the U.S. are usually disambiguated by commas.
  • Option 2: Move all pages to the format <Neighborhood name>, Washington, D.C. - this naming format is currently used by most DC neighborhood articles. It may follow WP:NCPLACE, as it does use a comma preceding "Washington, D.C.". However, this proposed naming format would use two commas, something that is used in other cities (such as Category:Neighborhoods in Austin, Texas), but is awkward. Also, since DC is a state-level subdivision, it may be treated differently than other U.S. cities.
  • Option 3: Move all pages to the format <Neighborhood name> (District of Columbia) - this naming format avoids a double comma, and it treats DC like a state-level subdivision. However, "District of Columbia" is not the name of the main article about the city, and this does not follow WP:NCPLACE.
  • Option 4: Move all pages to the format <Neighborhood name>, District of Columbia - this naming format avoids a double comma, follows WP:NCPLACE, and treats DC like a state-level subdivision. However, "District of Columbia" is not the name of the main article about the city.
  • Option 5: Other - some other naming format
  • Option 6: Do nothing - keep the current titles as they are.

This previous discussion may also be relevant. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Support 2. In 2010, I moved many of these pages to parenthetical disambiguation, because that was the guideline at the time. The guideline has changed to comma disambiguation now. So that narrows the choices. The city is Washington, so Washington should be the disambiguator, but Washington rarely appears without D.C. appended to it. So I think choice 2 is the best option for when disambiguation is necessary. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2 It only makes sense that Washington be treated as a city-level administrative unit and District of Columbia as a state-level unit (as is typically done today and historically), even though they are coterminous. Using the comma instead of parentheses makes DC articles more in line with other U.S. articles, like New York City neighborhoods. I also think it looks cleaner; I don't think anybody would be seriously tripped up by the fact that the title would have two commas. Ergo Sum 21:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 but not strongly. Typically, Wikipedia disambiguators are in parentheses. A comment by User:JohnInDC from the previous discussion is worth considering: "...While the comma convention may be more popular, in the case of most of these articles, I question whether that is really appropriate in the (always special) case of Washington, D.C., where the city and larger district are co-terminous, and with no named political subdivisions but rather a collection of (often informally) designated neighborhoods. The comma implies a formality, an official-ness, to these places that is simply not present. The parenthetical construction strikes me as the more appropriate in this case." I would add that I strongly oppose applying the result of this poll to non-ambiguous D.C. neighborhoods like Adams Morgan or Foggy Bottom. —  AjaxSmack  06:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 for those requiring disambiguation. This is the standard way of handling disambiguation on Wikipedia, so neighborhoods should follow suit. Note that this is already standard for DC and many other places, including all of them in Florida - cf Category:Neighborhoods in Miami, Category:Neighborhoods in Jacksonville, Florida, etc. Titles that are the primary topic or that aren’t ambiguous should not have disambiguation.—Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2. Parenthetical disambiguation should only be used when there isn't a simple and correct comma disambiguation, and there is. Don't see why two commas are a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1. Thanks, epicgenius, for doing this, and I'm sorry I'm a little late to the conversation. As I said in the prior discussion, I prefer the parenthetical form. To restate slightly what I said earlier (quoted above), the all-comma format reads too much like - like a mailing address, like an actual, formally designated place within DC; and to a local's eye it reads wrong - it isn't correct. There is no "Mount Pleasant, Washington, D.C." like there is "Mount Pleasant, Michigan". There is only "Washington D.C.", which has within it generally understood, but informal, neighborhoods with generally (though not universally) agreed boundaries. Neighborhoods also may appear and disappear, even overlap, based on custom (or - IMHO - real estate marketing efforts) - see Penn Quarter and Swampoodle, Washington, D.C. as an example of both this fluidity, and vague boundaries. Whatever may be the standard form for disambiguation, Washington, D.C. is (as it always seems) a special case, being both a city-level and a state-level unit, and if a special rule suits it better - well, we can do that. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 If its done with Austin, it can be done here to. We could possibly remove the "DC" but that may create ambiguity with the state and the city is commonly called "Washington DC" anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 ONLY for those requiring disambiguation per Cuchullain. Unique titles and titles of primary topic articles should not be disambiguated. I oppose use of comma in these cases because these places are not commonly referred to in this way, so we shouldn't use it and wrongly imply that is how they're commonly referenced. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How does using commas imply its common use but using brackets doesn't? WP's standard formatting is that places the higher place in brackets, not commas such as Northgate High School, Ipswich. You might as well argue that using brackets implies that they are commonly referred to like that. To be clear I also only support doing this with those that need it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Commas are commonly used in postal addresses to identify a place, whereas brackets aren't. A comma delimited title may be a disambiguator or an actual address, and it's not obvious which, when you look at it. A bracketed disambiguator is only that - an unambiguous disambiguator. JohnInDC (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is Barugh (Great and Little) where the brackets are part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there are any number of ways to name places; but my point - that commas are common, and other forms less so, stands. JohnInDC (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Except in very rare cases where brackets are used in a name, bracket use clearly denotes WP-style disambiguation and does not suggest such use is commonly used in reliable source. Disambiguation with comma should only be used in cases where such usage is common in reliable sources, because for many place names it is. --В²C ☎ 18:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Commas in most countries are used in the same way as brackets, also as a WP-style disambiguation, rather than commonly used names. Consider Paisley, Renfrewshire and Lismore, Scotland, though the latter could possibly be moved to Isle of Lismore per WP:NATURAL. Yes the US may (confusingly) use commas as a common part of the name but that doesn't mean that's the case in other countries for example Scotland. If the larger settlement or state was part of the name I would expect we would have Jackson Mississippi or Cleveland Ohio etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well - in this particular instance, in this country (I'm in the US), comma delimiters are uncommon and ambiguous. So why hasten to employ them? JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    JohnInDC, I am familiar comma delimiters for places in the Western US, but now that you mention it, not so much on the east coast where state borders are encountered on a daily basis. Would you say that comma delimiters are uncommon broadly on the east coast, or especially uncommon in DC? Not sure why, but I am guessing you are from DC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been clearer. Comma delimiters are common to identify cities, towns, counties etc. in the east, I’m sure as much as anywhere in the country. Commas are *un*common in this particular instance, namely, in denoting informal neighborhoods in DC, which is a single undifferentiated unsubdivided political subdivision. JohnInDC (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Comma delimiters, Town, State is common for towns and cities, but not for suburbs and neighbourhoods, and urbanized satellite cities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 5. Georgetown, Washington DC. Commas and dots are all very good, but too much is too much, and too much is the whole problem here. The punctuated "Washington DC" is commonly used in many places. Parentheses are contrary to real world usage. "District of Columbia" is nearly "obscure" in usage compared to "Washington DC". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I commend/blame the usps.com for pushing styles in this direction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re USPS. But I disagree that adopting their computer-readable abbreviations is sound as an article naming convention. JohnInDC (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are joking. I refer to their dislike for periods and commas, not the codes and allcaps. Just the stripping of Washington, D.C. down to Washington DC. "Washington DC" is what people say, no pausing for the commas or periods. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might've misunderstood what you were suggesting, but I wasn't joking. "DC", like "NY" or "OH" are not actual abbreviations but USPS conveniences, and I don't think suitable as titles in Wikipedia articles. Even if people don't actually pronounce the periods! JohnInDC (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that "DC" is not like "NY" or "OH" in that "DC" is frequently spoken. Sometimes "PA" and "MA" are used in speech, I think because the state names are a little bit difficult for some, but not nearly as often as "DC". However, I don't actually suggest "DC" in isolation of "Washington", but treating "Washington DC" as like a state name, like how "Rhode Island" is used instead of the full state name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might be more inclined to agree if people pronounced “DC” any differently at *all* than “D.C.”. JohnInDC (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation of the periods in "D.C." is indeed very very subtle, many would deny it at all. However, there is a pronunciation difference with the comma, "Washinging, D.C." usually spoken "Washington D.C." (which I would suggest, Georgetown, Washington D.C., if people want to keep it dotty). Compare Washington DC with Washington, USA. The second has a distinct comma-pause, the first not. Or is that just me? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - I can't hear you! (In more seriousness, while I've enjoyed this colloquy, we may be straining the others' patience, so I'm inclined to stop now.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: Name of building in infobox photo

[edit]

I have modified the caption of the infobox to reflect the name of the buiding as Farmers and Mechanics Bank @Bsherr: Your revert has asked for a source identifying the building by that name. It is referred to as such here, here, and here at p. 12. Ergo Sum 05:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at these sources in the underlying article before I made the change. The contention is that the name of the building currently is the Farmers and Mechanics Bank. The first source says "the inside-and-out restoration of the 1922 Farmers and Mechanics branch at Wisconsin Avenue and M Street NW in Georgetown". Lower-case letters don't suggest a proper name, and even still, not a match. The second source says "[t]he old farmer and mechanics of Riggs Bank". Same problem. The only mention on page 12 of your third source that comes close is, "Typical is the Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Georgetown, which purchased a three-story brick building at 31st and M Streets, N.W. , in 1814." That refers to the name of the bank, and an unnamed building bought in 1814, but this building was completed in 1922. You may be right, but we still need a source. Got anything else? --Bsherr (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to find such a source, since most references to the building are historical and refer to it at a time when the Farmers and Mechanics National Bank was coextensive with the building. I see your point, but for the foregoing reason, I'm hesitant to make so fine a distinction. Doing so would necessarily preclude similar buildings such as Riggs National Bank and Riggs National Bank, Washington Loan and Trust Company Branch from being named as such, which doesn't seem plausible. Ergo Sum 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those buildings, at least we have NRHP applications to which to cite and that substantiate the name of the buildings at the time of the application, if not now. For this one, we don't have any sources to substantiate the name as titled currently at the article. On the other hand, the city property database calls it 1201 Wisconsin. Is there another reason you are confident that you have the name correct? --Bsherr (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having only the address, though it does seem rather inelegant compared to using a proper name, even if it's one that is unofficial. Ergo Sum 06:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing on this claimed proper name is quite thin, and in any event the F&M name is not in any common usage. The building should be referred to by the name of its current owner. JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the address is inelegant, and suggest, “PNC Bank, originally constructed in ____ as a branch of Farmers etc.”. JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

Basic information to add to this article: the average income for residents of this neighborhood. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgetown_(Washington,_D.C.)&oldid=1233664641"