text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights

Ethiopians and Somalians
On the DC city page it claims that there is a large Somalian and Ethiopian population in this district however, there is no mention of them anywhere in this article. It also states that they've given the local people a love for their food, but there do not appear to be restaurants here. Is this not where they are? Have they not left any marks whatsoever aside from residing here? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)

 * Where does it say this on the main D.C. page? Little Ethiopia is in Washington, D.C./Shaw. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:22, 12 January 2011 (EST)

 * In the "People" section. I guess it doesn't explicitly say it is in this area (just "D.C."), but I assumed it was implied based on the fact that this is the only linked neighborhood in the section:

"D.C., and particularly the metro area beyond the city limits, is impressively international—in the immediate metro area a whopping one third of the population is foreign born. The biggest immigrant group is no doubt from Central America, mostly from El Salvador. Latino culture finds its home in the city in Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights—both neighborhoods where you'll find all the various cultures of the city intermingling. D.C. also has a big African immigrant population, with exceptionally large and visible Somali and Ethiopian communities (who have bestowed on the city a love for Ethiopian food!)"

I guess a clickable link with this info to Washington, D.C./Shaw is all it really needs. I was curious to learn more and didn't look in the Eat section. I'll just add the link from the main article then. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:44, 13 January 2011 (EST)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Anacostia

MLK Day Parade
When I was living in D.C., they ran the MLK Day parade through Anacostia. I wrote this up:

 * The District's annual MLK Day Parade starts at Ballou High School (3401 4th St, SE) then proceeds up Martin Luther King Jr Ave, past Malcolm X Ave, then along Good Hope Rd and Minnesota Ave, finishing at Orr Elementary School (2200 Minnesota Ave, SE).

But I'm not certain that this is still the itinerary. If it is, we can move this back into the article. If not, we can revise this and update the article as is fit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

 * The parade starts at Ballou and ends at MLK Jr Ave and Good Hope Road. And, it occurs now in April, not January. (WT-en) Aude 22:01, 4 January 2009 (EST)

 * BTW, nice work on this article. Most guides don't provide this level of detail, for this less-visited section of the city. (WT-en) Aude 22:03, 4 January 2009 (EST)

 * Thanks—this one's more fun to write, since it's the only place in D.C. where I feel like a tourist. Do you know which day in April? The 4th?  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

 * It's been the first weekend of April, for the past few years, though I think sometimes on a Sunday, sometimes on a Saturday. But, there's no guarantee it will be that weekend this year.  I haven't seen an announcement for this year yet. (WT-en) Aude 23:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Star nomination
It's been a while since we've had a star nom, so I figured I'd nominate one of the most benighted and impoverished slices of the U.S. I've held off on nominating this one simply because it is such an unconventional travel destination, but I do believe it's formatted to a tee, an enjoyable read, and probably the best extant guide to Anacostia anywhere (there aren't many!). Lastly, I promise I'll get in some D.C. star noms in the future that aren't quite so intimidating to most visitors. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:15, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

 * And note: the listings are few, but this is complete. I know this area well, and I really don't think there is anything else worth including—there are precious few business establishments here, despite it being such a large swathe of land right in the center of one of the nation's largest metro areas. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:19, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. After a scan of the article, it seems to read well and I can't find sufficient enough reason to oppose it. However, the way everything on the map is tilted makes it rather aggravating to read. I don't mind the map itself being tilted (north doesn't always have to be up), it's all the icons being tilted that gets me, along with some of the street names ("Branch Ave" is practically upside down). Also, hours for the rest of the Eat/Drink listings might be good. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:06, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Ah, whoa, I forgot about those eat/drink hours! I'll be sure to call tomorrow and see if I can't get the businesses in question to tell me when they're open (this will actually be hard in Anacostia...). And regarding the map, I rotated the icons to match the street layout, in order to make it easier to distinguish which street the icons are located (especially at corners). If it's bothering people, I'm sure I could move them back to 90 degrees. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:37, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I personally didn't even notice the icons, but rather the park names. I can't think of any reason for those to be tilted.  And Branch Ave does look a little odd upside down.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:23, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I've finished tracking down those last listing hours (as I expected, it was like pulling teeth). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:06, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. But (without having seen the alternative) I think I support moving things back to 90 degrees. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:03, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I remember now why I kept all the icons/park text/etc. tilted with the compass—I did it with printed use in mind. If someone prints out the article, they can just tilt it so that north is at 90 degrees, making the whole map a lot easier to use. I'll create an extra layer for an export in the fashion people are requesting, and make the decision once we can see them side-by-side. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

OK, here are the two map versions, one with text & icons tilted north, the other with them rotated to display online at 90 degrees. I still prefer the former for two reasons: 1) it makes more sense for offline use, since you can just rotate the printed page (or iphone or whatever), and I always print WT maps before using them anyway; 2) forcing viewers to tilt their heads is not necessarily a bad thing—it can otherwise be easy to miss the fact that the whole map is indeed rotated 45 degrees off compass north. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:39, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. Looks really good. Re the map, I do think that maps should pretty much always be oriented for north... I see that it's funny shape/orientation is probably why you did it the way you did, and in that case I like the tilted text so you can rotate as you mentioned.... I would definitely be holding it for north were I using it to travel and would appreciate the thought behind that :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:24, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * So you guys would rotate the map back and forth when trying to correlate the legend with an item on the map? It strikes me as odd, but I don't have the real-world experience you guys do.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:03, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I'd have to go with Lt on this. I think the map with the "corrected" icons just reads a whole lot easier, especially when you take the legend into account. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, the legend is the part for which I would tilt my head ;) I have something of an internal compass, so reading the map as it is in the second version is more comfortable, but also more confusing. I'm still not sure which way to go with this, since there is disagreement—hopefully there will be more comments. If we decide to go for the second version, I would be inclined to keep the former updated as well (which is easy given how few travel icons the map requires), and link to it from the second's image file as an offline printing option.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:29, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Or link from the image text "click here for a North oriented map better suited for printing" or something like that... --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * @LtP: I wasn't thinking so much about the back and forth when looking for legend items.... I more have an overall dislike of maps that aren't oriented for north.... so yes, I would hold the map so that north is facing up, and read it that way. But I'm definitely not trying to stir up a big debate, the article could go forth with either version and be just fine – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:39, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Might as well clarify the reasons why I tilted the map to begin with: 1) To keep the map aligned north would entail an image covering much more territory, and consequently the icons and text would be much smaller relative to the image, and hence a lot harder to read. 2) the problems of #1 are relevant both online and offline—the rectangular format makes for easy high-res printing on standard 8x11" sheets of paper. 3) A more square image (necessitated by a northern alignment) would show a lot of blank space, particularly on the MD side (and there's nothing important to add there—the main roads are already in—it would just look unattractive). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:24, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify, the decision of which map is used has virtually no impact on whether I support promotion to star, I do in either case. However, I still stubbornly cling to my belief that map #2 is easier to read. ;) I like the idea of linking to the more printable version from the "online version"; in fact I'll likely be doing just that with a whole bunch of maps if I can make a Wikivoyage Press book out of the San Francisco articles. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:00, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Support. Overall, excellent article. Actually, I think excellent is an understatement. Great work, Peter. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:45, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. The coverage and maps are definitely star-worthy, and I love that some of Wikivoyage's best articles are places that other publications only skim (if at all). My only issue is that the introduction is rather dry — I'd like to see at least one sentence or phrase in there with a kick, something with a note of excitement about the place. It's not until halfway through the third paragraph of the article that you begin to make any kind of case for visiting there. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I gave a go at tightening and enlivening the introduction. I also added a "Words of Wisdom with Mayor Marion Barry" infobox, words of a man who never faltered in the cause of enlivening everything he touched. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes. Yes, that is most enlivening! (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:58, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

about Anacostia
Hi Peter,

I edited this article last night because so much of the information is incorrect or outdated. First and foremost, Anacostia is NOT the huge swath of neighborhoods east of the river -- it is only One neighborhood.

As such, it certainly not the most impoverished and dangerous. I am the first to admit that Anacostia is not perfect, but this is clearly written from the perspective that Anacostia is to be feared and is a novelty based on the fact that it is so jarringly different from the rest of the city.

While there might be neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River like that, the neighborhood of Anacostia is not that place. Can we work together to write a guide that is fair to the neighborhood and still interesting to read?

Thanks,

David Garber www.anacostianow.blogspot.com

 * Sure, I'll be happy to (and I'm a fan of your blog by the way). I reverted your edits yesterday because there were a host of "mistakes" often made by new contributors to Wikivoyage. The biggest one, which I think you already caught, was that of tone. Wikivoyage aims for irreverence, and is written from/for the point of view of a traveler. Your blog is more interested in the development of the historic Anacostia neighborhood (which I think is a fine goal), but the goal of the site is purely to both help guide around and entertain travelers. (I also have a personal ulterior motive in that I want to encourage travelers to visit, and to help dispel the prominent myth that the area has nothing to offer travelers.) When I read your changes, they looked to me like they were written by someone in real estate.

 * The big point of confusion, I think, is that this article is about all the neighborhoods east of the river. On Wikivoyage, our priorities in creating city districts are to 1) divide the city so that there are neither gaps nor overlap, 2) avoid having too many districts, and 3) ensure that each district can sustain a complete and high quality article. An article about the tiny Anacostia neighborhood would not likely satisfy #3, and it would create problems along the lines of #1 & #2—in particular, it would be very hard to then cover the rest of the neighborhoods east of the river.

 * So why, then, name the article Anacostia? First, it is the most common name for D.C. east of the Anacostia River—growing up in DC, I never even heard of a different name. The only other names that I have encountered lately for the area are "East of the River" and less often "Greater Anacostia," and I see you are now using "River East," but these terms are in relatively low use, and I'm not a fan of new coinages that seek to displace names that bear any negative associations (i.e., names that look like real estate euphemisms). The technical "correctness" of this name is not that big of a concern for a travel website (as opposed to an encyclopedia)—what's more important is that people recognize the name. We've already made the district borders eminently clear on the maps (one of which is even devoted to showing that the historic downtown Anacostia neighborhood is only a small part of the district). Furthermore, referring to the whole of a district by the name of its most famous part is relatively common practice here, for example, we use the name Chicago/Hyde Park, even though it also covers the Kenwood and Woodlawn neighborhoods, simply because readers/travelers will likely recognize the name as opposed to a more obscure "South Chicago Shore." This is also hugely important for our search engine results—if we choose an obscure name, searchers won't find our site. It could be useful, though, to give a better sense of differences between neighborhoods—to explain that not all of the district is experiencing the same level of urban blight, and that the historic Anacostia neighborhood is in better shape than you'd see elsewhere.

 * For a visitor to the city, I do indeed think the novelty factor of visiting this section of the city is important, and I actually only added that angle in response to concerns during the star article nomination that the introduction was too dry, and didn't make a strong case for why someone should visit. The reality is that extremely few visitors to D.C. ever cross the Anacostia for several reasons: they're told it's dangerous, that there's nothing there for a traveler, or they probably don't even know about it. It is a little amazing that the capital of the world's wealthiest nations has such poor and neglected areas, and I think that's one of the several "angles" the article should include in trying to demonstrate why travelers should include this on their itinerary.

 * I absolutely did not intend to feed the notion that Anacostia "is to be feared"—on the contrary I was trying to play off those stereotypes, in part to make the prose more lively, and in part for credibility. Again, the trouble here is the widespread misconception that Anacostia is not safe to visit. It's less safe than Friendship Heights, certainly, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as it is in the popular myth. I think if we don't address things like popular beliefs, or the still high murder rate, then our advice won't be taken very seriously. The stay safe section is a little poorly written nonetheless, so I'll try and spruce it up a bit, along with bits of the understand section that you didn't like, tonight when I have some time.

 * Lastly, is Vivid Solutions a new gallery? If so, please add it to the article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:35, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I tried to edit the sections you had changed to address your concerns without dulling down the tone, hopefully with some success. I also just noticed that you changed the phrase "two museums" to "a few." Are there more that aren't listed here? If so, please add them! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:40, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

This is a fantastic article. That's all I have to say. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 208.59.124.23 (talk • contribs)

Closed? listings
This would be an enormous loss for a city that probably wouldn't even realize there was something there... Phone is disconnected and I heard rumors months ago that they were going to move to a new location. I'll make a point of confirming this, but until then, I don't want to send people so far out of the way to something that may not be there! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:29, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Endless upscale restaurants serve "crab cakes" in D.C., but the cakes in question are more cake than crab and not really worth your time. The best lump-meat crab cakes belong to Miss Charlotte, hands down, who will likely serve you herself through the bullet-proof glass window. There's no seating save the stump outside, and this isn't one of the safest parts of town, but this is some of the best eating in the city. It's not too far from the Minnesota Ave metro stop. If driving, there's usually easy on-street parking, and the nearby Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens make for a wonderful place to eat crab cakes in the summer. You could go as cheap as the delicious fried whiting sandwich or a monster burger, but splurge instead for the $20 deluxe crab cake dinner (2 lumps, 2 sides). (And perhaps a perfect sweet potato pie.) You can call in your order in advance.

More closed listings (although I can't confirm for sure that Fireside is closed, but I definitely haven't been able confirm that it isn't!):

Nothing to Buy here?
This Star and soon-to-be OtBP has no content in the Buy section (apparently there used to be one shop listed but it closed). Should we remove the Buy heading or try to find some other shop interesting to travelers that could be listed? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 * There has to be something to buy there. I wish I knew the neighborhood, but whomever can help, please do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./Anacostia


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Capitol Hill

Closed listings

 * A well curated and well priced mens and womens vintage store, with knowledgeable staff. This is another D.C. favorite that few visitors would ever find.

--(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:30, 9 November 2010 (EST)

Their website doesn't work and Yelp lists it as closed: (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Capitol Hill dive bars don't really live up to that name. The neighborhood is populated with yuppies and Hill staffers. The name refers to general positions on U.S. national security policy. TVs are tuned to CNN. Regardless, this is a good bar, with cheaper drinks than you'll get elsewhere in the neighborhood, and it approximates the look well enough!

Their website no longer lists this location, although it lists one at 1100 New York Ave NW (which I think would be the East End): (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Cap City is always packed and popular. For that very reason it deserves something of a warning—the drinks are below average and overpriced, ditto the food, and both the crowd and the staff tend to be rude, especially on crowded weekends. On the upside, the building is rather beautiful, as it is in the Old Post Office Building, and it has a rooftop patio.

 * Yep, the former is definitely closed, and Cap City is now just in the East End. That location's a little less notable in that area, though, so I'm inclined to leave it out.  --Peter Talk 08:12, 13 September 2012 (CEST)

Moved listings
If and when the district map gets edited, please note that Groovy DC has moved from 428 8th St SE to 323 7th St SE. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2012 (CEST)
 * This is a very eclectic gift shop with unique gift cards, gags, and other arts & crafts. It's a little on the expensive side.

 * I promise that it's a when, not an if ;) --Peter Talk 04:37, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The current banner is more beautiful and intriguing. The new banner is OK but very typical. I know I sound inconsistent, but sometimes, it's best to go for something different, instead of yet another picture of a building or monument that's extremely well-known throughout the world, unless the picture is truly outstanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I would agree that the existing banner is intriguing. If the shot on the original banner was of poor quality I would be inclined to change it, but as it stands I would prefer to keep the excellent shot that it is. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The same for me, keep please. Danapit (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I definitely prefer the existing banner. Not that there's anything wrong with the proposed banner, but the Library of Congress is such a beautiful structure, and one that I think gets somewhat overlooked next to its more famous neighbors, so I think it also makes for a more unique header. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Original Syced (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Content attribution
Just a note that I adapted the description for the Northeast Library from Wikipedia at Northeast Neighborhood Library (I'm noting it here as I made a typo on the link in the edit summery). JakeOregon (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./Capitol Hill


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Districts discussion

Content moved here from Talk:Washington, D.C.

Districts
Should D.C. be split into districts? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 18:10, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Maybe, but I'm not sure that would really help much with the huge See section, due to the insane concentration of sights in such a small area. We'd almost have to divide the city center by block, and there wouldn't be a lot of Sleep listings for "North side of the Mall".  I do know that the city has some district-worthy neighborhoods outside of the Capitol-WhiteHouse-Lincoln-Jefferson "cathedral", but since the only one I could name would be Dupont Circle, I'd have to defer to someone who knows the city better to identify and delineate them. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:32, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I know the Foggybottom area fairly well for having stayed in the area for only three days last year. I'll have to stop in D.C. for a few days on my way back from Boston/Cambridge in the first week of August. I'll see what I can dig up. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:40, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I agree that we should split up DC into several districts. There are several:
 * Downtown (Mall, White House, Capitol)
 * Foggy Bottom (IMF, World Bank, GWU, other stuff)
 * Georgetown (shops, C & O Canal, University)
 * Northwest (technically includes Georgetown, but can be devoted to Dupont, Adams Morgan, U Street corridor, Embassy Row, Cathedral, Naval Observatory, Rock Creek Park, National Zoo, Woodley Park)
 * Northeast (Arboretum, RFK Stadium, )
 * Southeast (not very touristy... Naval Museum)
 * -(WT-en) Derek 21:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I think what you have as NW needs to be subdivided. At least Dupont, Adams Morgan and U Street are their own districts.  BTW, SE will get more touristy next year w/ the opening of the Nats stadium.  Anyway, I'm all in favor of dividing this up.  There's a lot of DC away from the Downtown area.  --(WT-en) Jonboy 23:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I just wanted to chime in to agree with Jonboy's comment. Aside from that I like Derek's proposal, although I think it will need revision as districts get developed. I'm still very occupied with Chicago's districts at present, but once I start finishing up with that, I plan to make a bunch of district maps for DC.

 * Speaking as someone who grew up in DC, I really don't like having a "Downtown" district because that is both too big for one article and very misleading. The National Mall deserves its own article, regardless of whether you can sleep there, because it is enormous, has a ton of stuff to see and do, and is pretty much the only destination for DC's tourist hordes (except when they venture forth on those ridiculous trolleys). If we are to include the area along the north side of the mall (about two blocks deep I think) in this article, lets please not call that "Downtown"—it's really not. We can split off sections like "Chinatown/Verizon Center" and break out a "Golden Triangle" district (I know it's a made up neighborhood, but the city's goofy campaign is generating some inertia as a coherent section of the city and it makes for a convenient district).

 * I just overhauled the districts section of this article to first get rid of Anacostia and Rock Creek Park. The latter is not an article and the former is jumping the gun—lets first get any content written about the southeast before subdividing it. Other suggestions off the top of my head:

 * Cover Shaw in the U Street district—it goes well with its northern neighbor and is one of my favorite haunts
 * Whatever the deal is with that area around the new Convention Center, we need to make sure it winds up clearly in one district
 * We have overlap (the Capitol Building) between the Mall and Capitol South; I prefer to put it in the latter to take off some of the pressure on the Mall's looooong list of attractions
 * Lets keep Dupont Circle clearly delineated from the "Golden Triangle" if we go that route
 * Amalgamate surrounding neighborhoods with less going on into the Columbia Heights article
 * For this districts hierarchy to be really good, it should be comprehensive, i.e., no part of DC should be left out. This will be easier once we start making maps.

 * I hope these comments are useful and rest assured I will pay a lot more attention to this in about a month. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Comprehensive districts proposal

OK, here's a map I whipped up of DC's neighborhoods. I'd like to organize not only all current content, but all potential future content into a comprehensive district structure for the city. If you'd like to see what features/streets fit into which neighborhood here is a copy of the map with the satellite image visible. All these neighborhoods should amalgamate into viable district articles.

Here's a proposal, which we can and probably should alter with more editor input, please place suggestions/critiques below the hierarchy list:

Central

 * Washington (D.C.)/The Mall — I actually think The Mall should be given its own article, although I believe that you cannot sleep there. It will fill out a long article just on the weight of the attractions, I think. It's a national park on its own and having a single article to print out just makes sense.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Downtown (K Street, West End, & Foggy Bottom) — Combining Washington (D.C.)/Downtown (West End) and Washington (D.C.)/Foggy Bottom makes sense, given location and the fact that K Street and the West End don't have all that much to write about.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Penn Quarter (Penn Quarter, Chinatown, Judiciary Square, & Mt Vernon Square) — the only thing controversial here is adding Mt Vernon Square/Convention Center, but I think it fits just fine.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Shaw (Shaw, Pleasant Plains, & Le Droit Park) — This rolls Howard University into the district covering smaller "neighborhoods" of Logan Circle, U Street Corridor, & Truxton Circle. But perhaps Howard U and its surrounding neighborhoods should be treated separately?
 * Washington (D.C.)/Waterfront (Southwest & Navy Yard) — Pretty straightforward, I think.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Capitol Hill (Capitol Hill, Kingman Park, & Lincoln Park) — no one living in the latter two neighborhoods will like being called Capitol Hill, but this is a convenient grouping and I can't think of a better name. Real estate agents lie and call all of this Capitol Hill all the time, in any rate.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Dupont Circle (Dupont Circle & Kalorama) — Had to put Kalorama somewhere!

Northwest

 * Washington (D.C.)/Georgetown — A major destination that fills out an article well. I've already combined it with tiny Burleith.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Adams Morgan (Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, & Columbia Heights) — distinct neighborhoods no doubt, and controversial to call it all Adams Morgan, but the grouping makes sense from a travel perspective.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Woodley Park (Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens, Cathedral Heights, & Glover Park) — I think it makes sense to combine Woodley Park and Cleveland Park, since they are both relatively low density neighborhoods (in terms of travel-relevant listings). If the article gets too unwieldy, we can always divide later. Is there a better name, though, that wouldn't shortchange Cleveland Park?
 * Washington (D.C.)/Palisades (Palisades, Foxhall, Colony Hill, Kent, Wesley Heights, Berkley, Kent) — Another big, low-density neighborhood. Perhaps not enough to sustain an article, but it's coherent.
 * Washington (D.C.)/AU-Tenleytown (American University Park, Tenleytown) — I'm a bit worried that this won't have enough to sustain an article.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Chevy Chase (Chevy Chase & Friendship Heights) — And all the little uninteresting neighborhoods I already rolled into the Chevy Chase neighborhood on the map. So wealthy it could sustain its own article, but a little boring. Perhaps this could be combined with another Northwest neighborhood.

Northeast

 * Washington (D.C.)/Near Northeast (Atlas District, NoMa, Gallaudet, Trinidad, Ivy City, Carver Langston, Arboretum, Bloomingdale, Eckington, Brentwood, Langdon, Gateway, Fort Lincoln) — I think this grouping is really convenient. It's less coherent due to the neighborhoods north of the Arboretum, but we need to include them somewhere and it will all fit nicely into a rectangular map. Btw, NoMa is a stupid name.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Northeast (Colonial Village, 16th St Heights, Petworth, Old Soldier's Home, WHC, Edgewood, Brookland, Woodridge, Michigan Park, Fort Totten, Pleasant Hill, Lamond Riggs, Manor Park, Brightwood, Shepherd Park, Crestwood, Old Soldiers Home, Park View) — very big, but very low-density for a traveler. Enough to write a good article, but I honestly don't think it will need further subdivision.

Southeast

 * Washington (D.C.)/Anacostia (Everything south of the Anacostia River) — I confess this is the one section of the city that I just don't know that well, apart from the rather small "Historic Anacostia" neighborhood. I think it would actually make sense to group all these neighborhoods, at least for the time being until we have more content. I also realize that this is not all southeast dc, much of it is northeast, but the Anacostia title can work, given the river as the defining geographic feature.

That's a full 16 districts. That seems like too many to me, really, for a rather small (albeit dense) city. Perhaps we could combine the latter three districts from the Northwest section into one large "Washington (D.C.)/Northwest" article? Comments/criticism/suggestions are all highly welcome. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:21, 9 January 2008 (EST)

 * At first glance, I like it, but note that parks seem to have been excluded from neighborhoods. Where, then, would you put information about Rock Creek Park? --(WT-en) Jonboy 17:30, 12 January 2008 (EST)

 * I think that the really enormous parks (Rock Creek, Archibald-Glover, & the Canal) should be dealt with in the main DC article in a "Parks" section of "See"—a good map of Rock Creek Park, its trails, roads, & buildings would be a must. The big parks across the river would all be covered by the Anacostia article, and the Arboretum would fit nicely in the Near Northeast article. Where certain districts have important trailheads (pathheads?), we can note that in either the "Do" or "Get out" sections, I think. One I don't know what to do with is Roosevelt Island—it is located within the DC political boundaries, but it really makes more sense to cover it from Northern Virginia, since that's where the bridge onto the island is located (unless I'm forgetting something). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)

 * Well, I'm definitely leaning towards combining the last three Northwest districts into a "Northwest" district to parallel the "Northeast" one (and I've done so on this new districts map). I also think it's best to group the "Adams Morgan" district with the "central" districts, unlike in the above scheme. I also moved to change the "Downtown" name to "West End," since "Downtown" is just too imprecise—that would in my opinion also include the Penn Quarter, and the two blocks south of The Mall. The only other change I've made on the map is to break off "Truxton Circle" from "Shaw" and roll it into the "Near Northeast" article, because the neighborhood is tiny and probably won't register any listings, and because that will make individual district maps easier to make. So, I'm about ready to call this district hierarchy done (albeit open to individual district name changes), and get ready to start fixing up the structure of our DC guides. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:50, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Districts reorganization
I'm just about to reorganize the districts for DC, and I'll document what I'm doing here, because it's complicated (i.e., was a mess):

 * Washington (D.C.)/Downtown → Washington, D.C./West End, Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter, Washington, D.C./Waterfront, & Washington, D.C./Capitol Hill
 * Washington (D.C.)/Capitol Hill → Washington, D.C./Capitol Hill
 * Washington (D.C.)/Downtown (East End) → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Downtown (West End) → Washington, D.C./West End
 * Washington (D.C.)/Metro Center → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Penn Quarter → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Chinatown → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Federal Triangle → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Judiciary Square → Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter
 * Washington (D.C.)/Foggy Bottom → Washington, D.C./West End
 * Washington (D.C.)/Georgetown → Washington, D.C./Georgetown
 * Washington (D.C.)/Dupont Circle → Washington, D.C./Dupont Circle
 * Washington (D.C.)/Adams Morgan → Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan
 * Washington (D.C.)/U Street Corridor → Washington, D.C./Shaw
 * Washington (D.C.)/Columbia Heights-Mount Pleasant → Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan
 * Washington (D.C.)/Embassy Row → Washington, D.C.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Cleveland Park → Washington, D.C./Woodley Park
 * Washington (D.C.)/Takoma-Petworth → Washington, D.C./Northeast
 * Washington (D.C.)/Anacostia → Washington, D.C./Anacostia
 * Washington (D.C.)/Southeast → Washington, D.C.
 * Washington (D.C.)/Southwest → Washington, D.C./Waterfront
 * Washington (D.C.)/Northeast → Washington, D.C./Northeast & Washington, D.C./Near Northeast

Note1:Embassy Row is not a neighborhood, it's a long section of just one street, which crosses both the "Dupont Circle" and "Woodley Park" districts. It'll be best to just cover this as a subsection of "See" in the main article (since people have heard of it) and to link the two district articles.

Note2:I've included a bunch of technically NW neighborhoods in the "Northeast" district article. I'll explain in the "Get around" section of the main article, after finishing the reorganization. Basically I'm contending that the NW/NE/SW/SE address quadrants are not useful for understanding travel in DC, as they do not correspond to geographic realities.

--(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:46, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Splitting The Mall

Ah, now that I've actually tried to create a dedicated National Mall article, I'm realizing that it just won't work as a stand-alone Wikivoyage article—there's just not enough material, packed with sites though it may be. Moreover, its significant geographical spread allows it to be chopped up in a way that does make some sense.

This image shows what I'm proposing/doing. I've sent anything south of Independence Ave into the "Waterfront" article, so that means the Holocaust Museum and the Tidal basin and its associated monuments go there. That's kind of nice, since that would group the Tidal Basin with Haines Point, which makes sense from a parking perspective (although woe to the summer parker!). The Washington Monument, West Potomac Park, and the White House are all moved to the "West End," which is also nice because it groups them with adjacent museums that are only technically in Foggy Bottom (and restaurants beloved by the White House staff).

The more awkward grouping becomes the main Mall museum strip, which now goes to the "Penn Quarter." That's nice because it groups together the museums with the many Smithsonian Institute museums that are not actually on the Mall. But then we're calling the main section of the National Mall—one of the top attractions in the USA—merely a part of a downtown neighborhood. But it is just a section of a now carved up National Mall, and I can't think of any better solutions. We can still link heavily to the article from a "National Mall" section of "See" on the main Washington, D.C. article. I'll also make a dedicated National Mall map that cuts across the district boundaries for the main article.

Anyway, I'm just going to plunge forward on this and we can continue the discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:23, 21 January 2008 (EST)

ELIMINATE districts
We need to eliminate districts from this article ASAP. As it is, most of the districts articles have almost no content. The districts themselves make no sense, certainly not to an outside visitor. And important new attractions, such as the Newseum, are not listed ANYWHERE. Sadly, dividing the article into districts has resulted in making the entire article less usable and less relevant for both editors and readers.

Given that Washington DC is a rather small and compact city (both in terms of population and size) I'd favor eliminating all districts and just move back to one article. If we MUST use districts, let's use ones that make sense (like NW, NE, SW, SE) instead of trying to make a page for every neighborhood. It just doesn't work. (WT-en) SONORAMA 22:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, it probably won't surprise you that I disagree, since I have vested considerable time and effort in coming up with this districts hierarchy, based largely on my experience creating a districts hierarchy for Chicago. There are clear weaknesses to our D.C. coverage at present; and I'm certainly amenable to adjusting the hierarchy, and improving its presentation; but I don't think reverting the article to the sloppy, shallow mess it was at first would amount to a net benefit. I'll try to address your concerns in turn.

 * 1) Most district articles have almost no content. — True, but that's currently written content; they all have very significant content on the ground just waiting to be written about. The Shaw article is the only one I've had an opportunity to invest much time into, and I think you'll agree that it's a very well developed and useful article (even though I've so far only put in about 2/3 of what I eventually plan to write for that district). When I or other motivated contributors find the time to add content to them, I'm quite confident that each of the district articles will develop into high quality Wikivoyage district articles.

 * There are three exceptions, though: Anacostia will be somewhat deficient in sleep options, since it is so poor, but it absolutely does not fit well with any of the other districts and is geographically separate from the rest of the city. And 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.

 * 2) The districts themselves make no sense, certainly not to an outside visitor. — That's a bold assertion, since they clearly made sense to me. An outside visitor with no knowledge of the city should not understand a good districts structure without guidance, and that is the job of both the main article, the introductory sections of each district article, and the included maps. I've actually included a full map of the district which shows the exact street boundaries of each district, so I presume that you don't mean they make no sense by being ill defined. I've grouped neighborhoods into districts with two main objectives in mind: 1) that the districts are coherent both geographically & thematically and 2) can fill out all sections of a  full district article nicely. I'd challenge you to point out a single district that doesn't meet both those objectives.

 * I'd also argue that the quick district descriptions on the main article provide a good indication of what to expect for each district, but perhaps you have some ideas for what could be done to make things more clear? Maybe it would be helpful to add "stub" district maps (which showed street boundaries up close, but do not yet include the individual travel icons) to each district article? I could do that pretty quickly. In any rate, my understanding of how to make these things clear is based on the way the Chicago article is organized (and on how the San Francisco article is being organized). If you could point to what exactly is causing confusion, that would help this discussion greatly.

 * 3) Important new attractions, such as the Newseum, are not listed ANYWHERE. — True (and this was just as true before the district hierarchy was created!), please add them! The Newseum, by the way, would go in Washington, D.C./Penn Quarter.

 * 4) Given that Washington DC is a rather small and compact city (both in terms of population and size) I'd favor eliminating all districts and just move back to one article. — Here I couldn't disagree more. D.C. is actually the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., and given that it is the national capital as well as one of the most wealthy and cosmopolitan centers of the country, it has an incredible concentration of things to see and do throughout the district. Moreover, the article was one of our longest before being broken up (way past the point at which we recommend districtification), and several contributors had already voiced support for a split as long ago as the summer of 2006. People started creating an ad hoc district structure without serious planning, which resulted in an overlapping, sloppily defined mess, where it was absolutely not clear where to put content.

 * 5) If we MUST use districts, let's use ones that make sense (like NW, NE, SW, SE) instead of trying to make a page for every neighborhood. It just doesn't work. — I disagree strongly with the first point—the quadrant divisions of D.C. make no sense whatsoever as a travel division. They are arbitrary divisions based on relations to the Capitol Building with no relevance to travel. Moreover, they were developed before the secession of the D.C. territories south & west of the Potomac, so the NW article would therefore cover virtually all the content in the city. The second assertion in this point is simply false, as you can see in the above maps showing all the neighborhoods of D.C. The current district structure amalgamates loads of neighborhoods into a few large districts, and does so based on a careful review of how the neighborhoods can fit together in terms of both geographical & thematic proximity. The notion that we currently have one page per neighborhood is simply false.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:00, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Washington DC's population is, acording to Wikipedia, 588000. It is very small in terms of physical size.  Compare this to the other articles that have districts: they are for cities with millions of people spread over a wide area, like New York or Hong Kong.  Peter is correct that Washington's small size belies its importance as the nation's capital.  The solution, perhaps, is perhaps one that would emphasize the entire region.  There are already articles for Arlington VA and Alexandria.  These perhaps are the more natural "district" divisions of a larger Washingtno DC article, and preferable to further sub-dividing the DC article.

 * Peter, you've made some great contributions to the article, no doubt about that. I'm just worried at this point that 1) For those who are not Washington experts, it is not clear what content should go in what district 2) Most visitors plan a trip to "Washington" only, not to a specific district of Washington  3) Washington has no easy to define "districts", as NYC has with Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, etc.  When living in or around Washington, the most frequent divisions I hear are "inside the beltway", "Virginia" or "Maryland".

 * When I use wikipedia as a travel guide, I like to get a quick overview of where downtown is, where most of the hotels are, etc. That is what is missing from this guide -- the information is spread throughout 13 district articles.  Most people don't have the time to crawl through each one.  I'd suggest we eliminate the districts with little or no content and merge together the others down to 3 to 5 cohesive articles. (WT-en) SONORAMA 05:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, in part I think the problem stems from the fact that I assembled what I consider to be a "final" district hierarchy, when the policy on districting recommends that you first break cities down into larger chunks, and then wait until there is enough content to justify further breaking down. I did this because I intended to fill out the district articles quickly—but lately I've become quite busy with offline affairs.

I've got two ideas on how to make the district structure more digestible right away. First, there are two pairs of articles that could easily be combined: Northwest+Woodley Park & Near Northeast+Northeast. We could still break those apart at some later date, if the content gets too overwhelming (and it could for the Northwest amalgamation), but they make sense together. Second, we could group the districts into 4 categories that would look like this:

I've been thinking about grouping them together like that for a while now (and I'll revamp those hastily written descriptions). The advantage is that the structure becomes much more digestible, especially at first glance. The disadvantage is that we then don't have descriptions for each district right up front—but that may have seemed overwhelming.

I'll try to address each of your concerns:

1) I think that would be resolved if I put up stub district maps for each district on each district page, as per my suggestion above.

2) True, but it still seems useful to me to organize content by districts, since there is so much content in the city. Visitors who only want to stay downtown & see the Mall shouldn't have to wade through content about the North Central neighborhoods or Anacostia—they should just flip to the 3 downtown district articles. I considered creating just one article for the "downtown," but that article would be huge—there is an unparalleled number of attractions in downtown DC (check the map on the main article)—and way too big to cover on foot.

3) NYC is a beast of a different order & actually has two levels of districts, the first being Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, and the second being additional district hierarchies to each of the first (Manhattan has 20 sub-districts!). And really, you can't spend much time in D.C. without hearing people talk about Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Capitol Hill, etc.—these are tourist hotspots (outside of downtown), that are commonly understood. That and the fact that I have defined each district down to exact street borders should make things clear for contributors (especially once I put up individual district maps like the one for Washington, D.C./Anacostia.

With regards to understanding where the hotels are, that's just a fault of this article being underdeveloped—I haven't written the overview sleep section yet. When I do (and I'll take a stab at it today), it should provide links to the most hotel-dense districts (Penn Quarter, Dupont Circle, Shaw, & Georgetown), as well as an overview of what to expect where. Ideally, readers should navigate mostly from the main article (rather than crawling all district pages), which should make it clear where to find the attractions, dining, nightlife, hotels, etc. of most interest to each individual traveler. See Chicago for a good example of how I think this should look when finished. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Peter, the changes you propose sound good. I agree that the article needs districts. I also like the changes you made on the main article about hotels.  Usually, when I travel, that is the first/most important that I'm looking for, so it's always a good idea to emphasize where to find lodging information. (WT-en) SONORAMA 02:45, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Revisited, by Michael 3000
I don't know where you came up with this idea but it's a disaster. No one in D.C. is familiar with this and if a tourist relies upon this system in planning their trip they will likely get lost. There is absolutely no reason not to use the Quadrant system. Most of D.C.'s major attractions are in NW and most tourists spend their time in NW and SW. There is no reason you cannot list some neighborhoods but you needn't list all. For example the only things in the West End relevant to tourists are some expensive hotels.

It doesn't matter how long someone spent on the article if it sucks. Let's tear it down and start over. This time let's do it properly. I run into tourists in the city every day it seems and if I tell them to go to Chinatown it would be useful for them to know where that is rather than some 'district'. - (WT-en) Michael 3000 02:31, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * If you want to map out a suggested alternative scheme for discussion, then please do so. It can then go through the normal Wiktiravel process of concensus building to see if there is agreement for change.
 * I must say that you have not started off terribly well though by calling work "garbage" and saying "it sucks", before making any valid contribution to the site yourself.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:46, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * Actually I did make a valid contribution. I amended the 'Get Around' by car section to be more factual and relevant.  Lines like "Driving in D.C. is difficult" are pure opinion and can be said of any city in the world.  I think it is better to say something factual such as 'D.C. has the highest accident rate in the country' and back it up with a link.  There is already an alternative to the District system.  It is called the quadrant system and was laid out by L'Enfant and Ellicot back in 1791-1792.  All addresses in D.C., all maps of D.C., and all directions within and to and from the city are expressed in terms of quadrants.    There is nothing wrong with the system already in place.

 * And the 'Garbage' I refer to is the editorializing and the opinions and political rhetoric. Anyone from the D.C. area can see that the article is horribly slanted.  It is written almost as if designed to discourage people from visiting D.C.  - (WT-en) Michael 3000 03:46, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * I've already addressed the idea that the quadrants should be used as articles above, but I will repeat it for your convenience:

 * The quadrant divisions of D.C. make no sense whatsoever as a travel division. They are arbitrary divisions based on relations to the Capitol Building with no relevance to travel. Moreover, they were developed before the secession of the D.C. territories south & west of the Potomac, so the NW article would therefore cover virtually all the content in the city. The second assertion in this point is simply false, as you can see in the above maps showing all the neighborhoods of D.C. The current district structure amalgamates loads of neighborhoods into a few large districts, and does so based on a careful review of how the neighborhoods can fit together in terms of both geographical & thematic proximity.

 * The notion that the quadrants are relevant to anything other than the address system is one fairly widespread with people either new to or otherwise unfamiliar with the city, and perhaps it would be worthwhile to make this a bit more clear in the main article. We use districts on Wikivoyage to break content down into manageable chunks for travelers, and each district should be organized so that it supports a good travel article—not too bloated, not too thin. I'll add the same pointers as I have to your comments at Talk:Washington, D.C.: please look over Project:Geographical hierarchy, as well as other Project:Star articles, which break down content into manageable travel districts in the same manner as in this article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:47, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * 'New to or unfamiliar with the city.' That's a good one.  I've lived in the area for 30+ years.  Having worked in the West End, I know that there is nothing there apart from a few pricey hotels and the offices of some law firms.  I would be willing to wager than I know D.C. just a bit better than you do.  Were you in D.C. when the basketball team was still called the Bullets, and they played in Maryland?  How about a time when National Airport was still called National Airport?  Of course, locals still call it National Airport.  Ever see any shows at the famous Bayou in Georgetown before it closed in 1998?  I did.  Were you in the city the last time the Redskins won the Super Bowl?  If not then I think you need to quit talking trash. - (WT-en) Michael 3000 13:25, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * Is it impossible for you you to communicate in a reasonable, pleasant and polite manner? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:53, 9 March 2010 (EST)

 * "The notion that the quadrants are relevant to anything other than the address system is one fairly widespread with people either new to or otherwise unfamiliar with the city" - this a rather condescending and contentious sentence. I replied to this condescending message with an assertive message of my own.  At worst I have done no more than to lower myself to the level of the previous poster.  In the future I will try to refrain from sinking to such a level. -  (WT-en) Michael 3000 00:46, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Districts section
Discussion moved here from Talk:Washington, D.C.

I don't want to rehash the discussion as to whether or not the "Districts" section is warranted. I absolutely believe that it is; however, I have a few gripes I wanted to discuss here first:

1. It may be convenient to call all of wards 7 and 8 "Anacostia", and give readers the impression that Adams Morgan extends all through Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, and Petworth; however, anybody who uses this information as a guide will surely be confused when they're wandering around Park Road while trying to find Tryst or Madams Organ. If the names of the actual neighborhoods are going to be used, then they should be labeled appropriately.

2. I think labeling what is appropriately termed "Upper northwest" as simply "Northwest", and labeling everything as far as 16th Street NW as "Northeast" is just setting tourists up for failure, especially when they learn that "Northwest" means everything north and west of the Capitol.

I'm all for trying to simplify D.C.'s complicated toponymy, but it has to be done in a way that is both concise and precise. Why not just label the areas with their actual names? In the end, I believe that cuts out most of the confusion that would invariably haunt readers. Best, 98.218.224.177 19:07, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

 * First, please see Talk:Washington, D.C./Districts discussion. Some of the points you are making here have already been addressed there. Anyway:

 * 1. I could put up my comprehensive neighborhoods map, if that would help. Also, I can shade in the individual district maps to show individual neighborhoods, where this is useful. District articles will also contain maps and addresses, so I don't understand why a visitor would "wander around Park Road" looking for Madams Organ. It also states in the first sentence of that article that the three neighborhoods are distinct. Ultimately, I think it makes sense from a travel perspective to combine those neighborhoods in the way that they are—the name isn't so important, and if you have suggestions, I'm all ears. (And "Anacostia" is how much of the city actually refers to everything east of the river.)

 * 2. (This point has already been addressed at length, I believe, in the districts discussion.) I think the disparity between the address designations and the districts as drawn can be explained in the understand section pretty easily. The address designations NW, NE, SW, & SE have no travel relevance whatsoever beyond addresses, so using them as travel districts would be a mistake.

 * The most important considerations in defining districts are the travel articles they will produce (i.e., not spreading out content too far and not consolidating too much info into one monster article). And I don't understand what you mean by "label the areas with their actual names"—would you please clarify. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Yes, I saw the previous link, but it brought me to an anchor in the middle of the page and I didn't notice the discussion above it, only the stuff about getting rid of the districts.

 * My main concern here is about the way the neighborhoods and these artificial "Districts" distort how the city is actually grouped together. I mean, looking at New York, they actually use the names that everybody else uses to describe them; they divide the city into boroughs, and then each burough into recognizable districts (e.g. Downtown, Midtown, etc.) If a tourist at McPherson Square used this map and asked me "How do I get to Northwest Washington?", I would respond "You're in it". I think that's a problem.

 * These artificially created districts also give the impression that they are somehow grouped together. For example, I would not lump Adams Morgan, Columbia Heights, and Mount Pleasant together into a single group... in fact, Adams Morgan has almost nothing in common with the other two. That's what I meant by jokingly implying that people would be looking for bars and restaurants on Park Road. I think that Dupont, Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, and U Street are more "linked" as the restaurant-music-club area and would submit that they be grouped as a "district".

 * Further, is there a reason that every single place has to be shaded and/or included? I mean, surely there's no need to discuss what are primarily residential areas in upper northwest, most of Wards 4 7 and 8, 16th Street Heights, northeast D.C., etc. Best, 98.218.224.177 01:01, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I am not super familiar with D.C., but it seems to me it might be wise to avoid direction-based district names given the very specific address-quadrant system. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

 * All parts of the map should be shaded in, because per the Project:Geographical hierarchy, there should always be a place to put travel information. In 16th st heights, for example, there is one great diner that I would include in the guide (although I can't recall the name right now). Ward 7 is definitely the emptiest of D.C.'s quarters, but there are a good two things there that visitors should know about: Miss Charlotte's Crab Cakes and the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Those are both big reasons in my view to visit the area (although I realize that few visitors to the city do). There's no need to waste time discussing neighborhoods with nothing to offer a traveler, but there's also no harm in tossing them in districts with other more interesting neighborhoods, and then ignoring them.

 * The New York districts are still messy. Manhattan is the only division with reasonable subdivisions, but still 19 districts is probably a bit too much. Brooklyn really needs districts, but the list is way too long, and neighborhoods will need to be grouped as they are here.

 * The neighborhood groupings are intentional, and are designed to give the impression that they should be grouped together. It's easier to talk about specifics, so lets turn our attention to them. The Adams Morgan grouping is pretty clearly united in its brand of slightly off-beat nightlife catering to 23-30 year-olds. That and Latin-American ethnic food. I'm basing that on my experience, since my friends and I always hung out in those neighborhoods on the same night. Shaw or Dupont Circle, on the other hand, offer different types of dining and nightlife, catering to fashionable 30-40s in Shaw, upscale dining and yuppie nightlife in Dupont, etc.

 * The reason to keep Dupont, Shaw, and Adams Morgan separate, is that they all can maintain their own articles. Take a look at the Washington, D.C./Shaw article I've been working on. It's a nice big, coherent article. Dupont and Adams Morgan both can also support long travel articles packed with interesting things to see do eat buy drink sleep. Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights cannot; hence the need to roll them in with another neighborhood, and I think Adams Morgan is the best place to put them. I understand your point about wanting to keep U St and 18th St together, but I think its worth it to keep Shaw a distinct article, since its rich African-American history (and jazz scene) makes for a very thematically coherent travel article. One decade of partial gentrification and hip nightlife doesn't really trump that for me.

 * Point taken about directionally named neighborhoods. How do we avoid trouble in this regard? Do we change Northwest and Northeast to Upper Northwest, Upper Northeast? In any other city this would be much simpler, since they wouldn't have the goofy address grid. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, not *any* other city; Albuquerque uses it too. =)  "Upper" would probably work, although "Outer" might be more descriptive.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I would definitely agree with renaming Northwest "Upper Northwest", since that's its name. If somebody asked me "How do I get to upper Northwest", I would definitely know what they meant. As for northeast... well, northeast is just a mess (even the Washington City Paper had problems trying to name it. I do think it's a problem calling it northeast as well, simply because of the good chunk of the green area that's actually in northwest, which I think would be confusion. I would be okay with just calling it "Brookland", since that's at least the name of a neighborhood. I mean, if Adams Morgan can consume Mt. Pleasant and Columbia Heights, and Anacostia (which I feel is colloquially considered to be only southeast D.C.) can be used to name the entire forgotten strip to the east of the river, then I think Brookland can adequately describe the area. Best, 98.218.224.177 02:28, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I don't know that I would go for Brookland to describe "Northeast," just since Takoma is a different and just as important neighborhood from a travel perspective, IMO. "Brookland-Takoma-Petworth" would work, but that's pretty long. I'll think about this one some more, but the main aspect of the district is that it is a leftover region of the city of all neighborhoods east of Rock Creek.

 * Perhaps it might be better to rename Washington, D.C./Adams Morgan to "Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights," a la Chicago/Bridgeport-Chinatown? That can be a good way to combine neighborhoods. And Mount Pleasant is definitely the junior partner in this grouping, in terms of size & travel relevance, I think (don't get me wrong, I really love the neighborhood). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:36, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I actually like both of those ideas. I don't think "Brookland-Takoma-Petworth" is too long. If anything, I don't even think Takoma really needs to have its own mention... I don't think it's any more important than Chinatown, Woodley/Cleveland Park, or Mount Pleasant. And yes, I think Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights would definitely be a more appropriate term. Enjoy the storm! Best, 98.218.224.177 11:06, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:58, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

National Mall
It still seems weird to me to have the Mall and museums split among two or three districts. I'm afraid the average traveler is going to be looking for Mall information and balk a bit when told they need to print out two articles to get "both halves". (WT-en) LtPowers 09:26, 19 December 2008 (EST)

 * Yeah, I'm not terribly happy with this either. My softest approach was to make that National Mall map with just attractions listed. But maybe it's necessary to give it its own article, separate from any actual neighborhoods, and devoid of buy/eat/sleep/drink listings. If we were to do that, I'd suggest we actually include less than what is on the Mall map in the main article—so that there would be no overlap with the Penn Quarter or West End districts. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:28, 19 December 2008 (EST)

My suggestion would be to keep the National Gallery of Art, National Museum of American History, and National Museum of Natural History in the Penn Quarter article, since they all border the district. (everything from Constitution Avenue, northward) I definitely think of the National Gallery of Art and the ice rink as part of Penn Quarter. Though, it might work to overlap those listings on a "National Mall" page. Anything about the other museums, on the other side of the mall, is indeed out of place in the Penn Quarter article, nor is that the place to give a quick overview of the history of the National Mall.

For the West End article, it should cover everything north of Constitution Avenue and west of 15th St. (including the White House) Everything south of Constitution Avenue and west of 15th St should go in the National Mall article, make it include the waterfront area. Areas on the Mall east of 15th St can go in the National Mall article, with possible exception or cross-listing of the three museums along Constitution Avenue that border Penn Quarter. (WT-en) Aude 00:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Below is a sketch of my recommendation. (WT-en) Aude 00:15, 3 January 2009 (EST)

And, I wouldn't call the Penn Quarter article by that name. Penn Quarter is really only the area between 4th and 10th St., and Constitution Ave to F or G St. NW, and not that entire area. "East End" would work better as a name, and then we have "West End" which is fine. (WT-en) Aude 00:18, 3 January 2009 (EST)

 * I think there is consensus for a National Mall article, though we still need to figure out some specifics. Since inauguration is coming up soon, I'm plunging forward with the Washington, D.C./National Mall page, to start getting it in shape. Of course, I'm open to ideas, discussion, input, assistance, collaboration, or whatever. I'm still undecided on what to do with the museums on Constitution Avenue. I think the bulk of the details can go in the National Mall article, but they are also worth cross-listing in the Penn Quarter article, since they sort are part of both areas. As we plunge forward, this can shake out. (WT-en) Aude 16:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

 * Yeah, it would be ideal to get the D.C. articles in proper shape for the inauguration (Dupont Circle is a total mess with all sorts of bad recommendations—I'll try and tackle that one).

 * I think the natural area for the National Mall article is the parkland itself. So I definitely think the museums just below Constitution Ave (e.g., National Gallery of Art, National Museum of American History, and National Museum of Natural History) belong in the National Mall article. I can't imagine a Mall article without them. The basic principle of a huge city district organization is that there be no overlap (and no gaps), so I wouldn't want to see them included in both the Mall and the Penn Quarter articles. They would, however, naturally belong in the Get out section of the Penn Quarter article.

 * Renaming Penn Quarter to East End sounds like a fine idea. It looks from your map, though, that you're cutting out sections of the city from that article that are currently included in the district (north of NY and MA aves). I'd really prefer we stick to the boundaries set on the map in the article, since those areas fit better in an East End article than in Shaw or Near Northeast articles.

 * I'd also prefer that we don't subsume the Waterfront article into the National Mall article. The main point of having a separate Mall article is so that all information on the Mall is in one handy article for printing. Information on Waterfront hotels, Navy Yard, the Waterfront itself, and Nationals Stadium should be in a separate article. (Including the Tidal Basin in the Mall article is a no-brainer though—the northern border for the Waterfront on that side should be, I think, I-395.) The Mall article should have a well developed Get out section to refer visitors to the museums in the East End, the White House (which I agree should remain in the West End article), and to the museums just south of the Mall.

 * Lastly, I'd prefer to keep the eastern boundary of the West End at 14th St. Even though that's a little counterintuitive, it groups the White House Visitor Center with the White House, which I think is important. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:52, 3 January 2009 (EST)

 * I'll try to follow your advice, best as possible. It will all shake out fine.  The areas north of NY and MA Ave do not really go into "Penn Quarter", which is specifically defined, but they would go find into an "East End" page.  I haven't sorted out the White House area yet.

 * I looked at the Waterfront article, and now see it includes the Navy Yard and stadium areas. Those are fine, as-is, but I thought it odd to include the Jefferson Memorial in that section, so the Tidal Basin and all is going into the National Mall article.  I would be happy to fix up the Dupont Circle and Georgetown pages (I mostly wrote the corresponding Wikipedia article), but help would be good too.  The Arlington page also needs work, and I see you doing good work with the Anacostia page :). (WT-en) Aude 17:04, 3 January 2009 (EST)

 * I've updated the districts map now to reflect our new structure. I can't help with the Arlington, but Georgetown is an old home for me—I'll take a whack at it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Alteration of teh utmost gravity
For avid watchers of Wikivoyage D.C. organization, I've moved Swampoodle out of the East End, and into Capitol Hill. It fits more naturally with Union Station, is divided from the rest of the East End by I-395, and isn't of touristic importance anyway. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:38, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

 * To paraphrase Congressman Pete Hoekstra, now I know exactly how the Iranian protesters feel. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:44, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

 * OK, I'm loathe to ever type this, but that one gave me a full LOL. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:25, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

East D.C.
To revisit the naming of that big leftover region east of Rock Creek, I'd like to suggest we switch from Washington, D.C./Brookland-Takoma-Petworth to Washington, D.C./East D.C. The first is a little too long an agglomeration for my taste, and makes no mention of the Atlas District! "East D.C." is a pretty big fudge, but it gets the point across, and we'll define the boundaries via map anyway. There is room for confusion with the quadrant names (NE & SE), but we can just explain that away in the article's intro. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:36, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I rather expect I won't see any other comments on this for some time, so I'll just go ahead and move it. If someone objects within a reasonable timespan, I'll just move it back. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:58, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

This article title is still grating on my nerves. I just think the only name appropriate is "Northeast"—I'd never call it anything else in casual conversation. And rather obviously, it is the northeastern section of the city. While yes, this creates some ambiguity with the quadrant names (for addresses), I think that can be cleared up via a direct statement at the top of the article. Far from perfect, but still better than made up "East D.C." or borderline preposterous Brookland-Takoma-Petworth. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:07, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * And it is done. Hopefully for good. I do feel much better about this naming, as it is something anyone from the city will easily recognize (in discussion with anyone using this guide). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:01, 22 January 2010 (EST)

 * For posterity, I want to copy an anon post from above on this topic: If somebody asked me "How do I get to upper Northwest", I would definitely know what they meant. As for northeast... well, northeast is just a mess (even the Washington City Paper had problems trying to name it.  --Peter Talk 03:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

District name issues
Hi, I have some issues with the district names and the map.

For one, the name Northeast on the map is incorrect, as Northeast only starts at North Capitol Street (that curving N-S line in the middle of Northeast.) It could be confusing, like if you think you're in NE but the street signs say NW. Maybe rename it something else?

Another is that East End is a pretty uncommon name here. Maybe call it East Downtown or just Downtown?

The name West End is inaccurate, because the West End is actually a pretty small neighborhood -- its southern border is Penn. Ave, and south of Penn is Foggy Bottom. Maybe call that area West Downtown or West End/Foggy Bottom?

Your thoughts? --(WT-en) Awiseman 13:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Dupont Circle

Listings moved out of article
This Marriott listing is legit, but it's in such a crowded section of the map that I can't squeeze it in with out some serious contortions. I think the end result would make the article less useful than if we leave this rather boring listing in. (And since Marriott is a notorious Wikivoyage spammer, I have little sympathy for their concerns.) It is a legit listing, though: ( —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Peterfitzgerald (talk • contribs) )

 * The well-known extended-stay suites hotel. Nice, standard on the inside, To the irritation of locals, it's big and ugly as sin on the outside, blighting the aesthetics of an otherwise charming commercial strip, but that won't matter to guests, since the inside is up to the usual, nice standards.

Closed listings

 * Comparisons, always favorable, to Cosi's are natural at this small cafe/restaurant. Panini, breakfasts of egg sandwiches, bagels and biscuits, box lunches, etc. This is also the best place to get take-out sushi—made to order.

 * Waiters double as cabaret singers here, and weekend brunch sees live jazz. The food—American bistro with a Mediterranean twist—is decent, but not stellar. The main reason to come is for the performance element. Servers start singing W-Su at 7:30PM.

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./Dupont Circle


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./East End

Links
Removed these from the Wikipedia article on Penn Quarter, but these probably have useful information for this page. Save here for later.

(WT-en) Aude 23:14, 3 January 2009 (EST)

 * I've commented out the links to prevent this from becoming a spam magnet. Click edit to access them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:35, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Excessive Text
Seems like the Understand and By Metro sections are a bit gratuitous in length to me. Looks like good info, just a bit too comprehensive/encyclopedic to be useful to someone visiting the area. I'm hesitant to trim down the text because someone obviously put a lot of work into this. Any ideas on some compromises for how we can trim this down? --(WT-en) Jtesla16 21:17, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I'll take a hack at it pretty soon, akin to what I did for the Mall . The content is all there, just in too great a quantity. I figure we can decide post-trim whether compromises are needed. The relatively few listings need an overhaul too—the "guide" status tag might have been a bit premature. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I see there was a lot of really good, well-written content in the understand section about the neighborhoods that unfortunately was replaced by very bland content that probably doesn't belong in a travel guide—it certainly doesn't meet our goals regarding tone. I'm currently re-writing, and will resurrect that good content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:34, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Closed listings

 * Enjoy ice skating in the shadow of the Ronald Reagan Building and the Willard Hotel (specially decorated during the holiday season). (Currently closed.

The website says it's closed, although I can't help but wonder if that's just because it's July. They haven't answered my phone calls, so I'll let the listing languish here until I get new information. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:33, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Website indicates that they closed on July 14, 2012: (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Texas-style barbecue joint serving pulled pork and chicken, a variety of sandwiches, ribs, and other options. For the price in this area, it's a great option, though Texans might be underwhelmed.

Cafe Atlantico closed in 2011 to make way for America Eats Tavern, which was intended to be a temporary restaurant from the get-go and has since closed as well this past summer.

 * Renowned Nuevo Latino cuisine in D.C. courtesy of Andrés protege Katsuya Fukushima, in a flashy, colorful restaurant. The tableside prepared guacamole is fabulous. The drinks, caipirinhas, mojitos, etc., are as well. Sunday brunch is a very fun "latino dim sum"—stop by Su 11:30AM-1:30PM to try the $35 pri-fixe chef's selection of fourteen dishes.

TenPenh closed in June 2011. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * One of D.C.'s few great Asian restaurants. Refreshingly eclectic dishes, startlingly new sauces, excellent service, and award-winning cocktails.

The website listed directs to some hair salon in Tyson's Corner. IndeBleu, the restaurant in which the Tantra Lounge was located, is confirmed closed by Google search. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * The "contemporary pan-Asian" food at the restaurant here is excellent, but the lounge downstairs is an even better reason to come. With its sexy decor and impressive drinks (around $15), it is a bonafide after-hours hot spot, and major beautiful person destination.

Zola closed June 30, 2012. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * It has a nice, sleek look, which is appropriate for a bar attached to a museum of Bond gadgets. The food for the price is underwhelming compared to other top-options in the area (although it is by no means bad), so it's ideal to come here later in the night for drinks. Although principally a wine bar, Zola also mixes excellent cocktails, which are quite reasonably priced around $8-10. Great date place.

Artifactory closed in 2011 after four decades in business. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * A musty shop cluttered with unique artifacts collected around the world is about the last thing you'd expect to find in the East End, but here it is, and here it has been for over 35 years. Its collection is skewed towards African and Southeast Asian, especially antiques, masks, and jewelry. A casual shopper could leave minus only a few dollars, while a serious collector could easily drop ten grand here.

District map

I have replaced the map shown to the right with this one, as it has all the listings on it in icon form. If people would like to change it back, please discuss here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:50, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Moved listings
Note for future map editors: the Red Velvet Cupcakery has moved from 675 E St NW to 501 7th St NW (right at the northeast corner of 7th and E). Looking at Google Street View, this appears to be one storefront away. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * For a nice, small treat, you'll find cupcake varieties including mocha/espresso, peanut butter cup, and boutique cupcakery here.

And another one. Looks like the Touchstone Gallery moved from 406 7th St NW over to 901 New York Ave NW way back in 2010. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * This artist-cooperative owned gallery survived the neighborhood change throughout the past 30 years, and remains friendly and crammed with local artwork. Prices are reasonable, and events are packed.

Questionable/possibly closed listings
The website listed doesn't work, they haven't posted to their Twitter account since February 2010, the last post they made on their Facebook account was in May 2009, and the last Yelp review they received was on December 15, 2009. I'm deleting it from the article for now. (WV-en) Eco84 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Chicken Estofado, Tacos, and Julias Empanadas, along with organic snacks, served from an eco-friendly electric vehicle.

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./East End


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Georgetown

Photos
Wow, the state of Georgetown photography on the web is terrible. I couldn't find one acceptable CC (or even GNU-FDL) licensed photo of the Dumbarton Oaks Gardens that I could feel ok about including here. I wish I had realized this before I visited a couple weeks back—I would have tried to get some half decent pictures of relevant attractions—I'm not sure when I'll be back again. I'd love to get a nice shot of the Dalghren Chapel quad when the cherry blossom petals are swirling around the fountain, but I suppose that will have to wait at least a year now. If anyone has good Georgetown photos, please upload them! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:04, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Star nomination
And another D.C. district article nomination. This, after the Mall, is probably the most touristed section of the city, so it's a useful one to have at high quality. I lived here for a good while, so I think the recommendations should pretty much all be spot on, but I have had to check my tendency towards derision in this article—hopefully my efforts to tone that down have been successful! Everything should be properly formatted, as I checked over this one more carefully than the other nominations, I think. Filling out those shopping listings was extremely painful, so I want a star in return. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:16, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. Looks good! Really thorough, excellent guide. But now for the nitpicky stuff: It might be nice to have some contact info for the C&O Canal and the GU Library, like a phone number or something. There seems to be a lot of listings missing hours: Georgetown Tobacco, Peacock Cafe, Citronelle, Sequoia, Blue Gin, J Paul's, The Tombs, and Degrees. Also, there are a few places from Buy that are not on the map. I'm not worried about the chain places, I'm talking about the listings: Sugar, MOCA DC, and Parish Gallery. Also, shouldn't The Shops at Georgetown park be on the map? I've never been to D.C., so maybe it's really easy to find, but I can't see it on the map. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 20:08, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Wow, the hours were all over the place—I'm a little amazed that I missed that, and I think you were being overly generous in supporting the article in that condition! But all your points have now been addressed. MOCA & Parish were left off deliberately, as they are included in the "Canal Square Galleries," but, of course, I had forgotten to mention that in the listings... Again, a very big thanks for catching these details; it's extremely helpful, and I'll make sure to return the favor on any of your future nominations. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:53, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Ah, I knew you would fix up these little details in an instant. Why put down a vote of "near support" when I knew I'd have to change it so soon? ;) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 11:43, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support A lot to read through, but I can't find any issues, and I'm really impressed with the Buy section. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:54, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Support (WT-en) ViMy 11:42, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. Great article! I loved the Dumbarton Oaks and Exorcist Steps descriptions, although the article is rich with enjoyable asides throughout. You might indicate somewhere that the Hoyas are the university mascot (outside of that one 'Buy' listing), since people will hear a lot about them. And the Georgetown basketball team probably deserves a 'Do' mention, since they've produced some of the USA's best basketball players over the last couple of decades. You noted your concern about the photos on Talk:Washington%2C_D.C./Georgetown, but they're not bad — illustrative of the area, if not as artful as the photos in Washington, D.C./Shaw. As a formatting note, I prefer using foreign words in italics, but I don't think there's a WT policy on the issue, so that's just personal preference. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Good point on the GW basketball—I've added an infobox to take care of that. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:24, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Closed listings
I move back, and find that my favorite affordable restaurant, by far, has closed... :*( --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:29, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Skip right over the flashy looking Indian restaurants right on M St, designed to catch the tourist's eye. Amma's offers significantly better Indian cuisine at surprisingly low prices. It specializes in southern Indian cuisine, and particularly in wonderful dosai; the rest of the menu can be a little plain. It draws by far Georgetown's most intellectual crowd, and is a good place to eavesdrop on strange conversations (if they are in English!).

Georgetown Metro Connection discontinued
D.C. Circulator blue line bus replaces Georgetown Metro Connection. Here is the text for archival purposes:

 * Georgetown Metro Connection provides convenient little blue buses with many stops along M St, running between the Rosslyn and Dupont Circle metro stations.  Fare is $1, or $0.50 when boarding at a metro station and paying with a Metrorail SmarTrip card. Buses leave from the top of the escalators at the Rosslyn metro station or 19th Street and Sunderland Place near the south exit of the Dupont Circle metro station every ten minutes M-Th 7AM-midnight, F 7AM-2AM, Sa 8AM-2AM, Su 8AM-midnight.

Starionwolf (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./Georgetown


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./National Mall

Star nomination
The Mall is regularly put in the top five of lists of the world's most visited attractions, so it's desirable that we cover this one well. It's an odd district article, since it's basically a city park, and thus an exception to our usual rules about what does not get an article, so I'm not as confident as usual that this will pass the star nomination process, although I do feel it should.

I perused the other travel guides to see how they handled their Mall chapters, and I found that basically all of them are very similar to ours in terms of breadth and depth, with the one exception of the Rough Guide, which devotes something like 2–3 pages per museum/memorial! So they are describing the individual exhibits in detail, including temporary exhibits, and providing maps of the bigger museums. This is something that we could do, but I don't know if we should (it struck me as overkill): keeping exhibit information and maps up to date would be very work-intensive, so this route might leave us with perennially out of date information; we'd also be duplicating the free maps and exhibit information brochures right at the entrance to all the museums. For these reasons, we've decided against attraction maps for museums in the past.

So in sum, I'm nominating this article largely because I'm curious whether others think we are currently handling the Mall article properly—if we are, I think it's a star. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Support. It is very good. I have never been there, and I hate cities, but after reading the guide I am quite keen. There are a few issues with grammar, like "Not content to reside only on the document itself, their signatures have been reproduced here, etched in large granite blocks." but otherwise I like it. I have no idea of whether it is complete, as my ignorance of the place is almost total. It does seem to be a destination in its own right and there is certainly enough content for a stand-alone article. As a district it is somewhat unusual in that you cant sleep there or buy much, or by the look of things, drink at all. Nevertheless I can't see offhand how better to handle the article so I will support it as an exception. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * The grammar of that sentence looks fine to me. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:05, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * What is it that is not content? The signatures? Not a big issue though. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 10:22, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes. Anthropomorphizing their signatures is an odd thing to do, but with all the writing in the D.C. guide, I need the occasional eccentric turn of phrase to keep from going to sleep ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:31, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. "Can you sleep there?" is a rule of thumb only; it is merely a means to an end.  The "end", in this case, is distinguishing an attraction from a destination.  While the National Mall may sit on the wide border between these two categories, I see no reason it shouldn't get its own travel guide.  (That goes for just about any such location; if we can write a decent travel guide on it, we should.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, just a note, though -- I assume you realize that the Supreme Court's location wasn't really considered as part of the original plan, right? There's one bit in there that implies otherwise, so I just wanted to make double-sure.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:55, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Support. Any article which mentions Stephen Colbert is good in my book. ;) It's really well-written and seems pretty thorough. And I'm not bothered at all by the fact that you can't sleep there - I think there's too much to see here to realistically pack it all into an adjacent district article.  On a similiar note, I wonder how making this a star will impact our feelings on articles like Central Park? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:38, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Support. An extremely well written article which makes me wish I had made an effort to spend time at the National Mall during several past visits to Washington. Some nice quirky touches Peter, superb map and top class imagery.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:41, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new banner is an extremely common and iconic image of DC, but the current banner is a better composition, so I'd vote to keep it. But perhaps the source of the new banner could be used in the article, which lacks an image of the obelisk and reflecting pool. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current Syced (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MLK memorial.jpg
 * ✅ at Wikidata with a de minimis photo. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./National Mall


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C./Northeast

Takoma/Takoma Park
I'm putting in 2–3 listings from Takoma Park, MD, since it seems ridiculous to split content from this single "Main St" area, which straddles the District line, across two articles. If you check the Takoma Park article, you'll notice that it likewise includes listings from the D.C. Takoma neighborhood. While content duplication is something of a cardinal sin on Wikivoyage, I can't think of a better solution than to simply allow it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:24, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Closed listings

 * Quite possibly the Atlas District's only establishment without a theme or gimmick, this is simply an upscale New American restaurant, with a nice collection of art on the walls, and an interesting wine list. It also offers a $30 three-course pre-theater menu 5PM-7PM.

Fine dining not yet making it here? (Fine drinking is, anyway.) Hopefully they'll reopen, since they still(?) own the space. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:31, 15 December 2009 (EST)

 * Surprisingly good New Orleans style Cajun food and drinks in a surprisingly nice restaurant in the middle of nowhere. Frequent live music: blues, jazz, zydeco.

I'd hate to see the only place serving fried alligator in the district close, but the phone is disconnected. Will try (eventually) to drive by to confirm when I have time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:08, 26 November 2010 (EST)

 * Perhaps H St's classiest drinking option has 50+ martinis on the menu, R&B on the upstairs dance floor Th-F, a laid-back bar & seating area, and friendly staff.

title: Talk:Washington, D.C./Northeast