Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Sports section

At around 2,000 words, this largely unsourced section is way too long, especially when you compare it to those of other FAs on populous cities such as Boston#Sports and Minneapolis#Sports. I think it would be way better if we wrote one paragraph for each sport instead of many subsections each containing multiple paragraphs. Overall, this article is 14,445 words long, which is quite long, so trimming the sports section will make this article a lot easier to read. Wow (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, especially with a separate article on Sports in Washington, D.C. A summary should be in this article, with the detail moved and kept to that subarticle. —ADavidB 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, summary style is crucial to maintain. I'd be happy to revert back to the version from July 7, with apologies to Dmford13 (talk · contribs), this sort of detail needs to be reserved for subarticles like Sports in Washington, D.C., or on the teams' own articles. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the concerns. I would still suggest providing a full paragraph to each sport. We don't need to have as much detail or length, but the current section is far too short. Other cities, like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York have far larger sections. Dmford13 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This Sports section is still way too long. We just don't need that much information on the history of the pro franchises, it's in total violation of WP:SUMMARY. WP:WHATABOUT is not an acceptable argument. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dmford13: So here is the thing that I think is a misunderstanding. "Sports" is a subsection of the "Culture" section. It's not a history section, it's not a biography section, it's not a list section, it's not an economy section, and it's not an exhaustive section, not every sports organization or institution is required or expected to be itemized. It's not even necessarily about professional franchises, it's about humans and sports culture. This is the sort of source that should be the basis of paragraphs, which start with sentences like "The Washington Nationals are D.C.'s most popular sports team according to yadayada."

I want to work with you on this, you obviously care a lot about this topic. I too, am a D.C. sports superfan. But I can't have edit wars. I'm happy to bring this issue to WP:3RD if an outside opinion would help explain why 1300 words across 13 paragraphs is still excessive for this summary section, and why a paragraph for each sports team isn't and shouldn't be a goal. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 15:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you compare this section to the sports section of many other cities with a similar number of sports teams/events, this is much shorter. Also, a ton of the information in the section is simply not correct. The Commanders do not have 5 super bowls, but 3 (I just fixed it). Also, the tennis tournament is no longer called the Citi Open. Much of the information about the rugby teams and less popular sports teams is incorrect--several of those teams don't exist any longer or have moved. If you look at Boston, every sports has a (lengthy) paragraph. Same with Philadelphia, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, and Chicago. Now, each of those pages gives sports its own section--that's what we should do for Washington, DC. We should remove Sports from the culture section, give it its own section, and expand it so each sport has its own paragraph. We can remove some of the historic references that I originally included (though a ton of those cities have detailed historic references for each sport), but I think a few historic points--such as the year a championship was won and a major player or coach involved--should be kept. Again, please look at these other cities for reference. But, again, much information currently included is simply incorrect. I think we should follow the template of other major cities with a big sports footprint. Dmford13 (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those errors out, those are good to fix. Again, I think whataboutism is the wrong method for determining what to include or exclude from any article. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. There will always be a longer article somewhere, and longer ≠ better. Instead of copying what other articles do, we should look to build the section to cover sufficient information to give the reader a good overview of this part of life in the District. What we're talking about is called scope, there will always be information that Wikipedia leaves off of overview articles like this one.

We do have some good advice from the cities WikiProject, and looking at that, to me, what is currently missing are "sports that people participate in." If it is helpful to compare other articles to get a sense of summary structure, try reading the sports sections on the FA and GA U.S. state articles, Virginia#Sports, Massachusetts#Sports, or Texas#Sports. But again, just because those editors chose to include something there, doesn't mean we must then make the same choice here on this article. And if we want to promote Sports from subsection to section, that's fine, but that doesn't change the scope or expectations for summary style. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Crime in Demographics?

Crime in DC has an article of its own, why is it a subsection of Demographics? Demography doesn't study crime stats. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've 'promoted' the Crime section so it isn't a subsection of Demographics. —ADavidB 07:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that having "crime" under demographics feels incorrect, I also don't think having it as a separate section makes sense. Other cities, like Chicago, known for their crime issues (regardless of whether some city articles should have more of an emphasis on crime), don't have it as its own section. I like Chicago's set up -- "Law and government" with crime nested in. You could rename "city government" for DC "law and government" and add crime there. Defrank1 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed

More than two years ago I raised concerns about the number of missing citations in this article. Since then this number has only grown to 28, which would be an automatic fail for an FA candidate. Unless this issue is fixed soon, I don't see how we're not going to have to nominate this for FA review. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "missing citations"? Are you referring to dead links within citations? Please be more specific as to what is missing and where, as it will help with corrections. —ADavidB 00:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(I later realized you mean the number of "citation needed" statements within the article, as this section is titled.) —ADavidB 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've resolved four of these by adding sources, and invite help from other editors. Removing unsourced information is sometimes a good response as well. —ADavidB 05:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the National Cathedral in the Info Box but I was blocked from adding the National Basilica for religious balance?

If you're gonna have the National Cathedral (Episcopalian) it's only fair to also have the National Basilica (Catholic) otherwise it just looks like religious favoritism. Either have both or neither.

These are both significant architectural landmarks of near identical size (the National Basilica is the 2nd tallest building in DC) it doesn't make sense to have one but not the other IMO.

I was told by a mod that I could not add St. Patrick's Cathedral to the New York City info box because that would be "favoritism towards Catholics when American cities have churches of many denominations" WHY DOES THAT NOT APLLY HERE?

Alfred Carbo (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Columbia fact check

Wikipedia says DC, Columbia,was named for female. Wrong!!! Named for Christopher Columbus 2601:981:4401:1EA0:5166:5D93:CE43:CC52 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Please carefully read Columbia (personification), which explains the female personification and its origins from Columbus's name. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Too many building images

Skimming through this article, way too many of the images are just exterior shots of neoclassical-style buildings. D.C. has plenty of those, yes, but they connote very little to readers, most of whom won't be able to identify them at a glance, about what content will be in that article section. In a few cases, they are the only real option, but in many others we could swap them out for better alternatives. Sdkb ^talk 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and overhauled the images to try to address this. While doing so, I noticed many other deficiencies; overall this needs an FAR quite badly. Sdkb ^talk 07:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll say it again maybe somebody will listen this time

I was told adding St. Patrick's Cathedral to the New York City collogue was "unfair religious favoritism" why does the same not apply here with the National Cathedral? It doesn't make any sense. Mods need to address this. Either apply rules consistently or don't have them at all. Alfred Carbo (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The national cathedral is a major landmark in DC, far more so that the National Basilica. I say this as a Catholic myself: the infobox is not a venue for "this montage should include X image to represent my community in X city". The montage is a device used to quickly highlight major visual landmarks of the city, that's it. If you ask me, St. Patricks Cathedral would be fine in the NYC infobox, but that city also has more landmarks than most of the country combined, so what makes the cut of the montage is always going to be disapointing to someone. But you are crying fowl over nothing. If you look at Saint Paul, Minnesota, the Catholic cathedral there is in the montage because its without question one of the most important local landmarks. Mexico City also shows the massive Catholic cathedral in the montage - would you cry fowl there is no protestant one? What matters is the prominence of the monument - not the faith of those who practice in it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"The national cathedral is a major landmark in DC, far more so that the National Basilica."

I don't necessarily disagree but worth noting the National Basilica actually gets more visitors each year, about 1 million at the National Basilica vs. about 800,000 at the National Cathedral.

And I was explicitly told by Mods adding St. Patrick's Cathedral to the NYC infobox (which is the most famous church in the country period) was "unfair favoritism towards Catholics" if those rules are gonna be in place in New York with its famously large Catholic population they certainly should be applied consistently in our national capitol. Keep the main infobox secular and put the National Cathedral down with the other religious buildings in the religion section of the page. I think that's fair.

St. Paul isn't as big of a city, doesn't have many landmarks and the Cathedral there is huge so I guess that would make sense and Mexico is 80% Catholic so the same rules really wouldn't apply. Alfred Carbo (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are looking at it from a skewed perspective - the infobox is a representation of physical landmarks, that is it. There is no notion here of "fair" or "unfair". Inclusion of a "protestant cathedral" does not mean anything other than the building is famous. NYC is famed for a lot of things, but I can't say St. Patrick ranks in my top 10 most notable landmarks (but that may just be me!). I dont know what anyone told you on the NYC page, but if the consensus there is that St. Patricks isnt a great addition to the montage on that article, then so be it. This has nothing to do with secular vs religious favoritism or catholic vs protestant favoritism. It has to do with iconic landmarks representing a city and the consensus of the editors working on those articles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If we go by your logic is the National Cathedral a top 10 DC landmark? I would say not (at least not for me personally).

Not just NYC but a lot of other American cities (including but not limited too, Boston, Baltimore & Philly) have their info boxes explicitly kept secular (I know I've tried to add churches in the past and got told a big fat NO) but D.C. of all the cities has a church in their info box. It just seems bizarre and hypocritical to me on the part of Wikipedia. There should be a similar standard of play for cities in the same country.

And if any American city legitimately should have its info box kept secular it's Washington, D.C. the national capitol

Anyway, I do thank you for humoring me, I hope you'll duly consider my suggestion. 100.38.57.194 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good proposal, let's use a list of top DC landmarks to determine which pic is in the infobox. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Composing a collage is not as simple as just listing out the most recognizable landmarks in a city and using the top ones. If we did that for D.C., the infobox would be entirely National Mall monuments/memorials, which would be a touristy/incomplete representation of the city. We're using the National Cathedral currently to represent D.C.'s many landmarks outside the mall, and also just since it's a really visually compelling photo of an architecturally striking building.

That said, I'm not wedded to it if we can find something better. Particularly, if we were to replace it, I think it could be nice to have a photo of an embassy take its place, as those are also a big part of D.C. If anyone has a suggestion for a high-quality photo of a recognizable embassy that looks good in vertical orientation and at small scale, feel free to share. Sdkb ^talk 17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Peruvian Embassy (File:Embassy of Peru in Washington, D.C.jpg)

and Uzbek Embassy (File:Clarence Moore House.JPG) seem interesting 100.38.57.194 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I’d suggest maybe a photo of the Vice Presidential Residency or Rock Creek National Park to show off DC’s diverse landscape could work 100.38.57.194 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. But maybe it is still a good idea in order to determine which one of the two cathedrals to pick. If a cathedral is in the infobox. An ngram search is another alternative, among others. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We should trim the image spam in the lead. 11 or 12 images for three or four paragraphs is beyond excessive. Accessibility nightmare that loses us readers. Moxy🍁 00:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87: what is your opinion? Thinker78 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I have no idea; I don't deal with images. Graham87 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 sorry I was not more specific. I pinged you because Moxy said, Accessibility nightmare that loses us readers. What is your opinion from the accesibility perspective. Do you have suggestions from this perspective? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Again, I have absolutely no idea. I'm not an accessibility expert (except for my own lived experience). For general accessibility queries, go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Graham87 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Moxy can you clarify why you think it is an accesibility nightmare? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone but I'm a visual person and always like lots of photo references in Wikipedia articles, I think it's mostly fine the way it is, my only real concern (as before mentioned) is the infobox. Alfred Carbo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)