This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The article states that Jefferson lived in Georgetown while serving as Secretary of State under John Adams. I have no idea when Jefferson lived there but he was Vice President during the Adams administration, not Secretary of State.
Correction made. Thanks --Aude (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Feel free to change the wording or make whatever changes you think are needed. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually upon revisiting the education subsection of the page I also noticed that it listed National Catherdal and GT Prep which is in Montgomery County Md. The whole section need to be rewritten. Which then begs the question -- schools from an historical prespective or now there? --NelsonJacobsen
"Throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries the concentration of wealth in Georgetown sparked the growth of " in the education section seems to contridict the history section where it say "an 1890 flood and expansion of the railroads brought destitution to the C&O Canal, and Georgetown became a depressed slum." This entire article needs to be sourced better, but I know the history section to be correct. I'm not familiar with how private schools developed in Washington, D.C., and what role Georgetown played. Maybe, such discussion belongs in the main article, Washington, D.C. (it would need sources) Here, maybe the education section in this article should pertain more specifically to the neighborhood. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I placed a call to the Councilmember of that part of the Ward 2 Jack Evans and talked to an aid who sent me list of the Private schools in the area currently. So at least I have a base line for the present.
As for the history of Georgetown schools or DCPS in general--ahhhhh--that would be a whole book because of the transations between the gritty times of georgetown as a waterfront and the urban renewal that transformed it into what it is today.
The District was charter in 1802 and the Public Schools 3 years later under a different charter in 1805 it could appear to be an after-thought which it is not today. The new Mayor Adrian Fenty seeking to take over the school directly and everyone just asking them to be fixed. --Nelson Jacobsen
All sounds good. One bit of advice is that whatever we add to the article generally requires a source - per citing sources and reliable sources. That could be a book, reliable website, etc. The existing material in the article does a poor job of that, with sources needed. --Aude (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a freely available image of a bridge on flickr at File:Georgetown bridge.jpg, but as I'm not a native of D.C. I can't identify the bridge. Can someone familiar with the area place a caption on the image (under the "transportation" section)?
Done. Thanks for adding the photo. --Aude (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The text says Georgetown is bounded on the south by the Potomac River, but the map shows it not reaching the river. What's the neighborhood between the river and the southern border of Georgetown as shown on the map? (I'm looking for the name of the neighborhood in which Cecil Place lies.) D021317c 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the map, but the map is wrong. Georgetown extends all the way to the river. Georgetown was a *port*, for gosh sake - it had to hit the river somewhere! Harbor Place is in Georgetown, Whitehurst Freeway is in Georgetown, Water Street (K) is in Georgetown. All of those lie to the south of what shows on the map - so I think it can be said with pretty fair confidence that Cecil Place is, like all those others, in Georgetown too. JohnInDC 10:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make the point succinctly in the summary of my original undo but I will make the point more clearly here so that we can discuss it if need be:
There is no questioning Herman Hollerith's contribution to the field of data processing and computing generally, and it is not really well known that his contribution took place in Georgetown - indeed in a building that still stands. That said, this article is about Georgetown, not about the famous or influential people who have lived in or passed through it. Hollerith was but one of many, many such people and there is no reason to favor him in particular with his own biographical entry here. JohnInDC (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the Tabulating Machine Company deserves a mention in the article. The section in dispute focuses too much on Hollerith and repeats material in his article. I'll try to find a way to incorporate the company into the article. SDC (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The article and any additions to it require citations, per our verifiability policy. Saying something like "The claim can be made because his inventions" very much needs to be cited and attributed to some source. And not as much discussion of Hollerith himself is needed. --Aude (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I started making some edits to cleanup the article and bring up to standards, which include citing information in the article. I have a bunch of books to use, and think this article could be a whole lot better. If you have any problems or questions (or suggestions) with my edits, please say so. --Aude (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are some nice additions. There's some good rich history in Georgetown and the article is improved by your changes. JohnInDC (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I made some more changes, adding more details about Georgetown's African-American history, its founding, and changed some of the subheadings. I'm not sure the best way to organize the subheadings, but think it works for now.
Also, I have a user page here (User:Aude/Sandbox5) which lists articles from the Columbia Historical Society journals (available off-line) by topic. There's quite a lot about Georgetown, but useful material for other aspects of DC history. I never had much time as I like to work on these articles, but been meaning to do something with them. Maybe now. --Aude (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I couldn't figure out how to edit the introduction, but as long as you're listing embassies, the Venezuelan Embassy ought to be included -- it's on 30th, below M. Also: I would add a note explaining the importance of the Tabulating Machine Company -- that's a really cool exhibit. Finally, George Stephanopolous has moved from 28th Street, but might be elsewhere in Georgetown. Another interesting residential note could be that while the 2004 election was going on, both Kerry and Edwards lived in Georgetown (and Kerry still does).
One other interesting location might be the Inn where Jefferson and Hamilton pretty much got drunk and made the deal creating what would become the Federal Reserve in exchange for some states rights protection. Madison was in the mix somehow, too. I tried googling it, but whiffed. I think it's a building that stood near 33rd & P. Maybe one of you knows more?
The embassy of Germany is located at 4645 Reservoir Road NW, Washington DC 20007. Is that still considered Georgetown? If so, Germany should be included in the intro paragraph of countries whose embassies are situated in Georgetown. --Kattania (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This morning I undid a 1,464 character edit regarding Herman Hollerith by Wikihw. The specific edit, and adaptations to better suit the article, was discussed on this Talk page here. The user's persistent reintroduction of the original material, refusal to engage in discussions concerning it, and eventual block was discussed at WP:ANIhere. JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This article would benefit greatly from a map to shew readers whereabouts in the District of Columbia Georgetown is. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but the problem is that the northern boundary of Georgetown is open to interpretation. Realtors are always trying to tell buyers that a property is in Georgetown when in fact it's in Burleith. For example I found this map:
but anything above R Street, and arguably above Reservoir, just isn't Georgetown -- that's an area of houses with nice yards and driveways instead of Georgetown proper's characteristic blocks of townhouses and corner markets.
I'd make the case that Reservoir is the northern boundary, but that would cut out the Georgetown library, so R Street? I'd also cut out anything west of 37th.
Maybe if somebody could create a map with shading up there?
The demographics section currently only deals with historic statistics, mainly from the 19th century. Are any 21st century demographic statistics available? Ordinary Person (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ordinary. Georgetown was stripped of its city charter in the 1870s and was fully absorbed by the City of Washington in 1895. As a result, there is no longer any census data done specifically for Georgetown. The best we can do is check out the 2010 Census Map and add up the census tracts; the population that currently resides in what is now "Old Georgetown" is about 14,000. Unfortunately, we can't use that in the article because it's all Original Research. I have not seen an reliable source that provides that same info. Best, epicAdam(talk) 11:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closing as follows. There is a clear consensus for moving unambiguous names to titles with no disambiguating signal. However, there is no consensus for moving the remaining titles to a particular alternative format. bd2412T 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
As these titles have existing disambiguation pages, I believe a separate discussion is merited for each to determine whether the D.C. neighborhood is, in fact, the primary topic of the term. Cheers! bd2412T 05:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
– These were moved from Oct. 8-13, 2010 by User:Bsherr with the edit summary ‘’Per WP:NCGN’’. At that time NCGN advised not using the comma convention but today’s WP:USPLACE does not. In fact, it is much more common to see the comma convention. Also, you may have noticed that these only go up to the letter "H". That's because the mover never got around to moving the others and so about half of D.C. neighborhoods still use the comma convention. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. First, some of these need to be carefully reviewed to ensure that the move is correct. Chevy Chase is a good example of one that isn't. Second, while the comma convention may be more popular, in the case of most of these articles, I question whether that is really appropriate in the (always special) case of Washington, D.C., where the city and larger district are co-terminous, and with no named political subdivisions but rather a collection of (often informally) designated neighborhoods. The comma implies a formality, an official-ness, to these places that is simply not present. The parenthetical construction strikes me as the more appropriate in this case. JohnInDC (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the Chevy Chase one. I checked beforehand to see that these at least had defined borders on Google Maps and left out the ones that didn't. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Broadly I don't feel that strongly about this; I just think it reads better, and is less confusing, the way that it is. That being said, and as I look at this more closely, in a few instances I think that adding "Washington, DC" is not necessary at all. I seem to remember one of the provisions in the MOS is that if a place is the only one with that name, it doesn't need a further identifier. So e.g., DuPont Circle should not be moved to DuPont Circle, Washington, DC. Is there another? I'd make the same case for any of the foregoing that now lack the DC qualifier. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm picking at you - you've done a good bit of work. It's more than my attention moves in sort of fits and starts, and so hence my observations - JohnInDC (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Of the entire foregoing list, I think Georgetown is the only one that was ever a separate political entity. The others are all just neighborhoods within Washington, D.C., and should be accompanied by the full name of the city and district. We don't for example say "Watts, California". JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
With Georgetown UCN says, "if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." The presently used name should be used so maybe Georgetown isn't so different from the lot. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Today it's the same. Historically it's sort of interesting that it was once a separate entity within the District of Columbia, but it's been all rolled up together for 140+ years now. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm afraid I'm missing something. We do name the city, "Washington, D.C." Unless what you mean is, we don't typically say the whole words, "District of Columbia", in which case I don't see how that bears on my point one way or the other - a point which I'll attempt to make in a different way. No one would address a postcard, "Buena Vista, Washington, D.C.". To residents (in particular), the construction reads and sounds weird and wrong. By contrast, "Buena Vista (Washington, DC)" simply reads as a disambiguation of a sort. Which "Buena Vista"? Oh, that neighborhood in DC. Again I don't feel that strongly about it but simply note it to explain my opposition. I do feel more strongly about unique areas like DuPont Circle and Foggy Bottom. There aren't any other of those to my knowledge, and "Foggy Bottom, Washington, DC" is just wrong. No one calls it that, nowhere, ever. In both those cases, DuPont Circle and Foggy Bottom are not just sufficient, but correct, just like Queens - which is not titled "Queens, New York City, New York". Finally I agree that whether it was the original poster's point or my response, the Georgetown thing is pedantic. It's also a one-off and not worth a special case. JohnInDC (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The point about Watts was simply that it didn't make sense, as the IP editor suggested, to title an article "Georgetown, District of Columbia"; it would be like calling it "Watts, California". Why skip the intermediate subdivision? JohnInDC (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to add a bit more - by way of articulation, not contentiousness - because I'm struggling with how to say what I mean. "Douglass, Washington, DC" (for example) scans, sounds, like the actual name of a place, a phrase that people actually use. But it isn't. No one says it. Locals speaking locally would omit the "Washington DC", and wouldn't bother with the "Douglass" if speaking with someone unfamiliar with the area. The phrase, as an article title, is nothing but a Wikipedia construct and it rings funny to the ear. That's my objection. By contrast, "Douglass (Washington, DC)" reads as the name of a place, of which there might be many, which in this case happens to be the one in Washington, DC. Now - if the MOS really requires the former, fine. It's not important enough to fuss about - users will find what they need, and people from this neck of the woods who frequent WP will just have to get used to seeing it written that way. (I stand by my point for the limited number of unambiguous names like Dupont and Foggy Bottom, which should not be renamed. They are correct as they stand.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Support move to Foobar, Washington, D.C. or Foobar, District of Columbia. I don't think parentheses are appropriate as essentially we are disambiguating with a higher level sub-division/entity, not disambiguating what Foobar is. Obviously disambiguating places within DC is not as straightforward as other U.S. places where Foobar, State is quite clearly preferred as per WP:USPLACE but I believe a comma does a better job. Zarcadia (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose moves of Foggy Bottom, DuPont Circle, Barry Farm, Benning Ridge and Barnaby Woods. Support all other proposed moves. I don't see why we would need to add the "Washington, D.C." qualifier to unambigiuous neighborhood names. Per WP:PRECISE, article names should only be precise enough to unambiguously define the scope of the article; because these five place names are unique, adding the extra disambiguation is unnecessary. Outside of New York City, WP:USPLACE does not specifically offer guidelines for city neighborhoods, and several neighborhoods in prominent American cities - including La Jolla, Hollywood, and Haight-Ashbury - are not titled with a city qualifier. For all of the other cities, though, I agree that use of a comma is preferable to parentheses for geographic articles. Cheers, Rai•me 02:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per User:JohnInDC but, like him, I don't feel that strongly about it. The parenthetical standard for geographical names has largely been thrown aside over the past few years. I'm an old-timer who feels that the comma form should only be used if that formulation is actually in common use and, in this case, it is not (and it is very cumbersome). X, District of Columbia is technically correct since Washington hasn't existed since 1871 but the district is still commonly "Washington, D.C." — AjaxSmack 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Like others have said, article names should reflect common name of the subject as much as possible and I too believe that using the comma denotes a level of "officialness" that just doesn't exist. The parentheticals are appropriately used here to disambiguate articles, only with a slightly higher level of precision (e.g. rather than using a title such as "Columbia Heights (neighborhood)"). Best, epicAdam(talk) 12:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding here that a title disambiguated by a comma should be a natural term in common use. That has never been the purpose of disambiguation. The wording after the comma is purely there as a disambiguator, to enable the reader to work out which Georgetown is being looked for. The common name element relates to Georgetown, not to whatever it is being disambiguated by. Outside the United States (where it is commonplace to see a place referred to as Little Rock, Arkansas), placenames are rarely disambiguated by a higher unit in natural language. Nobody in the United Kingdom would ever refer to Lincoln, England, for instance, but British editors have accepted that a disambiguator is required, and that this is a valid way of doing it. It really is a bit much when American editors, who were (as a group) instrumental in forcing the comma separation format on a (then) reluctant world, turn round and complain when they are asked to practice what they preached. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I, for one, did not preach anything. Moving all these page names (and disambiguating article names that do not require it) seems like a rather pointless exercise. WP:USPLACE leaves room for other conventions on a "state-wide" basis and thus there seems to be no reason to force a change here. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I accept that a disambiguator is not a natural part of the term and that it, therefore, should be enclosed on parentheses (brackets) to mitigate any confusion. Lincoln, England is a hideous construction foisted by brute force that will receive no accommodation from me. — AjaxSmack 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I think AjaxSmack might as well stop banging his head against a brick wall, as it's quite clear from numerous previous discussions that he's never going to win that one on disambiguating by commas. Eventually, British editors accepted comma separation, largely on the basis that this is how placenames are disambiguated in almost all atlases and road atlases. It really has gone beyond the point of no return now, as to switch to parenthetical disambiguation would mean moving thousands (tens of thousands?) of pages across the English language Wikipedia. And, of course, comma separation has largely been accepted by most editors around the world (yes AjaxSmack, I'm looking at you).
I certainly wouldn't disagree with epicAdam about disambiguating when it isn't necessary. Unfortunately, most editors interested in American placename articles screamed blue murder the last time that was suggested, and insisted that the state had to be in the name (except for the big city exceptions). Has consensus changed? I somehow doubt it, but you could be right. So let's see what people think of dealing with all Washington neighborhoods consistently (at the moment there are at least three different formats), according to one set of rules, and that this be written into the naming conventions for the United States.
There would be no change to the following on the basis that there is nothing to disambiguate from:
The rest need disambiguation. Using Washington as the disambiguator is not ideal as it may lead those searching to think they are in the state of Washington or even part of Washington in England, and so would fail to be precise enough. The disambiguator D.C. was chosen for Washington itself on the grounds that it was known worldwide by that title. That is not the case for, as an example, Brentwood. There is no need for any of these to disambiguate within the District of Columbia, which is coterminous with Washington, D.C., so move the rest as follows:
Those are worse still. If you are going to comma disambiguate here, it should be to Washington, DC (as already exist), and not just District of Columbia. There is no usage precedent at all for a descriptor like "Woodley Park, District of Columbia". (I am unpersuaded by the argument that Lincoln, England is a mistake and so we must repeat it here.) Further, even though Washington and the District are the same, and further disambiguation may therefore not be technically required, leaving out "Washington" from (for example) a descriptor like "Woodley Park, District of Columbia" is in fact ambiguous and confusing in that implies that Woodley Park, DC, is somehow different than or separate from Washington, DC, when in fact it is included within. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I never said that Lincoln, England was a mistake. I gave the historical background to how it came about. It has been accepted by British editors. As for District of Columbia, I'm quite easy on that. Others suggested it earlier in this discussion. If the consensus is to disambiguate by Washington, D.C. then I have no problem with that. What is unacceptable and confusing, both to readers and editors, is the mish-mash we currently have within Washington, D.C. neighborhoods, with no logic to the pattern whatever. At the moment we have 71 disambiguated by comma, 32 by parentheses and 35 with no disambiguator, plus one disambiguated by parentheses as housing project.Skinsmoke (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right that there should be a standard. I'd prefer having no disambiguator when one isn't necessary, but where one is required that it be "(Washington, D.C.)" I find "District of Columbia" problematic for the reason stated by JohnInDC (the article name makes the neighborhood seem like a separate "city" within the District) and dislike the convention with the comma for the reasons I've already stated. As I've mentioned, WP:USPLACE allows for state-wide conventions for local place names and I think that coming up with a unique convention is fully appropriate here. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. First, I agree with Skinsmoke, epicAdams and others that places with unique names should not be disambiguated at all, with parentheses or commas. Second, if disambiguation is necessary, the standard form is parentheses, and "Washington D.C." is very clear. Using "natural disambiguation" with a comma suggests the name of the place includes "Washington D.C.", when in fact it doesn't. That's misleading. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is the convention used with United States places. Omnedon (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose/Support per Raime. Don't disambiguate if not necessary, but when we do, parenthetical for neighborhoods seems to be the accepted convention. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I am (genuinely) puzzled by Born2cycle's assertion that the standard form of disambiguation is parentheses. Standard form where? Not for geographic places on Wikipedia it isn't. Not even for geographic places in the United States. Not even for neighborhoods within the United States. Nor is it the standard form in atlases or road map indexes. So where? If he wants to fight a battle over using commas to disambiguate geographic places, then fine—but do it at Wikipedia:Article titles, not here. If consensus is that we should move hundreds of thousands of pages from the predominant disambiguation by comma to disambiguation by parentheses, then fine. But for the time being, these pages should fit in with the consensus that the preferred format is comma disambiguation. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear, and thank you for bringing our attention to the puzzlement my comment caused. I observe that using parentheses is the standard form of disambiguation on WP in general. This is supported by any significant number of clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM. For example, just now, I encountered 3 disambiguated titles after 12 clicks on RANDOM: Endymion (mythology), The Rose (song), Wells Fargo Center (Jacksonville). That's too small a sample for a definite conclusion, but it suggests that around 25% of all our titles, the majority of which are not disambiguated, are disambiguated with parentheses. That's consistent with my impressions, and strongly supports the assertion that parenthesis is the standard form of disambiguation (in a subsequent separate test of 100 clicks on RANDOM, 10% were disambiguated with parentheses, significantly less than 25%, but still suggesting a standard).
I know consensus is not with me on this, but I find the general practice to treat geographical places differently by using the supposed "natural disambiguation" with comma to create confusion, leading, for example, to people sometimes even questioning the assertion that using parentheses is the standard form of disambiguation.
Regardless, the decision to use natural or parenthetic disambiguation is supposed to be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I find the arguments supporting "natural" (comma) disambiguation to not be compelling. The name of this topic is Georgetown - that is clearly and correctly conveyed by the current title. If we moved it to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., it will incorrectly convey that the name is that. So I see a downside to the proposal, but no upside. The same point applies to all the other cases. --B2C 18:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: We have an assertion here (from BDD), that disambiguation by parentheses is the norm for neighborhoods. I've just checked most of the big cities in the United States, which shows:
I'm afraid the assertion simply isn't true. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh, really? I thought that was how we distinguished them from cities and towns. It would also seem to be better for using the pipe trick. But those results speak for themselves. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the assertion was that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia use parenthesis to disambiguate. The comma convention seemingly only applies to articles related to cities and towns (and that's likely okay for North American settlements); however, that convention is itself the anomaly and I don't see why we need to be held to it given the potential confusion and inaccuracy it causes. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Support, per Marcus Qwertyus, Skinsmoke, et al: the proposed change would be more consistent both with other similar WP lists and with other entries in the same list. ╠╣uw[talk] 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As I said at the related Atlanta RM, we definitely need some greater consistency here. The comma convention seems to be in wider use, but for things are very inconsistent. For example, virtually all Florida neighborhoods articles use the parenthetical convention after a user moved them to it two years ago. So, all articles use parentheses in:
The one major exception is Category:Neighborhoods in Jacksonville, Florida, since that's when I asked the editor to stop the moves until a consensus was established, so it's a mishmash of parentheses (5) and commas (3). I don't have a strong opinion on which to prefer, but going forward with these articles some wider clarification would be nice.--Cúchullaint/c 22:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of trying to find a consensus, I support adopting the comma convention as evidently the more common way of disambiguating neighborhoods. I oppose including any disambiguator if there's nothing to distinguish it from.--Cúchullaint/c 03:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Support for simplicity and consistency based on the above discussions. Better to standardize on one style then to try and use two at random. While a case could be made for using parenthetical disambiguation here, I'm not sure that we could reach consensus. If anyone wants to pursue that, maybe WP:USPLACE is the right forum. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.