Talk:Streets and highways of Washington, D.C.

message: I've read numerous websites purporting that the layout of Washington D.C. has symbols such as 5- and 6-pointed stars when viewed from above. I came to this page in search of corroborations one way or the other, and expanations for this (i.e. was it intentional or not) if they do in fact exist. Anyone else heard of this and care to comment? 24.18.35.120 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: L'Enfant was inspired by Versailles to develop a grid plan overlaid by diagonal streets.  So the plan was intentional.  Given such a plan, the 5- and 6-pointed stars were inevitable.  I don't know if there are records that indicate this intentional Masonic symbolism in the plans.  I doubt it, but it's worthy of mention in the article; those theories have been around for more than a century.  The Masons are fond of symbols.  We should probably cover the L'Enfant plan in more detail.  SDC 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The street layout of D.C. is such that, with a little imagination, you can pick out lots of fanciful shapes.  I've read various allegations that the street layout deliberately encodes various symbols, ranging from the cross to the pentagram.  The allegations that I've read all have the following two things in common: (i) a lack of reliable sources and (ii) a willingness to redraw the street map to suit whatever point the author is trying to make.  I guess it's worthwhile to include a mention in the article about the various unsubstantiated theories, since there do seem to be a few that are widespread. Doctor Whom 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5- and 6-pointed stars in street layout?

message: I've removed the following from the article:
:Another possible reason for this is the basing the names of the streets on the Latin rather than modern alphabet, which did not contain the letters J, X, Y, or Z.
Beside the fact that it's unsourced speculation, it doesn't fit the facts.  The Romans did have X, Y, and Z.  On the other hand, they did not have W, nor did they distinguish U from V, but we have U, V, and W streets.  I didn't say all of this in the edit summary because I inadvertently hit the "return" key. Doctor Whom 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: L'Enfant's plan plainly shows circles.  Also, according to sources more reliable than an unsigned say-so, L'Enfant did base his plan on Versailles.  Finally, with regard to the points that we all agree are urban legends, I don't see what's so terrible about mentioning urban legends, provided that they are identified as such. If I am mistaken, please cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline to that effect. Doctor Whom 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing lettered streets

message: This article and the article on Washington DC both note that the diagonal roads are generally named for States. But neither explains why the avenues closest to city center were named for the particular states whose names they bear. Comparing a map of DC with a list showing the original 13 States' order of ratification of the constitution suggests that the names of the close-in avenues track the ratification or admission-to-the-Union dates (other than Washington Ave, SW, presumably named directly for the first President). Outlying diagonal avenues show the names of the states most recently admitted. Is this the correct rationale and, if so, does anyone have a source to cite for it? It would be a useful addition to either or both articles.Hibsch 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagonal Names for States -- What accounts for proximity to city center?

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This is incomprehensible:
"While the system may appear complex, once learned it allows one to pinpoint not only where one is but also where and how far one may need to travel. For example, one can readily infer from the address 633 A Street SE that the referenced location is southeast of the US Capitol, one block south of East Capitol Street, on the south side of A Street SE, between 6th and 7th Streets SE."
I love the use of the word "readily." I certainly understand that SE means that it's in the Southeast quadrant. But how the hell can one "readily infer" the rest of that?
Please read that passage, think about it, and be honest with me. Can you make heads or tails out of it?  Jeri Southern (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprensible