Talk:Gaithersburg, Maryland/Archive 1

Seal

The image shown - the green G letter with the tree inside the curve of the G, is NOT the city seal, but rather a logo frequently used. The official city seal is more traditional looking, but very rarely used or seen. Until someone can find a copy of the official seal to use, that "G" should be removed.

I've found the as-of-1968 city seal in a document on Gaithersburg's City Website.

Anyone see a reason not to add this to the article? -- BobDrzyzgula 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

GHS

This section should be moved to a separate article about the high school. Also, it needs to be put into neutral point-of-view, as it currently reads like a praise of GHS. Also, the detailed information about the SHS-GHS game is unnecessary. Results and a simple overview would do fine. -PhattyFatt 02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply removed the text, which was added by an anon, along with history text [1]. I found the exact same history blurb on another website [2], which looks like a copyright violation. The image of the high school, taken from the mcps website, also doesn't belong here. I don't see a fair use rationale for it, since it would be easy for a Wikipedian to take a similar picture of the high school to use here without fair use restrictions. --Aude (talk contribs) 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NIST

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is not headquartered in Gaithersburg.

This strikes me as an odd statement. Either NIST is headquartered in Gaithersburg and this statement is wrong; or it is not headquartered there and there is some controversy as to whether it is there or not.

Aszekely 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NIST is headquartered in Gaithersburg -- some vandal added the not. It has been put back. --Alynna 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NIST is *not* technically headquartered within the City limits of Gaithersburg. The NIST property is a little enclave of unincorporated land within the Gaithersburg perimeter -- Gaithersburg sort of has a hole in the middle of it. Look, for example, at the City's Zoning Map (3MB PDF), and you'll see that NIST isn't zoned by the City. There are other little unincorporated enclaves within Gaithersburg -- the little triangle on the other side of I-270 from NIST is one example; the bit between Fields Road and Washingtonian Blvd (North of Crown Farm and South of Rio/Washingtonian) is another. To the extent that NIST answers to a local authority, it's Montgomery County, not the City of Gaithersburg. I would suggest replacing the "not" -- BobDrzyzgula 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. But just adding "not" to the sentence sounds silly. Maybe we could say that NIST is located in the middle of Gaithersburg but not technically part of it? --Alynna 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the silly part; I was actually thinking that once I re-read what I wrote. The more I think about it, the more I think that this would be best handled in a footnote. How about something like this:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is headquartered in Gaithersburg. Other major employers...

Technically, although NIST's mailing address is in "Gaithersburg", and the City of Gaithersburg surrounds NIST's property, the land upon which NIST is situated is not incoporated into the City of Gaithersburg. Instead, it is in an unincorporated part of Montgomery County. Owing to the piecemeal manner in which land has been added to Gaithersburg over the years, there are multiple such unincorprated enclaves within the outer perimiter of the City.

I could see also referencing the City's zoning map, which clearly shows these enclaves.

As another thought, perhaps there should be a small bit of the greater article about the USPS use of the place name "Gaithersburg", how it has far greater reach than the City limits, and how this causes confusion for many people. There are places near Damascus that the Post Office calls "Gaithersburg". -- BobDrzyzgula 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That'd work. --Alynna 14:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that it is, in fact, within city limits - it's completely accurate to say "in Gaithersburg." The only reason it doesn't show up as such on zoning maps is that it's federal land and under federal jurisdiction - similar to a military base. The land is still "in Gaithersburg," though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.93 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is accurate to say that the NIST offices are in Gaithersburg, as the mailing address is in Gaithersburg, and it is surrounded by Gaithersburg on all sides. Take for example, the United Nations building in New York City. Although it is international territory, it is commonly referred to as being "in" New York City. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

2065

Clearly Gaithersburg was not founded in 2065. Can someone find the real date and post it?

Someone keeps putting stupid stuff in the article. I've reverted that. --Alynna 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Official City Symbols

Gaithersburg has a few official city symbols:

• The flag, shown in the article
• The green logo, as shown on the flag
• The city flower, the peony

How should this be indicated in the article? (Source: [3]) Madbehemoth 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Population density in 2000 is listed as 5,216.2 on the US Census Bureau website. This is very different then the number in the infobox. Qblik 00:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What's listed looks close to the household density, but wherever the number came from it is obviously incorrect. I've calculated a new density based on the population that is listed and inserted it to the infobox. Since the demographics section of the article text is based on the 2000 census it has somewhat different numbers, so I left it alone. -Jdmalouff 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. The current name conforms with the current guidelines at WP:USPLACE. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Gaithersburg, Maryland → Gaithersburg – From my understanding, there is only one city/town by the name of Gaithersburg in the entire United States of America, and quite possibly the entire world, therefore, having the state in the article title is redundant. For example, many articles of U.S. (and international) cities only have the city name only, leaving out the state/province. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The current article title is based on the frequently, heavily debated WP:USPLACE guideline, which states that most U.S. settlements are typically titled [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention"). What you refer as the "many articles of U.S. cities that only have the city name" are actually the articles on the handful of most populous or most famous U.S. cities that are exempt from this guideline. To quickly summarize this debate as best I can: On the one hand, we have WP:D and WP:PRECISION stating that such a disambiguation phrase such as including "Maryland" in the title is not needed in this case. On the other hand, we have the AP Stylebook and most other news and reliable sources in the U.S. using the "comma convention" for most U.S. settlements, including "Gaithersburg, Maryland" (but not the handful of most populous or famous U.S. cities like Los Angeles), which results in a conflict with WP:TIES and WP:COMMONAME. So the current consensus is to follow what these American reliable sources are doing as the common name instead of using the overall WP:D and WP:PRECISION guidelines. This issue has been frequently discussed for over 6-7 years because we get conflicting WP:NAME policies when trying to apply them to U.S. city names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zzyzx11. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current name conforms with WP:USPLACE. --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 19 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.