This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Richmond, Virginia article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Richmond, Virginia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Richmond, Virginia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Richmond, VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject Richmond, VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject Richmond, VirginiaRichmond, Virginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
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.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Drink can#History|canned beer]] The anchor (#History) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
nicknames
I've reverted several recent additions to the city nickname field in the infobox. The field there is for the "official" city nicknames used by travel & tourism offices, not for some of the local colloquialisms that very small, minority segments of the population seem to have adopted at various times. 'RVA' and 'the 804' fall under this category. Please understand the difference between the official "nickname" and a "colloquialism"; we've actually discussed this before if you look in the archives.
'The mond' and 'mecca', I have never even heard of after living in Richmond for 20 years, so IF they are used, the part of the population that uses them must be a very, very small minority, and not even worth mentioning in something like this.
Dr. Cash (
talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)reply
In fact, I have lived here for twenty years too, went to Hampden-Sydney with many other Richmonders and fellow Virginians, and "the Mond" is pretty much the highest used nickname of them all. --
MorrisS (
talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm going to disagree with you quite strongly on that statement, and have reverted you. I have NEVER heard 'The Mond' used outside of Wikipedia. Ever. A
google search for "The Mond" or
"The 'Mond" doesn't even turn up anything remotely having anything to do with Richmond. Not even in the first several pages of searches. You're going to have to come up with a more concrete citation before this can even be considered for inclusion in this article -- and blog posts aren't
reliable sources.
Dr. Cash (
talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I should also point out that, even if you do find a reliable source, it does NOT go under 'nicknames', because it's not a nickname. The field in the infobox is reserved for "official" nicknames only, not random colloquialisms used by very small and isolated subsets of the population.
Dr. Cash (
talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
18 years, never heard the Mond ever, or Mecca. RVA and River City are the only that spring to mind for me.
71.63.15.156 (
talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Lived here all my life and I've never heard of "The Mond" or "Mecca" either. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.63.109.92 (
talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Frankly, the exclusion of the terms RVA, River City, and the 804 is ridiculous. If the purpose of wikipedia is to inform member of the public as to pertinent information regarding the topic they are interested in, which I am sure that it is, these nick names should not be overlooked. In 18 years of living in Richmond, the term RVA had been used in my presence literally countless times, as has the 804, and to a lesser extent River City. Publications such as RVA magazine, which have a fair level of readership and high production values are living evidence of such terms. I do not claim to be the most informed as to wikipedia guidelines, but the idea that tourism and travel website are the only possible sources for such information not only fails to be informative and comprehensive, but is simply unscholarly. Surely a source that is made public without the intent of gaining profit would be as or more credible. It is also obvious that tourism publications are socio-economically biased to certain population segments and as such will not provide fair information. Certain nicknames will be avoided simply to increase the appeal of a given destination and it is also possible that nicknames may be altered or fabricated to similar effect. Lastly, smaller locations are far less likely to be recognized as having nicknames than larger ones under this system. Given these standards, It would be literally impossible for small towns with little or no tourism to have nicknames. This is simply a minor oversight, it is completely illogical. I understand that some guidelines must be made to maintain the high quality that wikipedia strives for, and that such guideline will not be crossed based on the complaint of one, many, or even all citizens of a given area. However, if the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide accurate information, this is a decidedly unfortunate choice and is limiting the services that the organization can offer in this article. The following is a link to an article on a legitimate tourism website, Richmond.com, that refers to Richmond as RVA. Searching for RVA on the website will provide further evidence of its use. The linked article describes summer events in RVA and the website offers a clear link to plan trips.
http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/may/04/rva-events-summer-in-the-rva-city-71158/—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.32.180.147 (
talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Ignoring RVA, River City, and the 804 as nicknames for Richmond is simply absurd - it undermines wikipedia to leave out widely available and sourced knowledge
Charlesaf3 (
talk) 06:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)reply
32 years old here, born and raised in Richmond, and I have heard 804, RVA, The Mond, Mecca, and Fist City used quite frequently. The fact that YOU haven't heard these terms does not allow you to dismiss them. Now, I do agree that these are not "official" nicknames, but I do think they deserve a spot under a colloquialisms heading or something. (
Acoastal (
talk) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC))reply
I'm nearly 30 and have lived in Richmond since 1988. I've heard Richmond referred to Fist City since the late 90s. Most anyone involved in the local hardcore and punk scene is familiar with it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.84.205.171 (
talk) 01:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Crime
Should a section be added? When compared statistically with population differences factored in, Richmond has about as high a murder. rape, theft, and assault rate as the highest rated cities in the US. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.209.233.100 (
talk) 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)reply
It's usually most applicable to include crime statistics with the demographics section. It could also be a subsection with there. But not as a main section, no.
Dr. Cash (
talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I've noticed with other articles on cities in America the crime section is included in a "Law & Government" section (such as with
Chicago and
Detroit). Perhaps properly-cited crime statistics could be shown here.
HillChris1234 (
talk) 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The crime section is over-extensive, disorganized, self-contradictory, and worst of all, seriously outdated. I included one 2008 reference but someone (me?) will have to reorganize the section at some point. It's seriously misleading. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.21.49 (
talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
All crime statistics are self-contradictory. The FBI even says rankings are bogus, it Morgan Quitno and CQ press and all those other companies that blow it out of proportion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Htgrgwwew (
talk •
contribs) 02:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The paragraph that mentions the FBI discourages use of its statistics the way Morgan Quitno seems like nothing more than an attempt to moderate the rest of the section. The references don't mention either Morgan Quitno or Richmond. Either let the statistics stand on their own, balance them with something Richmond-specific, or remove them. The section as is looks very unprofessional.--
BDD (
talk) 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
IMHO, I am glad we have a crime section; I think it is informative about Richmond's crime levels over time (for example, crime was especially high in the 90s but has been comparatively reduced in the late 2000s). I like that the FBI caveats are there, because per capita statistics constantly put Richmond's highly urban population on various national superlative lists. I don't know a good wikipedia rule to cite, but my intuition says that explaining the nuances and uncertainties of statistics we're using is better than throwing up numbers that don't mean what people think they mean. IF the wording needs to be cleaned up, then so be it, but I like that some sort of caveat is there. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Mergeback of Music of Richmond, Virginia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Considering the Music of Richmond article is barely longer than the section here, and also completely
unreferenced, I suggest it make sense to merge it back into the Richmond article for the time being.
MLauba (
talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I didn't even realize that the article was created. But it seems to be mostly created by those interested in the alternative music scene as a vehicle for promoting some of the lesser known and "garage band" types, which aren't exactly notable. What little noteworthy content there is there can be merged, but mostly that should just be deleted and redirected.
Dr. Cash (
talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, but I take issue with Dr. Cash's analysis of why. Richmond is notable for being a hotbed of underground music, and mention of this is crucial to any sort of mergeback.
71.62.145.243 (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As part of the
WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing
sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the
GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. There are multiple sections throughout the article lacking citations. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The fair use rationale for
File:Richmondseal.png would benefit with expansion. The citations also need to include more parameters beyond just the url; include the author, date, title, publisher, access date, etc. There are also multiple
dabs and
dead links that need to be fixed (the
Internet Archive can help in fixing the links). Although the article has been delisted, the article can be returned to GA status by addressing the above points and giving the article a good copyedit. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at
WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at
WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing!
Nehrams2020 (
talk •
contrib) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Collage for Infobox
Proposal: I have been looking around, and in a bit of "Jonesing", I've noticed many big cities using a collage to illustrate their cities (Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Vancouver: the list goes on and on.) I was wondering if people would be up for such a work on the Richmond page? I've made a mock-up with some of the "iconic" landmarks of the city (or at least the ones I have grown up with), using images from the commons, each of which represents the city in a way: the Skyline with the falls of the James, the State Capitol, St. John's Church, the porches of Jackson Ward, Monument Avenue (the Lee Monument), and the clock tower of Main Street Station.(I can post an image of the mock-up later, as it was just done doing manipulations in OpenOffice.org Writer - the final would be done via GIMP). Thoughts? Suggestions?
Morgan Riley (
talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Lead Image Collage Updates
I've been considering updating the lead image collage for two reasons but I wanted to post this to talk and get thoughts before going ahead in case there were objection. There are two problems with the current spread of images, in my view. The first is that the image of the Lee Monument is out of date and needs to be corrected. The second is that the top image of the city and the James River is cropped into an unusual 8-sided shape which deviates from the norm of lead collage images for cities being cropped into a rectangles. I can't find much explicit info on this in the MOS, but it seems worth doing. Let me know if you have thoughts, otherwise I will go ahead with the corrections in the coming days.
The Gallery5 stuff seems like rather impassioned prose, and appears to have some NPOV problems. If it doesn't, then perhaps it should be moved to the Gallery5 article entry (which is 1/4 the size of the paragraph here), as much of the content is trivial, IMHO, for a page focused on the entire city. Thoughts?
Morgan Riley (
talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)reply
"Parks & Recreation" Section Reorder
As Richmond is not a major "sports" city, would it make more sense to move "Parks & Rec" up to be closer to the culture section (immediately prior to "Sports", as indeed the parks and gardens (think Byrd Park, Maymont, James River, Lewis Ginter, etc.), seem more logically related to the arts, architecture and culture than the sports? That and by moving sports down, it would be closer to media, education, etc., to which it seems more related. The WikiProject Cities guildline for US cities says these are perfectly movable as the case dictates. Thoughts?
Morgan Riley (
talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)reply
It absolutely, positively SHOULD NOT be included as a subsection under 'arts and culture', because there are already way too many subsection there as it is. I've already had to go back and merge several of the newly-created subsections back into the original section, because it awkwardly separated material that really belonged together. Subsections in articles should be used very sparingly, and if it is desired to get this article back up to GA standards, and ultimately to FA, the better solution would be to reword and rephrase material into better prose that is organized better into the main sections. This might also involve "surgical-like" excision of redundant or unnecessary material. The 'economy' and 'education' sections are good examples where the subsections really should go and material should be better organized there. The 'culture' section as a whole probably needs a complete rewrite, too. There are way too many bulleted lists there, and the 'sports' section is also starting to get bulleted (bulleted lists are also generally disfavored in the higher-level review processes, in favor of a more prose-based arrangement).
WTF? (
talk) 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the advice. I apologize for the use of subsections and bullets - I was basing it on usage already in the article (again, I am relatively new). However, in the case at hand, shouting is unnecessary in the Edit Summary section (many of the corrections you are making (other than subsections), e.g. Stratford, were not part of my recent overhaul). Cheers.
Morgan Riley (
talk) 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Also, are there any guidelines/manuals of style one can look at for additional section/subsection/etc. advice?
Morgan Riley (
talk) 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I wasn't blaming you for the bullet points and Stratford University bit. The bullet points have been in the article for quite some time, and it's actually quite common in the early stages of an article's development to be organized that way. And it's not necessarily wrong. It's an easy way to rapidly organize and collect information to be included. But as article's develop towards the more advanced stages of
WP:GA and ultimately
WP:FA, Wikipedia favors a prose-based approach -- articles actually written and organized into paragraphs. The
WP:MOS itself is more basic, and doesn't really cover the topic of sections and subsections and when it's appropriate vs. inappropriate to use them. But you'll find as you gain experience in the article review processes on Wikipedia, that articles with excessive subsections tend to fail those processes. It's usually evidence of either editors trying to include too much info into an article, making it overly broad, or evidence of
WP:RECENTISM (editors inserting new material into articles often do so by including it as a new subsection).
As far as shouting in the edit summary, I don't think that was my intention at all. I didn't use all caps for everything, but sometimes I capitalize certain words to emphasize things. I don't consider that to be "shouting".
Anyways, it seems that there are/were quite a few external links scattered throughout the text. I guess quite a few linkspammers have tried to add various things over the past few months or so,. . .
WTF? (
talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)reply
earthquake
The recent earthquake's epicenter was actually in
Mineral, Virginia and not Richmond. While certainly effects were felt in Richmond, I don't think this classifies as a "major event" on the scale of, say, Hurricane Isabel or Tropical Storm Gaston, so mention of it is rather silly. Please try to resist the temptations of Twitter.
WTF? (
talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)reply
= Brute Force Solution to Richmond City Infobox
I just implemented a hacker solution to a technical issue with the
Template:Infobox settlement. After spending time trying to annotate the
File:DistancesToRichmond2.gif, I couldn't figure out how to insert my annotated test picture into the infobox. Right now the infobox will only accept a picture in the "Image_map" field... so basically I used a different field, the text-based "anthem" field. It is a completely hackneyed solution but I can't figure out any other way to get
User:MPS/testimageannotation into that box except by doing it as a
WP:transclusion into a text field. Can someone help? If worse comes to worst I can always upload a screen capture of the annotated version, but that would defeat the purpose of what I am trying to do with annotation. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 05:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
While the image looks nice and all, I strongly believe it does not belong in the infobox because it clutters it up way too much. So I have removed it. It might be appropriate to include in another section of the article, though, like the geography section. Furthermore, I feel that the infobox should also focus on Richmond itself, and distances to other cities are not really all that important to include in such a prominent position. Perhaps your issues and necessity of engineering a rather shoddy and hacked solution such as this should be a clue that what you're trying to accomplish really should not be done?
WTF? (
talk) 12:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
WikiFoxtrotTango, I understand your intent to have the Richmond article look good and not cluttery; I value that too. It was not my idea to have the image in the infobox in the first place, but I feel that it looks ok there. This sort of feels to me like I am chasing my tail. I originally just put it up in the intro paragraph, and
my discussion with User:Morgan Riley resulted in moving it into the infobox. Morgan liked it where it was in the infobox, but wanted me to fix the distances so they were in both metric and english units. Regarding its value in being upfront in the article, I said in my
conversation with Morgan that people who are not from Virginia (for instance people from Europe, or people from Nebraska) might have no idea where Richmond is in relation to other cities. Some places in the US have cities that are spaced like 6 or 7 hours apart, but in Richmond's case, there are major metropolitan areas and historic cities within 2 to 4 hours drive. People who are unfamilair with Richmond geography are not going to benefit from the opening paragraph ("The site of Richmond, at the fall line of the James River" ... pretty obscure and not helpful, if you ask me... few people actually know what a fall line is, but lots of people know where DC & OBX are). Also regarding "shoddy engineering", perhaps you noticed after I posted my question, I decided to insert a .png image in place of the the hackneyed template I was asking about. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Richmond,_Virginia&diff=prev&oldid=453000355 THIS diff] shows the hackneyed template being inserted (using the anthem text box), while
THIS diff] shows me acting in good faith to insert a straight-up picture intead of my technical hack. The picture you reverted was just a picture, which is pretty basic So... unless I hear back from you, I am going to reinsert the picture. Let's discuss. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 14:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure why you'd be discussing such a fundamental change to the article in private user talkspace and not here on this talk page, soliciting the input from others editors than just the two of you. The image in question definitely does not belong in the infobox. While it's interesting, it's the kind of thing that you'd expect in an advertising brochure for a convention center, illustrating the proximity to nearby cities for the purposes of convincing an organization to host their convention in Richmond. Unfortunately, that's not what wikipedia is about -- we're not writing an advertising brochure or travel guide. We're writing an encyclopedia. And my opposition to including that image in the infobox is not because of the Richmond article -- I don't think it should go in ANY city infobox. It just simply adds too much clutter.
WTF? (
talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
WikiTangoFoxtrot, I disagree with your assertion that it is a fundamental change. It was an edit, which is part of the wikipedia ethos. This discussion is also a valuable part of that process of improving articles, and I am glad we are having it. I understand that you believe that image doesn't belong in the infobox, but there 'is a place in the infobox template for an intermediate national--> regional map, and if you disagree with that talk to the infobox people. I agree with your statement that this is the sort of map that a convention and visitors' burea would distribute... but I disagree that it is an economic promotional gambit. Visitors' bureaus distribute information that is valuable to people who are not familiar with the region, and that is exactly my argument for including this picture upfront... people who are not familiar with Richmond who come to wikipedia to learn more about Richmond would benefit from a valuable orientation map at the national--> regional level. I hope other editors comment as well, to facilitate the free exchancge of ideas on this topic.
MPS (
talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Having been party to a conversation invoked above, and not wishing to be misconstrued by any party to this thread, I wish to make sure my views are formally included here. My preference of it being in the infobox was only in contrast to it being ABOVE the infobox. While I agree with MPS that it is interesting and potentially useful to readers, and I would be willing to accept it if the general editorship did, neither can I actively support it now that there is objection to it, given that some of the objections that WTF has made are the same which I made (albeit less forcefully) in the above referenced conversation. In my opinion, with the addition of the national pushpin map to the infobox as a result of this process, at the present a very generalized regional map is less critical now than it was.
Morgan Riley (
talk) 21:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Ok, so I think I am going to "withdraw the motion" (so to speak) on the topic of putting the map in the infobox... It looks like there is an emerging consensus of two that it should not be up front as I have advocated. At one time or another, both of you have suggested that it could be moved elsewhere in the article, so that is what I did. At the present time, I have moved the map down into the transportation section. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree. I think it's fine in the transportation section. Though I wonder if the exact placement or code could be tweaked a bit -- it's current placement overlaps some text in my browser. Maybe this is due to the annotation effect. Possibly, the best solution would be to center it directly underneath 'transportation' and above 'utilities'?
WTF? (
talk) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Geographic information in the lead section
Morgan Riley just moved info about where richmond is down to the geography section. I disagree.. "Where richmond is" is important to summarize in the lead section. Created geo paragraph. Let's talk about this?
MPS (
talk) 20:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Again, I disagree with defining the city in terms of its relative location with other distant cities; especially much smaller ones; The geographic location is conveyed by the coordinates, by the maps, and by its relative location to the surrounding counties. If people don't know where Richmond is, why would they be likely to know where both Charlottesville and Williamsburg are, and further, why are the distances to those two (and indeed Washington) considered essential information?
Morgan Riley (
talk) 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)reply
My basic thinking is that we list "neighbor" areas to the north, south, east, and west. Williamsburg and the
Historic Triangle is a huge historical tourism destination to the east. Charlottesville and DC are the first
Metropolitan Statistical Areas you encounter when driving west and north from Richmond, respectively. When you say "distant" cities, you are making it sound like an hour's drive is "distant." In order to understand Richmond's history and current events, you have to understand where Richmond is in relation to its neighbors. Examples: (1) When Thomas Jefferson was governor in Richmond, he lived in Charlottesville and communted the 70 miles via
Three Notch'd Road. Similarly, Poe went to UVA because it was close to RVA (2) The reason that the colonial government moved the
state capitol from Williamsburg to Richmond was because it was a convenient move and provided comparative safety from British attack. (3) When the
DC sniper struck in Ashland, the national news media reported it as "Henrico County, VA, 90 miles south of DC" rather than "20 miles north of Richmond" ... because the national news media does not understand where Richmond is. (4) when the
2011 Virginia earthquake hit, many national news reports talked about the quake's proximity to DC rather than to Richmond. ... all this to say... I believe it would be helpful to "orient" people to richmond in ways that they understand.... and people don't naturally process earth coordinates or fall lines as well as they do neighbor cities that they have heard of.
MPS (
talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I yield the point on the finding of a few examples of other cities that do that, albeit perhaps not as many as proposed here. I do not deny the long historical relationship between these cities, yet would recommend that the articles for Charlottesville and Williamsburg in turn get defined as such in reciprocity and consistency, that is all. [As for the sniper, I think describing it relative to DC was actually more relevant to the story, given it was one originating out of the DC metro. Had it all started in Hanover County, VA (i.e. Ashland), I think they would have mentioned "outside of Richmond" -- either way, an unusual example on all accounts.]
Morgan Riley (
talk) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
in my cursory research just now, I found at least four cities
Philadelphia,
Worcester, MA,
Albany, NY, and
Salamanca, Spain. Each has a listing of one or more distances to nearby major and / or minor cities as part of the lead 'graf...
Philadelphia -- "The city is located in the Northeastern United States along the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers and it lies about 80 miles (130 km) southwest of New York City."
Worcester, MA -- "Worcester is located approximately 40 miles (64 km) west of Boston, and 38 miles (61 km) northeast of Springfield.
Albany, NY -- "Roughly 150 miles (240 km) north of New York City, Albany sits on the west bank of the Hudson River, about 10 miles (16 km) south of its confluence with the Mohawk River."
Salamanca, Spain -- "It is situated approximately 200 km (120 mi) west of Madrid and 80 km (50 mi) east of the Portuguese border."
Does that work for you? I think it is a good idea for Cville and williamsburg in particular to have "nearby cities" that include Richmond, and I will try to add these, pending, of course, what other editors on those articles have to say. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 05:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)reply
My apologies for not being clearer! I meant that I had *already* found other cities doing it, including the Albany example - I didn't mean for it to read in the future/conditional tense : P. I am sorry that you had to go to that trouble of posting those! Nono, I agree with your point.
Morgan Riley (
talk) 14:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Theatre
The artcom reference in
this edit is not a reliable source, it is a user-submitted entry. Aside from the playbill, the other "references" are notes, not references (such as "the League of Resident Theatres is the franchise of Equity companies around the nation, sometimes known as the de facto National Theatre"). There was also a <ref> tag without a closing </ref> tag, and given the above, I'm not sure what was supposed to be a reference, and what wasn't. In addition to that, certain part, if not more, appear to be a copyvio taken directly from the playbill reference. Because of these reasons, this needs to be discussed before reinserted into the article. Thank you. -
SudoGhost 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Edgar Allen Poe
Edgar Allen Poe had a presence in richmond. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.172.144.136 (
talk) 16:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Richmond in 1977?
A Commons Wikimedian from Hungary recently uploaded an interesting series of photos they took on a month long trip of the USA in 1977. They didn't remember all of the locations; many have since been properly identified. There are two I think show Broad Street in Richmond. Can someone more familiar with Richmond confirm or rule out Richmond as the location? Thanks. --
Infrogmation (
talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)reply
99.999% certain it is Broad Street in Richmond, VA. The former one shows prominently the modernist City Hall (having since then undergone a major refacing, see attached image)City Hall today; the later the old
Central National Bank (Richmond, Virginia) in the Left Mid-ground, and the
Masonic Temple in the background. Good call!
Morgan Riley (
talk)
Thanks much. (I've just renamed the files on Commons to reflect proper identification.) Cheers, --
Infrogmation (
talk) 05:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Unsourced Retail section removed
This entire section was removed as there are ZERO sources in it and information about shopping centers is largely non-notable for a city article. Especially if 90% of said shopping centers aren't even in the city of Richmond itself. A short description of some of the more notable shopping centers actually in the city might be appropriate if added to the Economy section, but as an entire main section, it is wholly inappropriate. If editors wish to keep the information, consider finding
reliable sources and adding it to the article about the greater richmond region instead.
WTF? (
talk) 16:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I've added the section to the
Greater Richmond Region article. Since most of the shopping centers are in the suburbs and not the city itself, it's more relevant there. Though the entire section is still at risk of summary deletion if reliable sources are not found. The text of the material also looks like it may have been lifted from another source, possibly a copyrighted source. Though I don't have any proof, it just looks like it came from something like a publication from the chamber of commerce or something. If it actually is confirmed to be a copyright violation, it WILL be removed permanently.
WTF? (
talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I too have removed a retail section several times now. It is just promo, and has no place in the article.
Gtwfan52 (
talk) 23:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and the whole editing process, so do forgive me for the excess editing (and the frustrations along with it). I have added a few references for most of the sections, and plan on adding more in the immediate future. So do you want the article to remain on the Greater Richmond region page or the Richmond, Virginia page? Thanks.
Tej11 (
talk) 2:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.255.8.199 (
talk)
Pedantic semantics. A small error at the end of the lead section
The article's lead section ends with:
... as many historic sites are in or nearby the city.
This is not quite correct in British English.[See note 1]. The following suggestion is an improvement to [my] British ears.
... as many historic sites are in or near the city.[See note 2]
If that is agreeable to American ears too, then please go ahead and change it.[See note 3]
If the change is not acceptable in America, then I'll just pick up my notes and leave quietly.[See note 4]ChrisJBenson (
talk) 13:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Notes
^I am fully aware from my own experience that lingua franca of Richmond, Virginia is not British English.
^or possibly ... as many historic sites are in the city, or nearby.
^WP:COMMONALITY implies making the change even if the original was acceptable American usage. It's better to be correct in two varieties than in just one.
I changed it. It didn't sound right to my American ears. Either one of your suggestions sounds better to me.
GBfan 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Sister Cities
I'm changing to sister cities section to reflect current reality. Can't find any information on Poland etc. Sister Cities International and the City of Richmond website both list the below cities:
Richmond upon Thames, England (Europe)
Saitama City, Japan (Asia)
Windhoek, Namibia (Africa)
Zhengzhou, China (Asia)
Segou, Republic of Mali (Africa) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rousseaua001 (
talk •
contribs) 06:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The City of Richmond's website has conflicting information on it. While the
"index" page lists 5 sister cities, the
"about" page lists seven, the
2013 annual report only lists 5 cities.
Earlier documents list seven cities, so that explains why earlier edits of this page listed seven cities.
TL;DR Five cities looks right, the current edit is good.
RVA all day (
talk) 17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)reply
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. --
M2545 (
talk) 10:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I'm wondering, are there any Wikipedia guidelines concerning the pronunciation of place names? The pronunciation currently given is (/ˈrɪtʃmənd/ RICH-mənd) - and while this may be perfectly fine if you go by some kind of US or British dictionary standard, this is not how Richmonders (or other Virginians) pronounce the name. In local pronunciation the final "d" is definitly silent, i.e. it's something like (/ˈrɪtʃmən/ RICH-mən). Shouldn't this be reflected in the article?
Albrecht Conz (
talk) 04:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)reply
You acknowledge that /ˈrɪtʃmənd/ RICH-mənd is probably standard English. I would guess that non-standard pronunciations would be a hard sell unless you have a reliable source. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 13:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I've just added a long note to to the talk page of
Jackson Ward concerning Richmond's redevelopment since World War II. Frankly, the issues extend to the treatment of the city's history in the previous century. Not having been born in Virginia, I've become aware that racial politics have mattered in Richmond for a very long time, as has a policy of "don't ask/don't tell" about uncomfortable periods, like
Massive Resistance in my lifetime (with
Congressional Reconstruction of the previous century only now being addressed more dispassionately). This article is pretty cursory in both the Postbellum and 20th century sections. It also doesn't mention the bad 2004 flood; I believe other cities' articles extend to the present day even if this doesn't mention the last several mayors. More than a list of topical histories in the bibliography is needed. Even the linked
History of Richmond, Virginia article is almost footnote-less, and too disorganized in some sections to be labeled a PR piece. I'm not familiar with the Sanford/Chamber of Commerce book cited as one of the two general works, but
Virginius Dabney's has gaps. He's been dead for more than two decades; his 1971 book was for decades the state history text, but is no longer, in part because of criticism for its
Lost Cause viewpoint.
Jweaver28 (
talk) 18:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Have you seen
Timeline of Richmond, Virginia? Lots of the topics you mention are listed there, with many good footnotes (and probably some need for ref cleanup). It's hard to summarize 400 years of history without omitting something critical. Peace,
MPS (
talk) 13:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Great. I hadn't seen it before, and it took a while to load, but it really helps fill the gap. I trust you don't mind that I made a few tweaks and added a link to
Eleanor P. Sheppard becoming Richmond's first female mayor in 1962.LOL
Jweaver28 (
talk) 17:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on
Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Anyone want to take a photo of this building which I think is next to 212 East Clay Street? I believe it is still standing and was a home to the long lived Southern Aid insurance company (which seems to be nextdoor now at 212) after
John Mitchell Jr.s bank closed. Quite historic. Thanks.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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:
Can we update the GRTC information under the Transportation section? There is now public transit that goes to Short Pump in the far West End.
Original statement:
"The far West End (Innsbrook and Short Pump) and almost all of Chesterfield County have no public transportation despite dense housing, retail, and office development."
Suggested revision:
"Much of the West End and almost all of Chesterfield County have no public transportation despite dense housing, retail, and office development."[1][2][3]
Technically the mayor of Richmond VA is a non-partisan position, and mayoral candidates do not run as democrats or republicans. Given that, is it accurate to list the mayors personal affiliation with their party alongside the office?
2600:4040:10BB:5500:15F0:5D94:99A7:5F0A (
talk) 17:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Henry Box Brown
Henry Box Brown was delivered to Philadelphia in 1849. The date clearly appears in his wikipedia article. I note that the whole mention of this case in the present article is out of context. I would assume many slaves escaped from the south to freedom. Yes, Henry's scheme was unique, but what does it have to do with Richmond? In any event, if it is mentioned, the correct year should be given.
יעקב (
talk) 22:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You are correct about the 1849 date, I have undone by revert and it is now changed back to 1849. -
Aoidh (
talk) 01:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
