Talk:Richmond, Virginia/Archive 2

Prominent distinctions?

I've removed the following paragraph from the lead section of the article. It was added by 71.207.130.170 (IP address belongs to comcast.net in Chesterfield County, Virginia. It mainly contains minorly interesting and rather trivial information from a trade publication. While the source technically meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines, it's not a major media publication, and largely reflects the opinion of the publication's editorial board. At best, I don't think it belongs in the lead; maybe a brief note under economy, maybe,... but not the lead. Dr. Cash 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Richmond landed three prominent distinctions in FDI Magazine’s 2007 survey “North American Cities of the Future." Richmond was named the 5th best large city for quality of life, the 4th best large city for development and investment promotion and the 3rd best large city for human resources.

I believe the quote is relevant, but citing the source in the entry is not necessary. I would suggest keeping the statistical quote and leaving the source to be mentioned when the quote is cited.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tikvat Israel and Ukrop's

I have tried to tidy this up a bit, but there is still a disproportianately large amount of info on this synagogue. Numerous lengthy paragraphs detailing the entire history and the building are totally unnecessary. It isn't as though Richmond is a predominantly Messianic Jewish city. It really needs to be trimmed down more to reflect its real relative prominence in the city. I also removed the sentence claiming Ukrop's supermarkets banned GWAR and Howard Stern. They might publicly come out against certain entertainment acts, but they are just a supermarket chain, not a government entity of any kind; they can't just ban them on their own. The Ukrops are more powerful in Richmond than your average citizen, and their influence was probably a factor, but they are still private citizens, so they can't just go around shutting down anyone they disagree with. 71.63.119.49 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed more information on the Messianic synagogue, which appeared to be copied and pasted (plagiarized) from the Tikvat Israel website.71.63.119.49 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukrop's should be mentioned as a staple in the culture of Richmond, but their policies should be left to a separate article on Ukrop's and not mentioned here. That is, unless there is a main-stream relevant source that displays that Ukrop's has some sort of political influence in the government of the City of Richmond.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

cable tv services in media section

I removed the following information from the 'media' section of the article:

Comcast was formerly the only cable television provider for the Richmond area, until May 2006, when Cavalier Telephone and TV began providing cable television services. In the city and its northern suburban counties, Comcast is the successor to the franchise originally held by Continental Cablevision, then MediaOne, then AT&T Broadband, before Comcast acquired AT&T Broadband.

DirecTV and Dish Network are also very popular as an alternative to cable television in Richmond.

Comcast also provides Broadband internet access. Other providers offer DSL service in Richmond including Verizon and Cavalier, who also offer land-line telephone services.

For one, cable television service is not a utility in any city, and subscription to it is completely optional and voluntary. Unlike the local television stations which provide local content and news to the community, these cable & satellite tv providers are not unique to Richmond, and available in many communities. While they do provide local access channels to local governments, just about every provider does this in every community, as part of the rights of access agreements with the governments -- this is non-notable. Furthermore, including mention of this information is really starting to look like spam and advertising for the companies in question, which goes against the purpose of wikipedia. Dr. Cash 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest these entries be corrected and put back in the article? While you may be correct on a number of issues, there are points which are fairly important when mentioning media in the Richmond area. I would suggest rewording these, citing some sources and perhaps putting them back. Please remember that the policies of Wikipedia encourage refinement to incorrect statements found in Wikipedia as opposed to deleting them entirely. HillChris1234 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Dr.Cash seems to prefer deletion to contribution, from what I have seen.76.123.56.201 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

consumer markets

Richmond is known as one of the most politically and socially conservative consumer markets in the country. Consequently, it is often used as a test-market for new consumer products to identify strengths and weaknesses that will appear in a national deployment.

I removed the above-mentioned statement from the 'economy' section of the article. I am unable to find a source for it, and it sounds like blatantly obvious POV. Dr. Cash 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Belle Isle removed

It also has become a typical hangout for teenagers to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol. The park is not very accessable to law enforcement, thus leading teenagers to quickly take advantage of this. The water and scenery provide a peaceful environment as the kids light up there joints and sit on "Dead Rock" (a rock painted in the honor of the band The Greatful Dead).

I removed the above statement, which was added by an anonymous editor, from the article. It violates wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, and is not verifiable. Dr. Cash 03:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Surprised there's no mention of the crime. I've been here for 11 days so far on business, and haven't seen a single neighborhood that I would walk in after like 3pm. Most everywhere seems to be dirty, violent, and shady, and there's a very heavy law enforcement presence everywhere, you feel like you're in a warzone just waiting to explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.114.132 (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. If you can find a reliable source for your assertion, please insert it into an appropriate place in the article. The block of text mentioned here that was taken out is clearly POV and is not cited. That is probably why it was removed. HillChris1234 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

--Umm not sure what part of town you are at, but I suggest opening your eyes and taking another look around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.3.207 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a place for general discussion on Richmond, Va. If you would like to discuss crime in Richmond, please contact the user through their personal talk page and do it there.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion section

The religion section seems like a big, jumbled mess. It may just need some editing, or it may need large sections scrapped altogether (the section is twice as long as the religion section of cities ten times the size of Richmond). Also, certain religions/denominations seem to dominate the section. Just a thought on how to improve an otherwise pretty well-written and maintained article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.161.194 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! Please make sure any additions are cited by a reliable source and please keep in mind Wikipedia's encouragement to refine entries instead of deleting them entirely.HillChris1234 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is all messed up and not in the box when you look at the page. Can somebody fix it? Gtbob12 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It had been vandalized. Hopefully I've fixed it. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Richmond Braves

I don't have time right now to research all the details, but I'm pretty sure it was confirmed yesterday that they are leaving by 2009 to play in Georgia. --Ticallion (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RVA magazine

I removed mention of RVA magazine from the article. It is not a "major media source", and is more of a tourist brochure that's somewhat regularly published. As such, I don't think it belongs in the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ive lived in Richmond 27 years, "the mond" is not a nickname at all. I have never heard it! "804", "Rich City", and "RVA" I have heard.

I think RVA magazine deserves a place in the article. While in its infancy it was quite irregular in publishing, those problems were erased by the first year and it is now a well known publication that focuses on 20something culture, and the arts in Richmond. Although I personally have some qualms with the staff of the magazine, I feel it is as relevant as Style Weekly or Richmond magazine and certainly more that the woefully unread City edition. As for it being a "tourist brochure", would like to know how regularly a Pennsylvania native has a chance to read the magazine. My own opinions of the magazine aside, much of the content of the magazine would not be very relevant to a person who is not a resident of Richmond.76.123.56.201 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, It's a media source that provides ongoing coverage of what's going on in the Richmond arts and music scene. In some ways, it bridges the gap between the college art world and the established art world...I have no affiliation to the magazine and I think it is culturally significant enough to merit mention in the wikipedia article.

City capitalization

Why is the word "city" capitalized in the title of this article? Tuf-Kat (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has always been named, simply, Richmond, Virginia. A relatively new and inexperienced user moved it to Richmond, Virginia (City), citing a need to distinguish it from Richmond County, Virginia. The move did not adhere to the manual of style and I have moved it back, adding a dab link to the very top of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Civil Rights Memorial photo request

If some editor in Richmond could get a photo of the recently opened Virginia Civil Rights Memorial down by the state capital, it would be greatly appreciated! Such an image would go great in the Virginia history section or in discussions of the civil rights period in our history.--Patrick Ѻ 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a huge problem with this, but there are many articles on Wikipedia that are jumbled with pictures making those articles down-right annoying in some browsers. Might I suggest waiting until the VCRM becomes more of a prominent landmark in Richmond before providing a photograph. Richmond is known for having a rich heritage, and I'm sure there are pictures of other things that could fit as a better visual representation of the history of Richmond.HillChris1234 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortune 500 Companies

I was considering making a change to this section to remove Circuit City. Since it filed Bankruptcy, should it be listed with the others or should this be clarified? Since this is an article on Richmond, not Circuit City I don't want to act inappropriately.Duck9 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you mention Richmond,Va and it’s History and not acknowledge. Shockoe Bottom. Richmond period was the epicenter of the slave trade. Richmond has as much history in the slave trade as it does the civil war and revolutionary War combined. “Once again this is His-Story” it’s a shame this is 2010. This good Ole southern state, with its prominent Robert E. Lee statues- To this day won’t acknowledge the brutal savageries, which help build it. There are civil war memorials everywhere you look, but there’s a VCU Parking lot over the burial grounds of those who gave their lives’ and that of their Children for many generations to come. And yet the Virginia Creed is “Death To Tyrants”. There is no greater Tyranny or Hypocrisy than not honoring the heritage Of the people who make more than 50% of the population of Richmond. The pigeons honor Robert E Lee’s statue as should be honored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.154.132 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

African American Heritage?

How on earth can you mention Richmond,Va and it’s History and not acknowledge, Shockoe Bottom. Richmond period was the epicenter of the slave trade. Richmond has as much history in the slave trade as it does the civil war and revolutionary War combined. “Once again this is His-Story” it’s a shame this is 2010. This good Ole southern state, with its prominent Robert E. Lee statues- To this day won’t acknowledge the brutal savageries, which help build it. There are civil war memorials everywhere you look, but there’s a VCU Parking lot over the burial grounds of those who gave their lives’ and that of their Children for many generations to come. And yet the Virginia Creed is “Death To Tyrants”. There is no greater Tyranny or Hypocrisy than not honoring the heritage Of the people who make more than 50% of the population of Richmond. The pigeons honor Robert E Lee’s statue as should be honored. —Preceding mel_spruell@yahoo.com comment added by 128.172.154.132 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit right? If you want to write a section on African American Heritage, go ahead! Just make sure you follow the Wikipedia guidelines and use hard evidence and facts to back it up. -Eaglescout1984 14:22 19 February 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)

What is with the "when?" tags in the article?

I'm not sure who write portions of the article, but whenever someone used the word "today" it seems someone thought that was vague and use the [when?] tag. I personally understand what it means. It's saying that currently or in the present day or if you went there right now, that fact would be true. Anyone know why "today" was vague? If any editor doesn't see an issue, they could remove the tags too. -Eaglescout1984 14:18 19 February 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)

The tags were added back in January 2010 and no comments were posted to the talk page regarding why they were placed there. I've removed them. If the editor that added them wants to explain his/her reasoning, please do so here. WTF? (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Geography Data

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has decided, with the only following pedantic two reasons (approximately worded after original), to revert my edits upgrading the precision and scope of the climactic data we present here:

• "only use 1 source please"
• "data on US cities should come from US sources only"

I strongly disagree, and here are my rebuttal points

• "only 1 source"
  • where the devil does this rule come from? arbitrarily made? I think YES!
  • Then WHY does the Infobox weather template have parameters for two, NOT JUST one sources?
  • so we cannot have more than one source to verify information? this occurs very commonly with things other than climate. what if one source provides data on far more precision or scope than what another offers?

• "US cities..."
  • any other users, let alone policy pages, agree? NO
  • xenophobic? undoubtedly. Always remember the wise words of Comrade Deng --- if it works, USE IT!
  • If this were true, the WMO data at Miami and San Diego should be promptly removed. But no one has objected to the inclusion of WMO data.
  • plenty of other city examples where the respective national meteorological agencies aren't utilised in the infobox. have they been challenged? NO. look at my 'xenophobic' point for further reasoning. HKO takes data directly compiled from national meteorological agencies, in this case NOAA. the HKO data is there because no other source I have found gives daily amount (hours) of sunshine; NOAA at times gives at most percentages, which is MUCH harder to convert into monthly amounts and not optimal for this type of chart.

---华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with using the .hk site is two-fold. (a) It took at least two minutes to load the site for me, so the server is slow. (b) Once the site was loaded, the climate data was not current; it was dated from 1960-1990. So in this case, the data from www.weather.com is more reliable, since it contains data that's newer than 20 years. WTF? (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speed of access is not an issue. There's no reason not to include the reference if it provides support for material not otherwise supported. In this case, the HK site provides hourly data, not otherwise provided. WTF, you're also deleting other useful edits, for example, the use of the convert templates. Please be more discerning in your edits. TJRC (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• comment: speed of access is your computer's/ISP's/connection's issue, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (no I refuse to address you as 'WTF'; we all know what it is), not of anyone else. I don't care as much if you remove only the sun data due to the obsoleteness, but who else provides daily sunshine hours? NOAA usually provides percentage. will they change their reporting when the year ends in time for the 1981-2010 data? who knows? but deleting the other data for the pedantic "only one source" reasoning is... ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the HKO site seems to be citing the sunshine hours, I've edited the chart to make sure that's clear that is what's being cited by it. I still think that for the most part, climate data for US cities should be cited by US-based sources, such as NOAA, since it's more reliable than a foreign site. WTF? (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Besides, I've already had this 'outdated' discussion at Cleveland. that was the only other US city article where someone objected to my addition, and a third party has not commented on that issue. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's simply where we had the discussion about it and that was because Cleveland is an article I am somewhat active on. I don't watch many of the larger city articles and have begun noticing where it was added. Like I said, since the data sources (HKO and NOAA) have somewhat of an overlap, I'm less concerned than before, though I still don't like it overall since the HKO data ends 20 years ago at the latest. As I said at the Cleveland article, that's like using tons of data from the 1990 US Census in demographics and passing it off as "current" or "recent". It is still somewhat accurate, but a lot can change in 20 years, even in weather, especially in many of these Sunbelt cities that have seen explosive population growth and urbanization which certainly can affect weather (as you pointed out in relation to Washington, DC). The fact it's from HKO doesn't bother me; the date is what bothers me as well as the lack of explanation of what is considered a "sunshine hour". --JonRidinger (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

climate chart

I removed the second climate chart, which was placed to the right of the climate section, again. It's not a good idea to have to large templates in an article containing the same (or different, and therefore, misleading) data. We need to choose which one to pick, and I prefer the one at the bottom. The one placed to the right is, IMHO, aesthetically un-appealing and doesn't look very good. For those that think the second climate chart is necessary, you can add your reasons here, but IMHO, it'll be a hard, uphill battle, as it just adds way too much clutter to the section. WTF? (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a second chart, it's the only chart, in addition to the table. They serve different functions. One provides a graphical, easily-interpretable representation of the data, while the other is a more complete but less easily comprehended table. Both have advantages. They have complementary value, and are not competitive.

WTF, note that you're the sole editor seeking to delete this information. Until a consensus emerges that this sourced information should be removed, it should be retained. To that effect, I am restoring it. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• comment: we need to be clear about the word "chart" and its definition. sometimes we use "chart" to refer to the infobox; though some may think this usage is appropriate, I lean towards thinking not. I even believe that some editors may abuse the word mainly for a reason to not have both Climate chart and Infobox weather. Oh, speaking of which, there is a reason why those templates are named at where they are ATM. I think the word should be used mostly to mean "graph". In any case, there is no sub-article (Richmond-Petersburg doesn't really count), and though a graph should really be included on sub-articles to provide another viewpoint, sometimes it is not appropriate on a main article if the size becomes too large... ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the same data!!!! It's completely stupid to have TWO TEMPLATES here with climate information!!!! Especially when the more templates are added to an article the slower it becomes to pull up the page! I'm not going to revert it right now due to WP:3RR, but the second climate chart needs to go. WTF? (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Although neither Mathpianist93 nor I are newbies, it might be worth your time to familiarize, or refamiliarze, as the case may be, "How to avoid being a 'biter'" in WP:BITE:

Avoid intensifiers in commentary (exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good,).

That's good advice regardless of who you are addressing. Your use of invective and excess punctuation does not strengthen your position. "the second climate chart needs to go" is the fallacy called begging the question: essentially, assuming the premise based on the unproven conclusion. Whether the chart "needs to go" is a matter for consensus.

As I said above, the two templates serve different functions. One provides a graphical, easily-interpretable representation of the data, while the other is a more complete but less easily comprehended table. If you object to both being visible, Mathpianist93may be on to something by collapsing the table. Personally, I have an aversion to having tables collapsed by default, but it's something to consider.

The performance of your browser is not a consideration for changing the content of the article. If you are experiencing serious slowdowns from inclusion of a small template like this, you may want to look at improving our system. But the article content should not be subject to that. See also WP:DWAP. Except in the case of an aberrationally slow template, performance is not a good reason to avoid its use. TJRC (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathpianist and I have discussed this before when removing the same charts and info from articles such as Cleveland and Nashville, Tennessee recently. Here are the two problems that surfaced: first, the climate section in any city article is supposed to generally summarize the climate. Remember, the subject is the given city, not a detailed analysis of the climate in various conversions. Very few cities have a 'Climate of...' page, but if they did that's where more detail would be appropriate. Second, the basic information IS dupicated. I don't have a problem with one chart or the other, but both on the same page and in the same section id the same as having too many images in a section. It clutters the page and does little to expand our understanding of the subject. Another problem is the use of the Hong Kong Observatory as a source on the original data. The HKO clearly states that their data was collected from 1960-1990. In other words, it is from a different era than what most of the data on the charts shows from NOAA, which comes mainly from this last decade. One could argue they haven't changed much in the minimal 10 years between them, but that is pure unsourced speculation and thus has no place in a Wikipedia article. Combining data in a visual chart like that gives the impression that the data was collected together roughly around the same time period and is contemporary, when in actuality there is at least 10 years between the latest numbers in one and the earliest numbers in the other. Lastly, the newer of the two charts IS most certainly duplicate information in terms of average highs, lows, and precipitation amounts. It is simply presented in an alternate way and is thus not needed. We do not need two graphics that basically tell us the same thing. The original covers it quite well by including both english and metric units and color coding to show differences. Editors of many city articles have already removed these duplicate charts as they have appeared. Having two would fail both GAN and FAC.

As for consensus, the consensus really needs to be not for removal, but for inclusion. The burden of proof is on the editor seeking to add additional information, particularly information that is already present. To me this flies in the face of the MOS in terms of images, duplicate information, and synthesis. It is also inappropriate for any city article which is meant to be general get thorough without excessive detail. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a case of the performance of my browser, but it is a known fact that the more templates an article has, the slower things get -- I've seen several reviewers at WP:FAC and WP:GAN complain about articles being slow to load due to having a lot of citation templates. This is because the system (which runs on PHP, a server-side, as opposed to client-side, scripting language) has to load each template separately when loading the page. So, if we can eliminate ANY unnecessary or redundant template, that's a good thing. WTF? (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say I'm a little more lenient now on the synthesis using HKO data, but I'm still not excited about it. NOAA's averages were collected from 1971-2000 while HKO's are from 1961-1990. Some overlap, yes, but still not completely accurate. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

so by the same logic, extreme temperatures are "overly detailed", because they don't provide a look at what the typical weather of a city is, and don't provide a look at how often extremes (i.e. #days > 90, > 100, #nights < 0) occur. I say it is best to include records in description and preferably not in the table. Sunshine information, depending on the viewer, can be useful as long as the viewer knows enough to divide by the total number of days in a month. I have no problem with the removal of the climate chart on a city main article, but if it is removed from a sub-article (i.e. Geography of _), then there is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathpianist93 (talk • contribs)

Record temps do provide a glimpse of what is possible for weather, however, and are something that the average person sees every day on their local weather report. The detail comes in with using the tenth of a degree. NOAA uses the more precise measurement because its data is used by meteorologists and climatologists; note the Weather Channel and local news weather reports don't use the tenth of a degree because it means very little for the average person, which is the same "viewer" we have for most of these articles. As for sunshine hours, again, this is for average viewers, so seeing "231.4 hours" doesn't mean a whole lot and is not something people see on an every day basis. There also isn't any methodology describing how these hours were calculated, i.e. what denotes "sunshine" in terms of cloud cover or partial cloud cover. Another thing is the chart from the actual HKO source does not combine the numbers per month, it states mean hours per month, so January says "5.6" not "173.6" that is on the chart on this article. And honestly, having duplicate charts/templates/graphic displays here or on any city climate pages (very few actually exist) wouldn't pass FAC or GAN since they simply display the same data. The display you have been adding as I said is simply a different visual representation of the same data on the climate chart already present (average high, average low, and precip). No need for two representations even on a more detailed article. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

several things. Some old record temps are absurdly high or low (nowadays low) that they are now virtually impossible —— say the −15 °F (−26.1 °C) all-time low in Washington, DC. As I live in the metro area, I have observed that: even in the non-outlying suburbs are sub-0 °F (−17.8 °C) very rare, and in downtown, sub-10 °F (−12.2 °C) is an Arctic aberration. And I've seen many of the equally absurd January 1985/February 1899 record lows for many Southern US cities. The other issue is the length of coverage of records; insufficient periods shorten this view of "what's possible". Another problem is that records, except for tropical and Antarctic locations, expand the palette of colours in the infobox, and can make an already-distracting infobox even more distracting. The extra dimension of distraction, in my opinion, hurts the presentation of locations with not-cold (i.e. > 0 C) winters —— with such additions, a first, and cursory, look at the infobox will give an impression of a severe climate, when the area is actually temperate much of the time. The inclusion of a sentence stating "extremes have ranged from _" or something like that should suffice. There is less of a need to include records by month. Moreover, I think the inclusion of "#days > 100 F" and "#nights < 0 F", and other parameters, is much more useful.

precision issue: from what I've seen, the tenth of the degree does matter for places on the US West Coast —— for example, if the July and August high somewhere is 85.2 and 85.6, respectively, then rounding makes the impression of a wider gap between the two months than what there actually is.
the worthiness of each template, though a pressing topic, should more appropriately be discussed at their respective talk pages. I personally think that if there is only data on normal temps, and normal precip (not #days), then the climate chart should be the only template used. otherwise, infobox should be preferred, and if on a more detailed page, then both. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 23:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hear your arguments. In the end, though, the way I see it from working on many city articles and from the guidelines at the cities Wikiproject is that these kinds of articles are fairly general. In other words, they are to give people good idea of various aspects of a city, in this case weather: what are the general possibilities? Does it get hot? Can it get cold? But keep in mind, the article is still about the city, not a detailed account of its weather and climate or a scientific study of climate. Is there a difference between 85.2 and 85.6 or 85 and 86? To a scientist, definitely, but not to the average reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a science journal. Even the few "Climate of..." articles about cities really shouldn't be super detailed or contain duplicate displays of data. A record high or low is still a record whether we think it can ever be reached again, though that is a debate for another time and place (and not all city articles use the record highs and lows per month or even at all). The same is true for the climate infobox. If the colors are misleading, that is something to bring up to that specific template. Personally, I think they give a fair representation of climate with the present colors, hence them being present in virtually ALL featured city articles. In the end, what template is used is a matter of preference. A better approach would be to start a discussion about it before adding a second template with duplicate info (see WP:BOP). If no one responds or consensus supports changing it, simply switch out the templates one for the other. But adding it when a display is already there without any sort of discussion isn't a good idea. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I conducted a short Google query for the definition of what exactly an hour of sunshine is. One of the most informative links was from the http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/definitionsother.shtml Australian Bureau of Meteorology]. That may explain your question about what an hour of bright sunshine is, though differing meteorological agencies may very well collect data differently. Notwithstanding the method, the colours for each month of sunshine, more than the amounts themselves (which in turn give the colouring), provide somewhat of a visual basis of this aspect of climate. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames?

"Fist city?" Never heard of that. Does anyone have a cite? Saebvn (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed. WTF? (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove "see also" Jefferson Davis State Historic Site?

Currently, there is a "see also" linking to Jefferson Davis State Historic Site in Kentucky. Although Davis was C.S.A. President in Richmond, the site otherwise has no connection to the city, which is the subject of the article. Such a link would be more appropriate under "Richmond in the American Civil War", if there. Agreed? Morgan Riley (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if that really has anything to do with "Richmond in the American Civil War", either? WTF? (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)