Talk:Richmond, London

message: Virtual Interactive Streetscapes not useful?
I would like to appeal yesterday's removal of the link Virtual George Street, Richmond from this page.  Up until yesterday the link had proved exceptionally useful to Wikipedia visitors for months and had taken them onto the world's only hi-res Virtual Interactive Streetscape to discover more about this road.  What better way to research a street than to walk along it thanks to Wikipedia from anywhere in the world!  (Boy I wish my Children's Britannica Encyclopedias had miles of virtual streetscapes when I was a kid!)
Would you be able to agree that Wikipedia users researching a city or street would find a virtual streetscape effictively allowing them to walk down that city's street useful?  Is that not within the spirit of Wikipedia?  This site is also recommended by the local Council's own short and carefully picked list of links.
If this is not agreed, then it raises the issue of contradicting the previous editors who felt this was within the spirit of the site, and which led to the link being in place for months.  We then have a question of inconsistency and removing useful content from users.
Assuring you of my best intentions for my fellow users.  --Ewik 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Interactive Streetscapes not useful? 

message: (Referred to under "See also").  Who or what is this?  No reference to Richmondshire in the article referred to (Savoy Palace) as far as I can see. DavidCh0 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention under Richmondshire either - this artice; just refers to the modern local government division.  There was a medieval "Liberty of Richmondshire", and the Savoy Palace article mentions Henry VII, but not as a "holder".  I intend to remove this paragraph unless anyone can make sense of it. DavidCh0 (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. DavidCh0 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holder of Richmondshire 

message: Some text and a reference has been removed from the article by  with the following edit summaries:
*London Plan reference removed. An utter waste of space, coupled with three non-specific citations, adding nothing to the article's quality. You've got to do better than that, MRSC
*as the entry contributes nothing constructive, pertrinent or meritorious to the article.
*MRSC's edit re London Plan removed, as it applies to the article for the London borough, not this separate artcle for the town, and it is therefore an erroneous entry
Aside from the objections of I don't like it, the last edit summary claims that it is because the addition relates to the whole of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. This not so, the major centres are part of the London Town Centre Network in the London Plan: "major centres (35) characteristic of inner London, such as Brixton, Putney or Camden, are also important shopping and service centres, often with a borough-wide catchment. They are typically smaller in scale and closer together than those in the Metropolitan category. Their attractiveness for retailing is derived from a mix of both comparison and convenience shopping. Some Major centres, which have developed sizeable catchment areas, also have some leisure and entertainment functions. Major centres normally have over 50,000 square metres of retail floorspace". 
The edit summaries do not therefore give any explanation as to why the text and reference is being removed. MRSC (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If no valid objection is raised I will restore the text. MRSC (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major centre

message: The town's full name is Richmond upon Thames, so the article ought to have that name.  For some reason that name is currently redirected to London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  Many articles have a link to "Richmond upon Thames", and all of those as far as I have been through them, are referring to the town of Richmond upon Thames, not the borough. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, I continued my research (with particular thanks to the archives of The Times). I find that Richmond upon Thames begins to appear in articles only from the creation of the current borough.  The more usual forms for describing the town, from the nineteenth to the twentieth centuries, was either Richmond alone (or Richmond, Surrey) or more formally Richmond-on-Thames.  "Richmond-on-Thames" would appear to be the town's full name then, and the best title for the article. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the comments under Renaming above. The consensus is that the town is Richmond and the London Borough is Richmond upon Thames (without hyphens). DavidCh0 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name again 

message: Why "former Royal Star and Garter home"? It's still there, and they've pulled out of moving to Hampton Court Zir (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The home has now been sold and has been converted into apartments. Headhitter (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Star and Garter Home 

message: I've done quite an overhaul of this page.  Looking at a number of other towns, I added sections (such as churches, filming locations, local hospitals and newspapers).  I also cut down the georgraphy section as, while well written, it read like a travelogue.  Much of what I cut is reused in the new 'places of interest' section.  I've cited as much as I can, but this is my first time on Wikipedia, so I may not have used the correct form for references, and what I've written may require more references.--Annadamski (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now beefed up the Economy section and added in a section on 'Leisure Activities'.--86.176.42.147 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: ETA: That last update was by me - I forgot to log in first.--Annarack 10:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The article now includes links to Wikipedia entries for all the places of worship that I'm aware of in the town of Richmond; I've created Wikipedia entries for those that were previously missing. Headhitter (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops: still one missing – Richmond Green United Reformed Church. Another editor is currently working on it. Headhitter (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That church has now closed. Headhitter (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Places of worship

message: The bullet-pointed list of current restaurants and cafes is extensive and not easy to maintain, as changes are frequent. There are not similar lists in, for instance, the entries for Covent Garden and Soho.  I propose that it be deleted; it could be more appropriately placed in an online travel guide such as Wikitravel. Headhitter (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, more appropriately, Wikivoyage. Headhitter (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, voy:London/Richmond-Kew might be an appropriate location. --Danapit (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Have also moved, to Wikivoyage, listings of individual pubs and bars and boutique shops. Headhitter (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restaurants and cafes 

message: Mentioned three times in the introduction and not at all in the article. MRSC (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, MRSC. I'd be inclined to remove all the mentions. Headhitter (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We can mention the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 in the demography section. Some details here.  The situation in the area is interesting with pockets of deprivation, as in much of London which is why blanket "affluent" statements mask complexity. MRSC (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - I much prefer "one of the least deprived areas" to "affluent", though of course the statement refers to the borough as a whole rather than to Richmond town itself. Well done, BTW, for identifying that the town twinning section was misplaced. Headhitter (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

text: We can't open with the unqualified line "Richmond is an affluent suburban town". It isn't true. As we've seen from the data there is deprivation here. MRSC (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "affluence"/"wealthy"