Talk:Richmond, Virginia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: nicknames

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Crime

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mergeback of Music of Richmond, Virginia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Promotional content? 

message: 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)
thread_title: earthquake

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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/w/index.php?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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: = Brute Force Solution to Richmond City Infobox

message: 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  tag without a closing  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)
thread_title:  Theatre 

message: Edgar Allen Poe had a presence in richmond.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.144.136 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edgar Allen Poe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced Retail section removed

message: 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.. The following suggestion is an improvement to [my] British ears.
:... as many historic sites are in or near the city.
If that is agreeable to American ears too, then please go ahead and change it. 
If the change is not acceptable in America, then I'll just pick up my notes and leave quietly. ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it.  It didn't sound right to my American ears.  Either one of your suggestions sounds better to me.  GB fan 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantic semantics. A small error at the end of the lead section 

message: What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timeline of Richmond, Virginia]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richmond, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100725111312/http://www2.richmond.com:80/content/2009/jul/31/canal-walk/ to http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/jul/31/canal-walk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517043706/http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/presssecretary/neighborhoodguide/ to http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/presssecretary/neighborhoodguide/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218204159/http://www.adcenter.vcu.edu/html/news/articles/adschoolreview05.pdf to http://www.adcenter.vcu.edu/html/news/articles/adschoolreview05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141219001318/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/timesdispatch/access/1195513501.html?dids=1195513501:1195513501&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+14%2C+2007&author=WILL+JONES&pub=Richmond+Times+-+Dispatch&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=At+last%2C+showtime%27s+set to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/timesdispatch/access/1195513501.html?dids=1195513501:1195513501&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+14%2C+2007&author=WILL+JONES&pub=Richmond+Times+-+Dispatch&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=At+last%2C+showtime%27s+set
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218203332/http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf to http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100415054519/http://www.ridegrtc.com:80/images/GRTC%20COA%20ExecSummary.pdf to http://www.ridegrtc.com/images/GRTC%20COA%20ExecSummary.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090711082126/http://en-us.nielsen.com:80/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf to http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090711082126/http://en-us.nielsen.com:80/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf to http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521045950/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/america-s-best-high-schools.html to http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/america-s-best-high-schools.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070314031958/http://www.census.gov:80/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121119233000/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/78912-TheatreVirginia-Closes-Its-Doors-After-50-Years-Citing-Money-Woes-Loss-of-Home-Sniper to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/78912-TheatreVirginia-Closes-Its-Doors-After-50-Years-Citing-Money-Woes-Loss-of-Home-Sniper
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128032808/http://www.vcu.edu/ranking/ to http://www.vcu.edu/ranking/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation ? 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69hd5KAIE?url=http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/content/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/home/measurement/tv_research.mbt.39577.RelatedLinks.13293.MediaPath.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205080116/http://www.richmonddiocese.org/node/12 to http://www.richmonddiocese.org/node/12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.LOLJweaver28 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work needed in history section 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530163022/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/akq/climate/RIC_CLI_FAQ.pdf to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/akq/climate/RIC_CLI_FAQ.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530163022/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/akq/climate/RIC_CLI_FAQ.pdf to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/akq/climate/RIC_CLI_FAQ.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226144824/http://www.stpeterchurch1834.org/our-history.php to http://www.stpeterchurch1834.org/our-history.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715131430/http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2012/22375.html to http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2012/22375.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130204102201/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/2009/oct/15/flying_squirrels_picked_as_new_baseball_team_xml_n-ar-22754/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/2009/oct/15/flying_squirrels_picked_as_new_baseball_team_xml_n-ar-22754/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101114102/http://www.rmaonline.org/mainst/mainsthistory.html to http://www.rmaonline.org/mainst/mainsthistory.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Mechanics Savings Bank]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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."https://wtvr.com/2018/08/30/grtc-henrico-expansion-includes-route-to-short-pump-begins-sept-16/https://www.richmond.com/news/local/grtc-route-updates-including-service-to-short-pump-to-take-effect-sept-16/article_d25759bf-2303-5bc1-a66a-1ca2b7270f6c.html
https://henrico.us/grtc/ 
Mattchoochoo33 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update GRTC information in Transportation section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mayoral party affiliation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Henry Box Brown 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion