Talk:Richmond, California/Archive 3

Crime

Should we break off the info on crime under the government heading into its own section? Nthach (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Metric/Imperial dispute

A possible edit war is begining yet again. I think it's somthing we would all agree we can do without. So I ask the editors Smeira and ILike2BeAnonymous to please discuss it on here. I would like to ask the question, is there a standard format? is it miles (km) or (km) miles? does the standard vary on the context based on i.e. that Richmond is in the U.S. which uses Imperial measurements? Or is there a wikipedia-wide standard? Should we ask? I don't care either way. On the one hand kilometers is the most widely used standard so we should pick that, but this particular juristidtion uses Imperial which would make it make more sense to use Imperial. It's a pretty silly thing to fret over however since both are included one inside (the other outside of parenthases) So i say we let it go. But at the end of the day if there is a policy, we should follow policy.71.142.91.34 04:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)-Ooops timed out, GO 711428134 whoooo!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's like our rules on British English and American English. See WP:UNITS for our rules. The wording there is that we should use SI units, such as metres, millimetres, centimetres, kilometres e.t.c. in general, but it does say that "For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first". I personally have absolutely no problem with this article using square miles over square kilometres, in the way that I am interpreting WP:UNITS. I will invite User:Smeira to join this discussion, as he was the the user that originally made the edit.

In the meantime, however, there is no need for an edit war on this. Let's just leave it at the current version, while we discuss it here, even if you see it as The Wrong Version. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Cholga got there first. I noticed after I already posted my comment to his talk page. See here. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple, really: articles on US subject should use US units (miles instead of kilometers, etc.). +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the invitation! I am, in fact, in favor of SI units first, for the following reasons (mostly already mentioned):

• They are standard and popular in most countries, on their way to becoming universal (and easier to understand for non-Americans like me). I therefore don't agree that articls on US subjects should use US units ONLY; they can of course ALSO use US units, but, since the overwhelming majority of the population of the world doesn't know really how big a mi² is, they should be taken into account. (After all, articles about Tibetan places don't use traditional Tibetan measurement units, although they are still in use in Tibet.)
• They are preferred (in the sense of being mentioned first: km², then mi²) in most articles on places in Wikipedia, including most US cities articles; those with mi² first and km² second are a tiny minority, even among US cities article. Since I support standards, I think this one, which already exists, should be respected. (Besides, it would take quite a lot of (robot) work to change the order in the 20,000 or so US City articles that already have km² first.)
• The Imperial (mi²) is mentioned, too; so there's no danger that those not familiar with SI units will not understand.

Having said that, I, however, tend to agree that this is not a very important point. I did revert the order there (and in a few other articles) because I tend to want to follow standards, and the km² first order is followed in the overwhelming majority of US City articles, as I said above; but, as long as both SI and Imperial units are mentioned, I think everybody ought to be satisfied. Even the guidelines mentioned above say it "might be more appropriate" -- not "it is more appropriate" -- to put non-SI measures first in US-related articles; I'd say the writers of the guidelines didn't think this was an important point. Or is km²-mi² vs. mi²-km² a question of national pride? :-) --Smeira 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

> Or is km²-mi² vs. mi²-km² a question of national pride? :-)

It is not a question of pride, but rather of understanding. The vast majority of US folks do not understand metric measurments very well if at all. On articles concerning US subjects that are primarily of interest to US-based readers it is proper to lead with Imperial marks so that the bulk of readers understand the article. --Fizbin 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt. Leading with metric unit won't make people misunderstand as long as the imperial is mentioned. As far as which unit led first is concerned, that is a question of national pride since it is US vs the rest of the world. Chris! _{my talk} 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that I was born, and live in England. I suppose it's like our rules with soccer vs. football. On articles about, for example US footballers, we refer to the game as soccer, and we refer to the players as soccer players, because if we said that Josmer Altidore, Brian McBride, or Nathan Sturgis played the sport of football, the majority of people reading those articles (apart from maybe with the exception of McBride, out of those above, seeing as he has played a lot of his career in England) would think they play American football. Do you see? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The guide to follow here still is the location of the subject. If it's an American place, the first-cited units should be miles, feet, inches, etc. Yes, we ('Merkins) know we're different from (most, not all, of) the rest of the world on this, and frankly, a lot of us like things that way. (See Metrication in the United States for all the gory details.)

The long and the short of which is, please don't insist on using SI units foremost in this article. But, of course, measurements should be given in both units, e.g., X miles (Y km). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But as long as imperial measures are mentioned, how can Americans misunderstand? This is not like the soccer vs. football case, since in the relevant articles either the US or the British word is used (you don't "soccer" in parenthesis after "football" or vice-versa). Here, both measurements are used; the reader will simply pick the one he likes best. The guidelines cited still mention 'might be more appropriate', not 'is more appropriate'. Frankly, do the Americans here really think that the km-mi order (which, I stress again, is already used in the overwhelming majority of the articles on US Cities) instead of mi-km will prevent their co-citizens from understanding the text? That would be like saying that the mi-km order would prevent non-Americans from understanding it -- I don't see how this could happen, except if the reader is blind to parentheses. So it all boils down to national pride, right?

I have nothing against national pride per se. If the majority here agrees, then so be it. But I still stress that most US cities articles don't follow the mi-km order, but the km-mi order instead, with SI units foremost. Shouldn't we standard? tendency? be respected? --Smeira 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So far as other US city articles go, of the ones I visit, almost all of them use non-SI units first:

• Chicago
• Tucson
• Flagstaff
• Oakland
• Berkeley
• Des Moines

So much for a SI-first "standard". (I haven't checked on many other articles, but this small sample seems not to bear out your assertions.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why arguing over something that is already in one of the wikipedia guideline. WP:UNITS (which is our standard here) states that "For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first." Since the article Richmond, California is clearly a subject dealing with the US, it is better to use US measurement first. Nothing more need to be said on this matter. Period. Chris! _{my talk} 06:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with User:Chrishomingtang, and in response to Smeira) While I am just splitting hairs here, we often do leave the word "soccer" in parenthesis when we use the term football. See Tim Howard, Vincenzo Grella, Christophe Dugarry, or Lam Sheung Yee for just a small selection. These are all different nationalities, who played in different positions, in different leagues, hence why I picked. So it is, of course, best to be consistent.

Which brings me to my next point. I brought it upon myself to continue with IL2BA's pattern. I tried New York, New Hampshire, Tennessee and California, and they all use miles (kilometres). I then decided to use Special:Random until I came across another US-related article. It took me a long time (coincidentally, I came across [[Marco Turati|this while doing it, which again uses the visible term "football (soccer)"), but interestingly, and against my expectations, I eventually, after many, many clicks, came across University Heights, Ohio (km first), Jackson, Mississippi (km first), Billings, Montana (km first), Bethesda, Maryland (km first), Santa Monica, California (km first), Pascagoula, Mississippi (km first), and Holliston, Massachusetts (km first). And then I got bored. I actually did believe that there would be "non-SI first" all over the place, but once I started using random articles rather than typing in US states off the top of my head, literally every article I came across used km (mi), outside of the infoboxes, which all used mi (km) by standard.

What this means is that it's perhaps not as clear-cut as I originally thought. Perhaps it would be good to get extra opinions from WT:MOSNUM, the talk page of the guideline in question, to offer extra opinions here. I'll do it when I wake up, later today, if someone else hasn't done it first. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you run the same risks with your methodology as people here do when they try to justify things (like "notability") based on numbers of Google hits. For one thing, how many of those "km-first" articles on US cities were edited by overzealous UK editors, say, who think that all articles should be SI-first? Hard to say, of course, without digging through the article history, and not something I plan on doing. But you see the problem, right? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I am literally just about to go to bed, I took the time to check the history of one of the articles (the first random one I mentioned, University Heights, Ohio), and the very first version of it was written km first. I haven't checked the others yet (again, something I may do when I wake up, if there is still a dispute here by that time), but from the one I checked, it appears that the article creator, User:Ram-Man, is an American administrator in the bot-approval group, with "over 190,000 edits", including bot edits. Far from being an overzealous UK editor, in my eyes (though I have seen both overzealous UK and US editors in the past, and have reverted both on many occasions). --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I trusted you to go to bed. I'll start mine over there to the left.

It is actually not too dificult to see how the vast majority of articles about U.S. cities and places ended up with "km-first" styles. Look at almost any article about a small city, town, or Census Designated Place and you will see something like this:

Black Point-Green Point is a census-designated place located in Marin County, California. As of the 2000 census, the CDP had a total population of 1,143.

Geography
Black Point-Green Point is located at 38°6'35" North, 122°30'13" West (38.109837, -122.503561).

According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 4.8 km² (1.9 mi²). 4.8 km² (1.8 mi²) of it is land and none of it is covered by water.

Demographics

As of the census of 2000, there are 1,143 people, 479 households, and 331 families residing in the CDP. The population density is 239.8/km² (619.5/mi²). There are 503 housing units at an average density of 105.5/km² (272.6/mi²). The racial makeup of the CDP is 91.78% White...

This is from the December 22, 2004 edit of Black Point-Green Point, California by User:Rambot, when the current geographical references were added, along with the Mapit template under External links[1]. The article had been created in 2002 by User:Ram-Man and only slightly modified after that. If you click one of the geographic references, you end up at Wikipedia:Geographic references, where you can read this:

United States

GR1 - The United States Census Bureau's 2000 Census gazetteer. This was the primary source for the latitude and longitude values for about 23,500 U.S. cities. The data are indexed by state, county, and place FIPS codes.

GR2 - The United States Census Bureau's 2000 Census data. Much of the geographic and demographic information for the U.S. states, counties, and cities came from the data on the site. The data is not totally accurate due to various polling errors, but it is a very good estimate. See the Bureau's website for more information. The data were used for the following topics: geographic areas (total, land, and water), population and housing unit densities, demographic spreads across race, age, sex, and income. The data are indexed by state, county, and place FIPS codes. See also Race (United States Census) for a list of the definition of race according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Finally, if you follow the refs, you will find the following on the U.S. Census 2000 Gazetter Files page (emphasis added) [2]

The place file contains data for all Incorporated and Census Designated places in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as of the January 1, 2000. The file is plain ASCII text, one line per record.

• Columns 1-2: United States Postal Service State Abbreviation
• Columns 3-4: State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code
• Columns 5-9: Place FIPS Code
• Columns 10-73: Name
• Columns 74-82: Total Population (2000)
• Columns 83-91: Total Housing Units (2000)
• Columns 92-105: Land Area (square meters) - Created for statistical purposes only.
• Columns 106-119: Water Area(square meters) - Created for statistical purposes only.
• Columns 120-131: Land Area (square miles) - Created for statistical purposes only.
• Columns 132-143: Water Area (square miles) - Created for statistical purposes only.
• Columns 144-153: Latitude (decimal degrees) First character is blank or "-" denoting North or South latitude respectively
• Columns 154-164: Longitude (decimal degrees) First character is blank or "-" denoting East or West longitude respectively

So, RamMan/Rambot loaded the geocodes and areas of 23,500 cities and, later, all of the CDPs. The bot worked around the articles that had already been created in 2002, which probably included most of the big cities and the smaller cities with lots of participants. It appears that the bot loaded the area data in the order it appears in the Census database. Whether that was just a default or on purpose, that's the way most of our city and place articles were set up, and that's the way that most of them are still. Unless there was a consensus at at WPCities or one of the other appropriate projects to change this (and to engage a bot to do it), km-first is our de facto standard.

Most of the big city articles had probably been created by American editors using data from an almanac or a city or county website, and probably showed area in miles only--I have seen some that were still without km in the last year. When km got added, I would guess that it got added in second place most of the time. Even though I can't think in metric myself, I think that we would be better off standardizing on km-first, at least for city articles, with (miles) obligatory in all articles, not just in articles about countries that use miles locally.--Hjal 07:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I think mile first is ok, I don't see the problem with the SI first format. Chris! _{my talk} 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In my quick check, about 94% of US cities have km-first articles; this clearly shows that there is an existing standard -- in the sense that 94% is a clear preference. (Just to remain in California, check the geography sections of: Alameda, California, Albany, California, Alturas, California, Amador City, California, American Canyon, California... in fact, pretty much all California cities starting with A in Category:Cities in California). As was said above, this is because most US cities had robot-created articles. Yet this means that not all Americans see km-first as a problem for national pride. In fact, I note these articles have been there for over 4 years and complaints seem to have been pretty scant (if any there be). And, I repeat, the guidelines say might be more apropriate, they do not say must be (hell, they don't even say is more appropriate!); so it is not a settled question.
Out of curiosity, a question to mi-first people: would you feel like doing something about the overwhelming majorty of the (robot-created) articles being km-first? E.g. using a robot to change them? --Smeira 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, I think they (articles on US cities and other places) should be changed to miles-first. It's not so much a matter of national "pride" as simply recognizing reality: the U.S. is a decidedly non-metric country, and likely to remain so for the forseeable future. So measurement units should follow suit. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But as long as the mi-measurements are mentioned (and they are, in all US city articles), what difference for understanding does it make if they're in parentheses? I must differ from you: it cannot be simply a question of facilitating understanding, or of recognizing reality: the Imperial measurements are already there, doing exactly that. It has to be national pride. (Notice that I'm not saying national pride is a bad thing; should most people agree that miles should come first as a gesture of respect or courtesy for Americans, thus acknowledging their preference for non-SI units in daily life, I will happily concur. Like all ethnic/national groups, Americans also deserve respect for their preferences.) --Smeira 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the American wikipedia this is the English language wikipedia, English is spoken in many countries most of which use metric, also I think the number of non-american english speakers outnumbers american english speakers. It really doesn't matter either way. It's fine either way.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 06:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

July 20 Earthquake

Regarding this revert with the rationale:"Earthquakes happen all the time in this area; this isn't a "disaster"; uncited; what's with the "6.0"? Reported as 4.2 by USGS" by ILike2BeAnonymous

Of this portion of text:

{{Main|July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake Richmond was hit by a 4.2 earthquake on July 20, 2007 although the earthquake was widely reported as feeling like 6.0 at the United States Geological Survey website. Portions of Richmond experianced the strongest force of the seismic event.

I believe the July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake should be mentioned in the article. The earthquake measured 4.2 on the richter scale and according to the reports made on the USGS website it was reported as "feeling" like a 6.0. The strongest portion of the earthquake the portion around the epicenter that felt the full magnitude streches from Alameda to Richmond, with the epicenter being in the Oakland Hills. It has been the strongest earthquake in Richmond in many years.

• 4.2 USGS
• Storng perception/light damage level 6 "VI"

The rationale that earthquakes happen all the time in this area is cumbersome. Yes earthquakes happen all the time, but they happen all the time, everywhere on the entire planet since tectonic plates and continants are in constant motion. Living in the Bay Area i can assure you 4.2 earthquakes do not happen very often at all. And even if they did they should be mentioned. If Richmond were hit by a tornado in 1997 and 1998 and 2000 and 2002, should we not include information on them since they happen frequently? People are murdered in Richmond, should we stop mentioning crime statistics and the annual death doll because people are killed at the time in this area? Or the Refinary leaks pollution into the community periodically so it doesn't matter? I think not. Earthquakes are disasters, that is simply indisputable. All earthquakes are (wikipedia categorized) categorized as disasters. As is this one. Even if it is a moderate earthquake, disasters is the appropriate section. Furtermore, if it where in the wrong section, removing content because somthing is in the wrong section instead of moving it to another section may be seen as vandalism. It is indeed uncited (in this article) but the article it links to is well cited. An editor who removes information on a major seismic event should follow the Main article link if there is one and add a citation when one is clearly available. I think a good editor acting in good faith should have acted in that manner. With regards with whats the deal with 4.2 and 6.0, I'm truly flabergasted that someone would argue with the United States Geological Service. I am at a loss for words.

We can adjust the wording, but it should be mentioned.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This one's too easy; it wasn't a disaster. Therefore it doesn't belong. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether it was a disaeter, but rather that it should be noted in this article^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the section is titled "Disasters", which it is, and this isn't a disaster, which it isn't, then it doesn't belong. How much more simple do you want it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The most recent 4.2 earthquake to be felt in Richmond is hardly worth mentioning. Quakes of that size and are pretty insignificant. -Nogood 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is so insignificant why is it all over the news?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - not noteworthy.--Fizbin 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't noteworthy based on newsworthy, its made international headlines^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also "feels like Richter magnitude x" is meaningless. You need to use the Mercalli intensity scale for subjective impression of earthquake intensity. There are already Mercalli reports at quake.usgs.gov. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should tell the USGS that they should stop reporting "x" intensity on their website and grapghs then.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cholga, please show me where USGS includes "feels like Richter magnitude x" on a graph. "Richter magnitude" is meaningful in the correct context, but never a subjective one. This is an encyclopedia, and we must have the highest standards for precision and English language usage. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording, see the 2nd revert and the version i had written there. here and here

I honestly don't feel too strongly about this, but I think a brief sentence concentrated solely on the earthquake's impact on Richmond is OK. Something like: "The July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake was felt as a light shaking level IV tremblor in every part of the city of Richmond" and no more. No need to include any info about how the earthquake effected other areas at all. Someone looking for an overview of Richmond might reasonably want to know what the peripheral impact was. - Richfife 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Still not notable, and definitely not a "disaster". I'll just leave you with my current bon mot regarding stuff like this: An encyclopedia isn't (or at least shouldn't be) just a random collection of facts. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeep notable based on WP:Notability which states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. As for damages see here, many business have been dmaged, merchandise destroyed, a safeway in berkeley has been shut down due to damages. thousands went powerless.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Encylopedias are nothing but collections of facts, not random. and this fact is not either, whats so random about it?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when IL2BA says "random collection of facts", he is suggesting that we should look at this in a long-term perspective. Is this earthquake notable when looked at in a long-term perspective? It is this reason that the word "terrorism" is barely mentioned at all in our article on Islam. It is only a recent issue, barely a blip when looked at against the entire history of Islam, which is what an encyclopedia article should cover.

Likewise, this article should cover the entire history of Richmond, California (it does quite a good job of that), and it should also consider what this article will look like to readers 30, 50, 100 years from now. Is this earthquake really notable enough in the long-term perspective? I'm not answering that question myself, merely posing it for you to consider.

Also, you should have a read of these two things, Cholga, as they are very interesting, and relevant to the topic at hand. WP:NOT#NEWS (a small subsection of WP:NOT#INFO), and, perhaps most importantly, as it is what this particular message of mine has been trying to get across, you might want to have a read of WP:RECENTISM. Thanks. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this earthquake is insignificant. Actually IL2BA is right this time, earthquakes do happened in the bay area all the time. This event is not notable and should not be mentioned in the article. Especially a quake this size. Chris! _{my talk} 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about a history or earthquakes that have affected this city, similar to historical population, i think that might be useful, or perhaps that richmond experiances these earthquakes very often, maybe a gragh or earthquakes per yer? A broader question of relevant content.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History of earthquake in Richmond might be useful. But this 4.2 quake is just not notable. Chris! _{my talk} 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't even need a history of earthquakes in this article, as Richmond is part of the greater Bay Area and shares its earthquake history with that entire region. The article on the Bay Area might be a place to mention major earthquakes (but not minor ones like the one we're discussing here); I don't know, as I've never seen that article, if it exists. But not in this one. There's nothing special about Richmond earthquake-wise, as a certain editor is trying mightily to establish. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Richmond and the Bay Area are not mutually exclusive, the Loma Priete earthquake didnt even effect many bay area communities at all how earthquakes effect some communities is of note. And as far as your concerned IL2BA you don't seem to think anything is notable if its happened in some way shape form or time in some other place or larger category. With a city article you have to be specific towards how this subject (earthquakes in general) effects this community. Does anyone know how to gen information of what kind of damages the Loma Prieta earthquake had on this city? I've seen on newscoverage that due to the fact that a lot of Richmond is built on wetlands, swamp, seep, wet soil rather than bedrock it is very vulnerable to damage from lighter quakes. Anybody know of a good place to get this kind of info?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cholga is right. Even though Richmond belongs to the Bay Area, its earthquakes history is distinctive. Let's us think if a rather large earthquake struck Richmond (this is hypothetical, I don't want that to happen), it might not affects some parts of the Bay Area, say like San Jose. So putting this info in the bay area earthquake might not be suitable. Rather it is more appropriate in the Richmond article. However, I do agree that this 4.2 quake should not be in the article. Chris! _{my talk} 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised this thread is still going. This earthquake is not noteworthy in the context of a Richmond article becasue a) it was not centered in Richmond, and b) it did no appreciable damage in Richmond. All it did was wake folks up. There is no justification for mentioning it in this article.--Fizbin 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cholga already agrees not to put that quake thing in the article. This argument has ended. Chris! _{my talk} 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Chris said, I just took the opportunity to ask about what people thought about a chonoclogy of the seismology of this area since we were talking about earthquakes.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/Sprotection

I would like to propose we semiprotect this article due to recent and consistant vandalism from a(n) unregistered user(s).^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I already reported that user for suspected sock puppets. Those unregistered users make the same edit. Hopefully, a protection is not needed. Chris! _{my talk} 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pt. Isabel

Recently the reference "<ref>[http://www.judysbook.com/members/39773/posts/2006/6/390877/ POINT ISABEL REGIONAL SHORELINE PARK], judysbook.com.</ref>" was removed from the article. I would like to know if other users consider this to be a reliable source. I sure this park is the largest dog park in the country, if it isn't a reliable source, would anybody know of a place to look up dog park size stats? Or find a better source?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable encyclopedic-worthy source (which I also stated on the Pt. Isabel talk page).--Fizbin 22:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It cool, fortunatly i found a San Francisco Chronicle article on SF Gate, which i included as a reference, should it be used to reference the largest dog park portion of that article aswell?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That works for me!--Fizbin 16:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Leash-free"

Just to head off another of Cholga's mini-shit storms, I've checked the references for Point Isabel, and none of them use the phrase "leash-free". I'm changing this to read "allows off-leash dogs", which is what the references say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use that kind of insulting language when speaking about me IL2BA, thank you. With regards to the wording, I feel that the best of the wordings came from Chris and that is the one that should remain.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because that wording ("off-leash dog park") implies that it's exclusively a dog park, which it is not; it's a people park too. I refer you to the final authority on the subject, the East Bay Regional Parks page on this park, that you have cited there, which describes the human activities available (bird watching, hiking, etc.). +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogs don't go to dog parks alone, with that logic any dog park isn't a dog park because it's not dog only and similarly playgrounds wouldn't be intended for children beccause they rarely go alone, with that logic playgrounds are for children and for parent benchsitting and child watching.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title of that sf chronicle article uses the same phrase. So I think that should be used in here as well. Chris! _{my talk} 01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

C-Murder

Someone recently added rapper C-Murder to people from Richmond. His cousin Master P lived in Richmond and ran several businesses here it seems to me its possible his cousin lived here too, but I removed him in the past for lack of a source, his website doesn't mention it at all. Anybody have a cite?Cholga^talK! 08:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Willie McGhee

someone added baseball player willie mcgee but with no refCholga^talK! 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

City Nicknames

Does anyone have any sources or insights regarding the following city of Richmond nicknames?

• The Rich
• Rich-town

71.142.91.34 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One MySpace profile? ;) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a good enough source?71.142.84.165 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A MySpace profile???? You tell us. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Theity section

This was recently removed:

Furthermore there is a Muslim mosque (Muhammad Mosque); a Sikh gurdwara in El Sobrante; a Hindu temple in Vallejo; a Unitarian Universalist church in El Cerrito; a Roman Catholic cathedral in Oakland; a Jewish Synagogue (Temple Beth Hillel) in El Sobrante; and a Buddhist priory in Albany called the Berkeley Buddhist Priory.

I think it is important mentioning places of worship in religions where there is not a place of worship in Richmond but there are very close by, furthermore the locations in El Sobrante may be in Richmond as El Sobrante is partially indcorporated into Richmond and party unincorported. The Unitarian Universalist church is very close to Richmond also and there is a mosque straddling the border with San Pablo, i think.Cholga^talK! 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not certain I agree. If it's not about Richmond (or, you know, quite directly related to it), it shouldn't be in the Richmond article. If it's nearby Richmond, then it could possibly go in the article on the San Francisco Bay Area. And of course, it can certainly go in the article on, for example, El Sobrante, or Vallejo. The way I see it, the fact that there is a Sikh temple in a nearby town that isn't Richmond is not too relevant to the history of Richmond. And also, "theity" sounds right, but it doesn't seem to be an actual word. See here for only 848 Google results. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a real word. And if something isn't actually in Richmond, it shouldn't be in the article at all, plain and simple, no equivocation. (There may be an exceedingly few things that violate that rule, but they'd have to be pretty damn "notable" to do that. A few churches, temples, ashrams, etc., don't cut it.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That's basically my viewpoint on this exactly, but put a lot more concisely. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to make enough sense, does anyone think that mentioning something along the lines that there are places of worship of various other religions nearby which Richmond residents undoubtedly attend? A simple once sentance statement?Cholga^talK! 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in Richmond? Don't mention it. There is a major Mormon Temple in Oakland - you would never find a mention of it in a Berkeley article.--Fizbin 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As for theity it seemed to be the most correct word, as for example religion doesn't really include Atheists, but Theity means simple beliefs and non-beliefs all in one. The google test might not be the best resource. What would a good title be? Any other suggestions?Cholga^talK! 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Theity is not a word. It's something you made up. I challenge you to find it in any dictionary (I invite you to try dictionary.com for starters). +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

wow Theity is not a word that is such a better term, thanks for the suggestion! You are so smart and cooperative, thank you so muchCholga^talK! 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stats

Does anyone know if there are statistics on peoples religions in Richmond?Cholga^talK! 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

12 shootings in 24 hours

2007</ref> </ref> On Friday, August 10, 2007 a wave of violant shootings occurred, an even which garnered the city great media attention. During the crime spike, twelve people were shot, and many were seriously injured, in five differant incidents in a less than twenty-four hour period.

Are you guys sure this isnt notable, its gotten widespread media attention. I think it ties into the statistics on murders in the city and gives perpective into crima patterns in a city plagued by gun violance, i feel its a notable incident that merritts mention in this section.Cholga^talK! 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is news today, but it is not something that will be remembered for long ("Wow, remember that dark day - August 12, 2007!"). For one, no one died. For two, the context is wrong. Yes, if this happened in Moraga or Mill Valley, this would be a day that lived for decades in the minds of locals. Richmond, not so much. Sad commentary, sure, but life in Richmond and Oakland is cheap.--Fizbin 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

are you sure about that? what if it continues to be referenced in the media in the future, would it then be notable in your opinion?Cholga^talK! 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think individual criminal events, unless they are of historical value, are worthy of inclusion in a general wikipedia page about a city. Would you include the OJ Simpson case in the wikipedia page of LA? There is a section about crime, which should paint an accurate picture of the city. Richmond clearly has a crime problem; it should be noted that crime has decreased slightly and that it is localized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeckler (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

References contained in a scrollable box, and why not to use them

Since this subject came up here recently, please refer to this discussion on the subject. There are some very good reasons not to put the list of references, long as it may be, inside a scrolling box. +ILike2BeAnonymous 09:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

how annoying, i thought you of all people would never complain of somthing that would in effect shortern the appearance of the article. it sucks that its not allowed to be used, altho it says its for printability purposes not for browser issues.Cholga^talK! 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Printability and usability, if you read on. We don't need two different scrollbars on every page. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ill take your word on it, i just didnt see it and i unfortunatly do not trust IL2BA. if you say so, i think an additional scroll bar would be fine, hmm maybe just another "article" "history" "discussion" "notes" type page would help with the longer articles.Cholga^talK! 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Population

Two issues come to mind here. First: Under the "Population" chart it shows Richmond's projected population in the years 2015 and 2030. This need not be here. These are just projection numbers which are not viable facts, such as current or past population numbers. No other city's article (whether large, mid-size, or small city) has estimated future population numbers on their article's chart, and neither should the Richmond article. "Second": In the first paragraph, it states the U.S. Census estimates that as of July 2005, 102,186 people resided in the city. The California Dept of Finance estimates as of January 2006, 103,468 people resided in Richmond. The chart in the article reflects the latter's estimate. Here lies the problem. The federal government's Census Bureau's only function is to count the number of residents in a city, county, state, or the entire nation. Money is then dispersed to various regions based on population. Now, obviously it would be in the best interest of another entity (like CA Dept of Finance) to say the population is higher to get more money; not saying they are doing that but that would be an incentive. Not to mention the fact that they do not exist simply to count population. Therefore, we should be actually only stating U.S. Census Bureau numbers from the offical 10 year count every year (which was last done in 2000). At the very least we could use U.S Census estimates between these periods. But we should not be using other entity counts that have a stake in the numbers that give. The current population in this article should be changed to reflect Census Bureau numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with that these official city numbers are pure science fiction. Nobody can predict the growth of a small city's population and income for the next 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeckler (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

help out on richmond article

Please weigh in on whether the article about the recent gang rape should be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape

69.110.28.145 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rough Richmond and Oakland

The following is copied from my talk page:

Hi Bielle, you deleted my addition about Richmond having a reputation for being rough. This is something that is self-evident to anyone who lives in the Bay area. I think you should reconsider removing this particular point in the future. I'm going to put something back, and I'll add 20 citations if necessary. Let's not be pedantic here. modify

What is "self-evident to anyone who lives in the Bay Area" is not evidence for the rest of us. We do need a source for statements that may be contentious, for a start, and then making such a value judgement in the lede may be undue weight for a concept that does not appear elsewhere in the article. I will copy this discussion to the article's talk page where it now belongs. Bielle (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is evidence. What other evidence then the opnion of the neighbors would one need. This article now sounds like a tourist brochure, not an objective description of that place (where nobody in his right mind will go for a walk). 75.103.49.190 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am putting a "citation needed" notice on the sentence modify has re-inserted at the end of the lede: Along with some neighborhoods in Oakland, Richmond has a reputation for being one of the rougher parts of the Bay area. I don't believe, even properly sourced, that such a description and comparison is appropriate for the lede unless it is sufficiently significant to be discussed in the body of the article. Bielle (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no undue weight to the point about crime; for good or worse, Richmond has a reputation for high crime, its reputation for crime is something that is immediately in the mind of many in the Bay area who think about Richmond, and this reputation is something that people who don't know much about the city should be aware of. That its crime rate is high is undisputed; in 2008 it ranks ranked 14th in the United States for crime (Oakland ranks ranked 3rd). That it is a rough place is obviously an opinion, albeit one shared by many people. That Richmond has a reputation for being a rough place is a fact that is difficult to dispute. It should not have been necessary to add those citations for something so straightforward. modify 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations. What is known locally is not known in encyclopedic terms, especially if there would be no reason for it to be known other than locally. Now that you have added third-party comments to support the contention, what the neighbours know is now what the encyclopeida knows. Bielle (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oil Spill

There is an image with the tag line "A beach closed due to oil contamination along the shoreline at Marina Bay." I think this image either should be removed. The placement of the image in the right column and the tag line suggest that this is representative of Richmond and that we frequently experience shoreline closures. Instead, the image is referencing the SF Bay Spill of 2007 which affected the entire SF Bay. I think mentioning the oil spill and linking it, as you currently do, is fine, but displaying this image is inappropriate. Other areas that were more affected, do not even mention the spill, especially not on general wikipedia pages.

"The tidal mechanics of San Francisco Bay caused the spill to spread rapidly, affecting a large area of the California North Coast, including the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Ocean Beach and the Marin Headlands. More than 50 public beaches were closed, including Crissy Field, Fort Point, Baker Beach, China Beach and Kirby Cove." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeckler (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Content

This page has really outdated content. For example the demographics, the information about trains, about Toyota, about the Plunge, about the Ferry, are all outdated. Is anyone maintaining this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeckler (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone (including you, if you have the interest) updates pages as well-sourced information becomes available, but it is no one's specific job to do so. That's the way Wikipedia works. Bielle (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeckler (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Misleading and Offensive Demographics

the population table showing race does not include African-Americans, who are clearly a large population in the area. Also does not include Asians. I'm deleting the table since I don't know how to get the correct data into it (which would be better of course) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kduckworth (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)