Talk:Richmond, California/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

44th blackest?

The city is the 44th blackest in the nation by percentage tying with Chattanooga.

is there are source for this? Brian1078 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Quality

ILike2BeAnonymous, You've made several edits with comments complaining about the picture quality on this page. Specifically, what are your criticisms of the existing pictures? It is hard for the rest of us to 'fix' the pictures if we do not know what is wrong with them. Thanks . . . --Fizbin 12:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The pictures (at least some of them) can't be "fixed"; they need to be replaced. The image quality (and even the choice of subject and composition) is wretched. Use your own judgement. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i disagree i think the pictures are just fine and following consensus i will remove the tag.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

which ones? you keep on adding this template but don't make any meaningful discussion to justify your claims and this has turned into a silly edit war instead of a serious discussion on image quality, you haven't justified the template with any specifics so i am removing it. Policy lets me remove a template that has no reasoning behind it. if you dont have any better pics, request them or take them and if theyre truly better than the existing ones, i am moving the template to this talk page as it makes the article look bad.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, You seem to be a consensus of one and you cannot or will not articulate in any meaningful or useful way what your objections are. I agree that the cleanup tags should be removed until you are willing to detail your objections.--Fizbin 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

also simply disliking them is not policy, please be specific and maybe we can find some, surely not every single piture is crappy, you must be able to give one example and explanation^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending photos (the worst of the lot). Keep in mind that there is no requirement that articles have any pictures at all. While it is nice to have relevant photos, it's also possible to end up with clutter from too many (this article is borderline on that point), and also sub-par pictures. What's the point of having crappy pictures? This isn't someone's MySpace page; it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

crappy is not rationale enough, discuss each image here. some of the images you removed were excellant, i would say that the richmond pkwy image's removal was dissapointing, its a great image it illustrates the topic in that section which is transportation and it also happens to have a freeway exit sign that says RICHMOND PKWY which reinforces that its local, just a freeway pic is just another freeway pic but, one that relates locally is great for this article. the construcction site is another example, it is very relevant to the construction boom section. i think that its not out of the question to remove some pictures, but i think a image gallery is at hand or at the very least a creation of a wikipedia commons images of richmond, california gallery on commons first. and DISCUSS it here first, and wait to get a response and green light^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

there is also no requirement to remove images and what youre doing is uncalled for, you shouldnt be bold when others object, and i dont unilaterally object to any content changes with regards to pictures but its disheartening that you dont listen to the fact that i would like to talk about it, and that your justifications for removeal of some images is nearly baseless and you have removed good pictures and left large swaths blank of very helpful illustrations, i would like to be consulted and its the most disheartening that youre rationale for reguttting the article was based on half a dozen apostrophes which were harmless, when editing wikipedia it is custom to revert very superfictial good edits to revert removed content. i have put the pics AND the edits back this time. you seem to have plenty of time and opportunity to edit this article so tell me what is wrong about the the picture of the expansion of the kasier hospital on the construction boom section? lets talk about just that one since you dont seem capable of picking one to talk about. also the word crappy is extremely vague, and is lacking in a subject, what's crappy about it? if by crappy you mean the lighting is bad, the angle is squeed, the panorama is exclusionary, the subject of the picture could best be illustrated by somthing else, see i have no idea what you mean. i happen to live in Richmond and i own a picture-phone in addition to a digital camera, have any requests? and i agree about the picture of point richmond, but its all there is, its GFDL/copyleft and it's free, have a camera go get a free one thats nicer or else give this a rest. like i said a photogallery isnt a bad idea at all would that be a good solution? i think its fine the way it is but if you think a gallery would work just tell me and well see what should be kept in the body and what can be bundled up in a nice photogallery^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

also what about the richmond pkwy image, do you not like it because it has a whitebackround on the exit sign, as far as i know all left(carpool) exits are in white so they stand out, do you think it doesnt show enough of the left hand side of the freeway which is in richmond and too much of the right hand side part of which is in richmond but beyond the houses once in the shopping center is almost entirely in Pinole? what man? id like to know, because its not even a "crappy" cameraphone picture its from a real digital camera, its in richmond and it shows off the transportation of the city. a major part of which is highways and streets whereas public tranbsport and commertial railways have more pictures while they have less of an impact in peoples daily commutes in the united states. is it too cluttered for your taste? is the placing wrong in your opinion? have you tried to move its placing but dont know how so you just took it off? id love to help you out if that is the case^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly agree that the images on this page are in need of improvement. There are a lot of images that don't really add value, they just clutter things. I'll work on improving what I can with the images that are available. Cacophony 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

jahvid best

Jahvid Best: Future California Golden Bears football player & track athlete from Salesian High School^{[citation needed]}

anyone have a citation?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I fail to see why you chose this one to request citations on as opposed to any other person listed under notable citizens.--Fizbin 17:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

because it had been rewritten a lot, i just wanted to put an end to it, im all for finding sources for all of them however. ^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Courtney Anderson

someone added:

Courtney Anderson, NFL Football Tight End for the Oakland Raiders, San Jose University,Richmond High^{[citation needed]}

never heard of em, someone have a ref?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed on Notable Citizens

Qrc2006, In my opinion you've gone a bit overboard on your 'citations needed' tags here.--Fizbin 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

okay, i was just trying to be fair, since i asked for a jahvid best citation. by the way that guy gutted the images again without discussion.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, again

This comment is aimed at a specific editor, who knows who they are. Please stop reinserting your favorite photos in the article. I do!, thanks for being so subtle^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 1. The quality of these pictures ranges from mediocre to truly horrible.

Not true. What makes any picture horrible, use the pictures title so i know what youre talking about^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

2. There is no rule that says that a Wikipedia article has to have any photos at all.

Stupidest arguement ever, c'mon. That's like Alberto González's arguement about habeas corpus. Obviously whether you claim that is a rule nearly every article longer thank a paragragh or two has pictures^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3. If there are to be photos, they should enhance the article, or be useful by explaining something visually. They should not be just peppered around; a picture of a high school, for instance, isn't particularly useful in a section on "Education". Most readers can imagine what the typical American high school looks like. Now, if that high school were designed by, say, Frank Gehry, then it might warrant a (good quality) photo.

I don't see how a picture of freeway or train station or bridge in Richmond on an article about Richmond where they are mentioned would not enhance an article. I have this crazy idea that people who look up richmond might want to know what it looks like, you know like people who look up the san francisco or new york article might expect to see pictures or skylines museums subways ferries schools parks people events etc. Where does it say in policy that images should not be peppered around, should they instead be clumped up together in one ugly mess? or what, perhaps you should look up San Francisco or California articles with pictures peppered around seems to be the precident my friend. The section on education talks about education in richmond, its only logical to include an image on a education center in richmond, like de anza high school, a picture i did not take, i high school i did not go to, an image i didnt upload please dont accuse or assume. your clever little gehry test isnt policy so forget about it, not your article to decide what tests would be used.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

4. This article has far more photos than the average Wikipedia article. Take a look around if you don't believe me.

his article has a good amound of images, its visually and aethetically pleasing and very illustrative, perhaps some images could be readjusted resized combined into collages on photoshop, , you dont care about the images supposed peppering you started this whole edit war based on your own personal dislike of the images somthing you never were able to codify in decent words, aside from crappy, when i asked you repeated what image was crappy, and why you never gave an answer.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

5. You don't own this article. You seem to act as if you have a special privilege to insert those kewl pictures you took. It ain't so.

I indeed do not own this article, what's you're point? How do i seem to act, I am acting. And i am not inserting pictures i took, i am readding images you insist removing without discussing with the exception of intermittant arbitrary and contrived tangents.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article could actually do with about half the number of photos it has now. However, as I am also not the owner of the article, I'll let others discuss this to determine which ones might be removed (or replaced), with the aim of improving the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is very long and from looking at other articles, the longer the article the more content it has such as tables and images and grapghs and templates. Oh really you finally realized you don't own this article huh? and i wonder were you even reading my and other editors suggestions and demands that you please discuss edits first. thats all i have asked for the entite time.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(interspersed, unreadable comments in reply moved here) STOP ALTERING MY COMMENTS, IF YOU DO IT AGAIN I WILL COMPLAIN, IT IS VANDALISM, DON'T DO IT^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse your replies with someone else's comments as you did, and I undid. (I moved all of your replies and did not change one letter of them.) This is not a chat room or Usenet. Especially using <sup> & </sup> makes them frigging unreadable. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncomon to intersperse answers to different questions inside someones text, as long as the layout makes it clear who is writing what.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That last picture you added (the one of Kaiser in downtown Richmond) is still bland and unremarkable (nothing to distinguish it from tens of thousands of similar buildings across the country), but at least it isn't objectionable, as the picture is of fairly good quality, so I'm not going to delete it. For now, at least. The pictures here still need a critical review and some weeding-out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with qrc - pictures enhance articles about geographic locations simply because they illustrate the kind of place. A picture of a high school from richmond is a good illustration for a section on the educational facilities of said city. It is a long article and the longer an article is the more it needs illustrations in order to not become dry. The pictures should be left in until such a time when they can be replaced with better pictures.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture request

I would like to request a photograpgh of the Chevron Richmond Refinary since it's parent company is the largest employer and its contentious activities which bother many in the city, also lots of spills.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out this one, already uploaded to Wikimedia. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you, i cropped it and put in the refinary portion into the article.71.142.87.194 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring

If you two cannot manage to cooperate to make this article better instead of warring over it with reversions and snide comments I think you should both leave it be for a few days. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get along with everyone betterly, yes YOU anonymous.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Untrue statement about Kaiser & HMOs

Removed the following statement from a photo caption: "Kaiser and HMOs have their origin in this city.". Checking both the HMO article as well as the one on Kaiser Permanente, this is simply not true (the Kaiser article actually says "Though it has since become the largest organization of its kind, Kaiser was not the first HMO.") And so far as Kaiser itself originating in Richmond goes, that too is untrue: article says "As for Kaiser Permanente, its history dates back to the year 1933 and a tiny hospital in a little town called Desert Center, California." Small points, but more inaccuracy avoided. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All right thank you for that, i was under the impression that they were. I do believe that the HMO got its start in widespread use in the United States in Richmond, and that, that little hopsital was a precursor, Kaiser became a huge thing in Richmond and the bay area subsequent to its national expansion. The Kaiser family of companies has had a hige influence in this regard on the city (i.e. Kaiser Shipyards, the advent of Day Care center since women were working, etc) Can anybody look into this?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that statement after you reinserted it with a reference (from a book which I don't have access to). According to both of those articles mentioned above, Richmond actually had very little to do with the origins of either Kaiser Permanente or HMOs in general; both Oakland and Los Angeles played much more important roles.

I'm curious as to what, exactly, that reference you cited says about this. What does it say? If it says what you claim, then apparently both of the other Wikipedia articles are in error. Are you prepared to defend it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

according to the book, richmond had an important role in kaiser's origen because it was the first proto-HMO to survive to the modern day, the Kaiser Shipyards-proto-HMO, there were no shipyards in oakland, the shipbuilding was done in richmond, see Homefront/Rosie the Rivetor World War II National Historic Monument. And reread the area with the citation #3 on the Kaiser article.71.142.87.194 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"downtown" not capitalized

Small point, but a bone of contention, apparently. It is incorrect to capitalize "Downtown Richmond" (except, of course, at the start of a sentence). Check this page on writing style from the University of Texas (similar to all academic style guides, and therefore what we should be using here). Their guide specifically covers this usage:

Use lower case for general sections of the city, but capitalize widely recognized names for city regions.

Right: The meetings will be downtown.

Right: Let’s go to a restaurant in South Austin.

(Here's another reference; search for "downtown" in page.) So "North Richmond" gets capitalized, but not "downtown Richmond" (nor "downtown Berkeley", or downtown anyplace). Hope this clears that up. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but you assume that, "we should be using [UoT guidlines] here" wikipedia doesnt follow them, wikipedia makes its own rules out of everyone else's by consensus, and sometimes it depends on the article, british topics will have british spelling, american topics will have american spellings, or whoever starts the article first, unless its clearly american or vice versa, in that case even an article on big ben will have to spell words like color as "colour" whether it was begun by an american or not. Look this is really quite simple, Downtown Richmond is the subject not downtown Richmond, Downtown Richmond is a particular downtown, its not, where did you go? i went downtown, its where did you go i went to Downtown Richmond. It is a particularization of a noun, a proper place. Place names are capitalized, ALL NAMES ARE CAPITALIZED, ask on the help desk or somthing, im quite certain. ^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, "all names are capitalized"? All proper names are capitalized. "Richmond" is a proper name, therefore capitalized. But "downtown Richmond" is not a proper name. So what if it's a particular place? And what do you think is a "particularization", anyhow? Not a valid concept to apply here. Sorry, pal, it's the rest of the world vs. you here. It's a particular downtown, and it ain't capitalized. Those are the rules; I don't make them. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you dont speak for the world, and what rules are you talking about?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked on at the reference desk and apparantly Downtown Richmond is a proper noun according to WP:MOS-CAPS, see here, i thank you for taking the time to look this up on another grammer guide, but as it turns out WP doesn't use the UoF's rules, as you allege the UoT rules are. I hope we can finally put this behind us with no hard feelings. I would also like to mention that Downtown has been capitalized in Downtown Richmond throughout this article and the Downtown Richmond article for quite some time, and no other editor found it to be miscapitalized during numerous and extensive cleanups and copyedits. I hope you are not targeting me and any edit i make that is to your dislike, but im assuming not and that you hadnt noticed those other non d'owntowns, which are indeed spelled correctly as Downtown Richmond, in most cases.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that one, single editor who replied to you at the "reference desk" is mistaken. MOS:CAPS actually says nothing about this particular situation; it only refers to directions as parts of names, like "Southern California", which are capitalized (as I pointed out North Richmond is properly as well). But "downtown" is not. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that. I can find dozens more usage guides out there, from reputable places like well-known universities, that all agree that as a phrase, "downtown [Anywheresville]" does not get capitalized. Find something else to worry about. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

downtown Richmond is not capitalized when speaking of the city's neighborhood, but it is capitalized when speaking of the neighborhood. Wikipedia doesn't follow the grammer guides you have refered to. And again they are not speaking of the particular district, they are speaking of an area within a city. I'll try and find more info on MOS:CAPS71.142.87.194 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And please stop the agressive comments such as "Find somthing else to worry about", you yourself have said this is a point of contention which gives this "debate" validity, your'e rhetoric is very disagreeable and in poor spirits71.142.87.194 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What? That doesn't even make sense. You basically have no argument, and just "believe" that it should be capitalized for some reason. And it's hard to take someone seriously in a discussion about rules of English usage who spells it "grammer" (not to mention "refered"). And MOS:CAPS ain't gonna help you here; all it covers is place names that contain directions (e.g., Southern California). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

yes your really gonna win this arguement with bombastic comments about my spelling.(end sarcazm) ooops did i put in a z, it must be spelled that way eh?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Qrc2006: As far as I remember your old userpage which is now blanked you admitted that you are aware that you have some problems with spelling and grammar. You certainly do, and thats nothing to be ashamed of. It is however a shame to stubbornly refuse being corrected which is what you are doing now. I can understand that you react negatively to ILike2BeAnonymous' hostile tone. But if you find it impossible to work with him then please go edit some other article - you have already wasted six paragraphs of space arguing over a d or a D, time and space you could have put into constructive editing of other articles and topics - I know you have a wide area of interest. I also repeat my previous appeal for common sense and a reasonable and civil tone to User:ILike2BeAnonymous - you also have a responsability that this page becomes a battleground over irrelevant details. If you cannot edit with qrc2006 who obviously ALSO knows something about Richmond, California then back off and come back later when you feel more able to cooperate.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say I still have a differant possition on this subject but a d is just a D, so I have moved on and have began making new contributions instead of arguing over somthing so stupid. So fine d or D it doesnt matter to me.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

photoreq new

I think a picture of a Richmond Police Department car or station, perhaps the civic center/hall of juctice/old city hall compley, this would be helpful for the crime section.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

keller beach

kellar beach is adjacent to brickyard cove way and is past the tunnel everything on the bayside of the tunnel is brickyard cove and on the other side of the tunnel is point richmond. not anywhere near brickyard cove is quite a strech, have you been there?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

wetlands

sure but tidal flats is much more specific see this map. It should read Tidal flats and seep.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The map shows "intertidal flats" and "tidal marsh", but no "seep". (There's something that I think is labeled "tidal marsh panne", but I can't be sure as it's barely readable.) See discussion below on map; we need a better one.

Yes it does show "seep" in white, see for yourself again.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while we're talking, here's a suggestion for you, since you spend a lot of time editing this article: how about cleaning up that mess caused by the top of the "Mean Annual Temperatures" table crashing into the text above it? Hint: use the "Preview" button a lot before saving the page. Probably a lot of work, but would help to make the page look better. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, its been bugging me for quite a while, but honestly i dont know how to do it, although i have occasionally ranh into article which have really nice climate tables, better than this one i trialed and errored until getting correct, theres also a random apostrophe on one of them that shouldnt be there but i cant find it on the edit page thats been driving me nuts. im gonna try and find one of those nice tables and see if i cant make it prettier, maybe cleanup tag on talk page for a request for someone who can do a better job with it.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Sfestuaryhistorical.gif" (picture purporting to show Richmond's geology)

I removed this picture for the following reasons:

1. It is unreadable; none of the text on the map can be made out, except for the very largest. This is apparently because of the way it was reduced or converted from the original, or because the resolution is too low. It is not unreadable in the least i can make it all out, do you have a vision problem? or have you tried adjusting your monitor's settings?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2. It purports to show the "[g]eological composition of Richmond prior to land reclamation" according to its caption, but since it encompasses the entire Bay Area, it gives little information on this specific location.

It would be very nice to have a good map showing what this map shows but in more detail. I also removed the bit about Richmond once being an island from the caption, but this should be integrated into the text of this section, and it would be good to have an image that shows that clearly. Maybe someone can find a better, closer-up map.

Note to whoever uploaded that map: I looked at the full-size map, and even it is unreadable (very poor choice of colors and font sizes on the part of the creators). Are there any other versions of this map, or similar ones, available where you found this?

There also may be unresolved "copyvio" problems with this image. See here and here. The image apparently originated here; someone seems to have lifted it from this page and changed the colors to protect the innocent. This looks fishy, as the EcoAtlas site is not put up by a gov't agency, and fair use may not apply. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

richmond is ghetto

the city has a reputation as being a ghetto, being the hood and such is there a source for this? maybe it could be worked into how the city is trying to revitalize the city?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

copyvio link

The claim that Richmond is referred to as "the Rich" is backed up by a link to a site that appears to be in violation of copyright (one of many illegal lyrics sites on the Internet). Linking to copyright violations is strictly against Wikipedia policy. (And as a side note, I'm not sure a dubious nickname really belongs in the intro. I've lived in the Bay Area all my life, and have never heard "the Rich". It's certainly not as widespread as "O-town" or "the City" or even "Berzerkeley". I'm sure it's used; I just don't think it's notable enough to go in the lead.) Xtifr _tälk 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also been used in the East Bay Express in an article i believe was titled the 92510 (a combination of the tweo areas codes for contra costa and alameda counties 925 and 510, by analogy with 90210) which dealt with the many nicknames of places in the bay area, when i added the nickname that is the source i used, my citation was removed numberous times and i dont know why and someone added this link, now as for linking to something that infringes copyright, most artists post their lyrics somewhere online, or we can surely use the song in and of itself as the citation, this must constitute fair use, and its not called the rich by older people as much as GenXers and GenYers/GenZers expeically^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Restrictions on linking: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Also, WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Seems pretty clear to me. Lyricsdir.com is a notorious copyright violator. If you can re-add the Express link, that would be great. Also, if you can find those lyrics posted at the artist's site or at a site endorsed by the artist, that too would be ok. So much for the matter of copyvio.

As for usage: I'm not disputing that the term exists and is used (though I know it's not as common among GenY/GenZers as currently suggested). What I'm questioning is the WP:Undue Weight given to the nickname by its placement in the lead. One passing reference in a list of local region nicknames and one reference in a song does not establish this as a notable or widespread nickname. I'm not saying that the nickname should be removed from the article, but I think it might be more appropriate in the trivia or leisure and culture sections. Xtifr _tälk 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i dont mind if you move it^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: HilltopMall.jpg

File:HilltopMall.jpg

Hilltop Mall is a very large mall, of the larger sort around the country it might not be in the top 10 but it is in the top 5 or 10% in size, it is a high volumne shopping center with a JC Penny, Sears, Macy's, (controvertial) Wal-Mart, 24 Hour Fitness (several of the city's largest employers all in onc e roof), and hundreds of other stores, retaurants, and boutiques. It is situated on dozens of acres and is in the middle of many other shopping centers and strip malls that have spouted around it or sprawled into it, see the Hilltop Mall article and click on the link to aerial image, the area is truly massive taking up far more space than a typical stadium. There is Pinole Vista Shopping Center which is accross intertate 80 from it and is 2 miles long, there is Hillop Plaza, their is the headquarters for the Contra Costa Times' West County Times, there are 4 other strip malls, about a dozen office buildings, three transit centers, turnarounds with bus bays, Richmond Parkway Transit Center and the Hilltop Mall Transit Centers (north and south) yes there are two since it takes so long to drive from one side to the other! There is also the Hilltop Auto Mall, Hilltop lake, and thousands of homes and condiminums and other small businesses surrounding the mall. the largest job centers in the city are downtwon richmond and then hilltop mall and also the chevron refinary, i think the malls stores combined excluding the adjecnt testimonial to urban sprawl is the largest employer in the city. it is probably Richmond's most widely known landmark throughout the bay area and if this article had to have 2 just pictures one would be the aerial shot and the other would be of the mall, no including it is very detrimental to this article. I think no one can say this article can't use a photogrpagh of Hilltop Mall can we agree on that? now if this is a quality issue, please find a better picture and suggest it, then we can talk about it and see if we agree that this new picture is indeed better, we can then imporve the article by putting a image of higher quality in it. but having no image does not improve the article. and it doesnt clutter it either there are no pictures for paragrapghs; in that section or the section below it. i am putting it back, a adequate quality image is better than none at all. please be respectful and rational71.142.87.194 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put images in section headers. Also, consider adding "|thumb|right" to image links on talk pages, so the images don't overwhelm the discussion. I've fixed both problems above. As for the image itself: it's not very good. Too dark, and the primary focus seems to be the car, not the mall. I'd hardly consider it a representative image. But until something better comes along, count me as weak support. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ok great i hope a better picture comes up too, m,aybe a photoreq? per consensus im putting it back up now69.107.101.59 18:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus"? What the hell are you talking about? Look, pal, someone who doesn't even edit this article stopped by my talk page and left the following comments:

“

In all fairness, calling that last picture "horrible-looking" is pretty restrained- I'd just call it roundfile material and not give it server space. Dark, poorly composed, difficult to tell what's being shown or pointed out. It shows a traffic light intersection that could be anywhere. There may be interesting details hidden in the far background, but most viewers wouldn't even wonder if they were worth digging for.

”

This, taken together with the criticisms voiced by the other person here who could only manage to "weak[ly] support" including the photo, pretty much makes my case. Let me ask you: Why are you so insistent on keeping these photos in the article? Did you take them yourself? Again, there is no rule or guideline here that an article must have photos in it at all. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not take this picture, this is not your article, i support keeping it, the other user does too, thats 2-1. The image's quality is irrelevant its not so horrible that it cant be included until the time comes that a better image can be included. why dont you take one? or i wonder do a photorequest if you think its so bad. i think it is fine. i support the inclusion of a picture of hilltop mall, its important to the richmond article. be more helpful come up with some alternative in the meantime, fix the lighting, crop something out of the picture, resize it, do a photoreq. whether or not he critisized it doesnt matter, he supports it, you cant interpret his critisisms as an oppose for the objectives of your desire.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop making untruthful suggestions such as that wikipedia doesn't have a rule that says articles have to have a picture, sure that may be true, but you're implying that theres a rule that says we cant have pictures. The fact all articles of this length have images, lots of them. So stop right there, youre arguement is just bombastic at that point. Your a pic hater^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I-80 Image

This image should be included. Or at the very least an image of Interstate 80 or 580 or the Richmond Parkway at one point. I-80 is one of the most congested freeways in the Bay Area and the world at this point. This image is appropriately placed in a section about transportation. Roadways are an important part of transportation networks in the United States and especially California they are THE transportation method most used. This section has lots of pictures but not any others of highways, just San Pablo Avenue which is in effect a city street and is just a highway for historical and funding purposes. Furthermore the fact that a sign is present which mentions Richmond is of note and helps to place the photograph cleary in this city and gives a sense of place. The image also displays a rare left hand side exit an HOV exit. Richmond Parkway which junctions with the freeway here is an important regional interchange for persons traveling between the North Bay and Marin County. Richmond Parkway Transit Center also happens to be slightly visible on the left of the highway. This image is taken with a real camera not a cell phone and is very well lit. As a thumbnail in an appropriate gallery for a broad transportation section in the article for the city in which it exists is useful and of note. It should remain.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You say this is "one of the most congested freeways in the Bay Area and the world". I challenge that. What's your source for that? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ill look it up, but thats not rationale for rm the image, this is about the image not the caption dont be deceptive, furthermore start a new thread if youre gonna talk about the caption this is about the image. 71.142.91.34 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cholga Says I Win Challenge! Yuba Net, CBS, KCBS, San Francisco Chronicle / SF Gate 71.142.91.34 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you even read the articles you post as references? This one, for instance, that you gave as evidence for your claim that "[i]n 2007 Caltrans ranked this area of the freeway as the crummiest commute, a title it has held since 2000", doesn't even mention Richmond, but instead merely refers to "[t]he morning slog down westbound Interstate 80", meaning from some indeterminate point to the Bay Bridge approach; as I understand it from reading other recent articles on the subject, the real bottleneck here is farther west in Albany, Berkeley or Emeryville. So I'm removing the reference, and yes, the picture as well, since as I've stated innumerable times, it's ugly, irrelevant, undistinguished, adds nothing to the article, wastes bandwith, and in general detracts from the quality of the article. So much for your claimed "consensus". +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

wrong, you must have not noticed or not wanted to notice it the SF Chronicle article at SF Gate but this map clearly shows that westbound am i-80 means I-80 between 80 and Hwy 4 in Hercules to the Bay Bridge, encompassing the entire length of interstate 80 through Richmond between approximatly richmond parkway and central avenue. the discussion is 2 to 1 that it should remain and you have given no compelling reason why, its not simply up to you, i suggest you drop it and move onCholga 19:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

you also seemed to miss the following sentance in a one parapgragh KCBS article linked to above Topping the list was westbound I-80 from Hercules to the Bay Bridge. the yuba net article also mentions this "Top 10" list of congestion hot spots, the morning commute on westbound Interstate 80 from Hercules to the Bay Bridge retained its longtime hold on the top spot in 2006 this seems like a deliberate obfuscation to me, perhaps you are not familair with the geography of the area this map cleary shows richmond as being bewteen the bay bridge and hercules along interstate 80. The east bay is on the right side of the water, hercules in near the top right of the western coast and the bay bridge is the double bridge span with the island in the middle.Cholga 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

also the very first sentance of the cbs article states The worst traffic jam in the Bay Area can be found during the morning commute on westbound Interstate Highway 80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge so i really wonder how you missed it, or whether you are performing OR based on your own opinions, i sincerely hope this was an honest carelss mistake and that you either based your statements on conjecture and did not bother to click on any of those links or that you were careless and didn't notice the facts or are unfamiliar with the area and where confused. i think this subject has been settled now, i hope.Cholga 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, that still doesn't support a claim that there's something special about the congestion on I-80 through Richmond; actually, especially if true, as it would encompass the entire length from Hwy. 4 to the Bay Bridge. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Settled in your mind, perhaps, since you seem to always stubornly stick to your point of view despite logical conclusions to the contrary. As you said, the article claims the worst congestion is between Hercules and the Bay Bridge. Nowhere is Richmond even mentioned. This means that the most one can conclude is that the section of I-80 through Richmond is part of the most congested stretch of road in the Bay Area, not that it is the most congested. As I said before, nothing special about that stretch of highway, despite your wishing it to be. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

oh yes it does the map clearly shows richmond and furthermore "between" implies richmond, sure its not only richmond, but i-80 is the major artery into san francisco and oakland which are major job centers and people from as far north as sacramento vacaville and fairfield commute through richmond and the rest of thios portion of freeway daily. this is not my point of view at all, in fact it is not a point of view it is a conclusion based on caltrans research reported by the media. I'm not opposed to "part of" being worked into the wording that is fine. when editing wikipedia you should improve wording not remove wording that is technically off and well cited as you did. thats borderline vandalism.Cholga 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How about finding a reliable source that states Richmond explictly? Wikipedia:No original research defines original research as something that introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. The current sources are just taling about I-80, which would be fine for the I-80 article, but not for this article. Just because the Bay Area has [X], and Richmond is in the Bay Area, does not mean that you can claim that Richmond has [X]. Cacophony 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

THat is bull look at a map, ive provided links. This is not original research. The current source does not tail about I-80 which runs from New York to San Francisco it talks about the portion between hercules and Oakland a large portion of which is in Richmond i find it very notable that the most congested portion of a particular freeway runs thourhg richmond, and that a city's entire freeway is the most congested.. Your analogy is fatally flawed. Im not saying that I-80 is in the bay area and that richmond is in the bay are so i-80 must be in richmond, or else anything in the bay area would eb in richmond, i have clearly proved that this portion of 80 the crummiest commute runs through all of richmonds portion of 80. it is not original research i did not write the report or make the google maps of sf chronicle graphic, i am simply reporting facts from reliable resources.Cholga 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently have a hard time grasping a simple concept, let me put what that other editor said another way: Just because the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested in the Bay Area, and because Richmond is on that stretch of I-80, doesn't mean that the part of I-80 that goes through Richmond is the most congested—which is what your edits are trying to get across. Please yield to logic for a change.

By the way, in case you think poor Richmond is somehow being singled out here, this assertion would be just as wrong in the articles on Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Emeryvile, Hercules, El Sobrante or ... (it might belong in the article on I-80, though). +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, your argument here doesn't seem logical to me. Just because a source doesn't state explicitly, doesn't mean that Richmond is not included. The phrase "the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested in the Bay Area" suggests that every point on the I80 between Hercules to Emeryville is the most congested in the bay area. That means Richmond, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Emeryvile, Hercules, El Sobrante, all these cities have the most congested stretch of highway in the bay area. Looking back at all the argument above, it seems to be that the consensus agrees upon the inclusion of that photo. Your claim of that photo being ugly has nothing to do with this article. And wikipedia belong to the entire community and you dont own this page. I suggest you follow the consensus on this page and stop editwarring. Chris 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you ignore me and still like to delete that picture, allow me to reassert my points in a more clear way.

1) Your POV on the picture (Whether it is a good or a bad picture, for example) is not a sufficient reason to delete it.

2) Your opinion on whether the caption is wrong or not is not a sufficient reason to delete it.

And besides the caption is correct based on the sources given. Let me repeat this again: The phrase "the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested in the Bay Area" suggests that every point on the I80 between Hercules to Emeryville is the most congested in the bay area. That means Richmond, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Emeryvile, Hercules, El Sobrante, all these cities have the most congested stretch of highway in the bay area. Chris 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring on this page is disruptive. So please stop. Chris 22:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image has no business being on this page. It is a picture of an off ramp on a freeway. Could be any freeway anywhere. The photo does absoutely nothing to illustrate Richmond, California. I've never been to Richmond and I'm no closer to understanding what it looks like based on this photo. The editwaring is also a waste of time, someone go take a decent photo and make this a moot argument! Cacophony 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not it can just be anywhere it is on Northbound Interstate 80 at the Richmond Parkway exit/interchange. This is a major regional junction. Would you like a link to Google Earth? The fact is that this image is fine. A great image would be better but removing a decent photo because it is not great is very destructive. I agree to replacing it with a better image when the opportunity arises71.142.91.34 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree that this particular picture might not bring more info to the article. But my point here is that ILike2BeAnonymous's claim on the caption being erroneous is completely false. Beside, he is the one who started this edit warring. If I find a better picture, I will upload it again to the article. Chris 05:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the claim made in the caption (that I-80 through Richmond is the most congested stretch of highway in the Bay Area) has been effectively shot full of holes and needs no further going over here. But regarding the picture itself: can anyone tell us why it's so important that this picture be included in the article? Why not just let it go, and try to find other, more suitable pictures if you think they're needed? The article doesn't suffer from a lack of pictures. It does, however, suffer from more obvious flaws, such as bad writing, which would be more productive to spend time on. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No it has not not been effectively been shot full of holes, you are deliberatly attempting to misrepensent facts. Whether or not the portion of the most congested freeway that runs though richmond is the most congested portion of the congested portion is not even being claimed it is only being claimed that the most congested freeway runs though richmond and is in richmond. All the articles point out the path of the congestion as being along 80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge, do you challenge that? Or do you challenge that I-80 runs though Richmond? The image helps illustrate something important about the city and we are expressing our opinions. Furthermore you're the one that is not letting anything go. And your recent edit summary that states that since the most recent comment at that particular time which was yours and in opposition of consensus was for removal that gives you justification. You are in violation of the 3RR and that is vandalism I am going to report you.

Well, what the caption said is correct and supported by sources. And I already said above that I will try to a better pictures to replace the current one. And for the article, it looks pretty good to me. I think we should spend time on other articles within the SFBA wikiproject. Many of them could use some major improvement. Chris 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If other things are in so much need of help please go away and improve other articles and stop being so beligerant and disruptive. Please give in to reason you have been proven wrong sir, i know this must be frustrating but its no reason to start a silly edit war based on your contrived unsourced OR and opinions. keep the image and caption71.142.91.34 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with ILike2BeAnonymous, I must say that you (User:71.142.91.34) telling me to go away is extremely rude. Besides I am not the one who start edit warring or delete the picture. I am not ILike2BeAnonymous, for god sake. What I am doing here is telling ILike2BeAnonymous not to delete the picture. Chris 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also i would like to say this. If a freeway passes through your town and this freeway is the most congested freeway in your metropolitan area, your city has crappy freeways. Richmond has a "crummy commute" the "crummiest" actually. This affects Richmonders if 80 were the only freeway in richmond, all the freeways/freeway in richmond would be highly congested, more congested than any other. Its simple as that, that is what makes this notable.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, this argument here is getting confusing. I open a survey in the end of this page, so that we can vote on this issue in order for us to see the consensus on this page. Chris 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Request for Comment In my opinion, there needs to be a caption for me to comment. I think that the photograph is of sufficient quality that it may be included. The next step is "what's the caption and what is it included for?". Someone said that Richmond Parkway is an important junction..... If this is true (I have never been to the city), then I think it should be included. If the caption is "congestion in Richmond" then, at most, it should be a temporary image to be replaced as soon as possible. Plumbing 03:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy. Mikkke2 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MacDonald Avenue

strange spelling i suppose maybe even incorrect but its how its spelled: google maps, 71.142.91.34

Apparently it is spelled "MacDonald". My triple-A map says so. Evidently the city's own web site has it wrong. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

does it really? now that is sadCholga 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

209.128.72.169 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I am virtually certain that the correct capitalization is Macdonald Avenue. The trouble with sources like Google Maps is that they cover the whole country and indeed much of the world and so do not have a lot of local knowledge. (I am a little surprised that CSAA has gotten it wrong.) History books on Richmond, the official City of Richmond web site, and street signs on the Avenue all use a lowercase d.

According to pages 8 to 9 of the book To Place Our Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond, California,1910-1963 by Shirley Ann Wilson Moore (published by the University of California Press, 2001), "Alfred Sylvester Macdonald, an Oakland real estate developer, is credited with the discovery of what would become downtown Richmond, and he was largely responsible for the downtown's emergence as the seat of power and commerce after intense competition with Point Richmond for the title. ... Macdonald and company immediately subdivided the property into business, commercial, and residential lots, locating all businesses along Macdonald Avenue, the principal thoroughfare on the street grid." [bold italics added by me for emphasis]

The book Richmond by Donald Bastin in Arcadia Press's Images of America series (published in 2003) also uses a lowercase d in Macdonald throughout. Note that the author, Donald Bastin, runs the Richmond Museum of History and so should definitely know about the correct capitalization. Relevant pages from both his book and To Place Our Deeds are accessible via Google Books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.72.169 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 June 2007

Nevertheless, though "Macdonald" may well be the correct spelling, historically and etymologically speaking, the de facto usage appears to be MacDonald, as evidenced by street signs, spellings in telephone directories, etc., so saying the former is correct is technically right, but a losing battle. In other words, the "correct" use is what the majority says it is. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Another important point is that Macdonald is the correct spelling of that man's last name, but MacDonald is the correct spelling of the street.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Here are my follow-up thoughts. ILike2BeAnonymous, which street signs and phone books did you find that used the spelling MacDonald for the street? I checked over a dozen street signs along Macdonald Avenue and all used a lowercase d. (On some of the signs the d appeared to be not quite lined up with the other letters--I wondered if perhaps there had originally been a capital D that had been removed and "corrected" to lowercase d.) I also checked two (printed) phone books (SBC and Valley Yellow Pages) and both spell Macdonald Avenue with a lowercase d. I get the impression that you believe that a majority of people use the spelling "MacDonald"; what is the basis of that belief? Cholga, I think it would be odd for a street named after a person to have a different spelling than the person it was named after. The sources I cited use a lowercase d for both the man and the street. What is the source of your assertion that the correct spelling has a capital D? From my personal experience, I can say that during the period I have lived in the area (since the early 1960s) I have usually seen the street name spelled with a lowercase d, but agree that there is a fair amount of confusion over the spelling and that it is not uncommon to see a capital D used, particularly from less authoritative sources or sources with less local knowledge. I suspect this is probably because more people with that last name spell their names with a capital D than a lowercase d. It does seem to me that we should strive to make Wikipedia authoritative and thus make every effort to get the spelling right. The sources I believe are most authoritative (City of Richmond, published books, and street signs) all seem to use a lowercase d. I am sorry if I have gone on a bit long about this and I hope you won't take my comments the wrong way--I am just trying to be constructive and to improve the article. --209.128.72.169 06:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The street signs at the eastern end of MacDonald avenue use the capital D, and so do AC Transit Bus Schedules and the city of Richmond's website use the capital D everywhere i have seen it. since you seem so convinced i will make an honest effort to double check and take your observations and research into consideration, thank you. =) ^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cholga. Thanks for agreeing to look into it. Since I posted my previous message I did further checking of the street signs myself. I drove down Macdonald Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to about 40th Street and from 23rd Street to Richmond Parkway looking at the street signs at every intersection. Every one I saw used the spelling "Macdonald" except for one or two that were "MACDONALD". I did not check the handful of blocks that lie east of San Pablo Avenue--is that where you saw "MacDonald"? Was it in Richmond or in El Cerrito? I do see that AC Transit uses a capital D in its online bus schedules. I think you are mistaken about the City of Richmond's web site: it almost always uses a lowercase d (search of city's web site). I also checked the web sites of local newspapers: the West County Times appears to always use a lowercase d (search) and the Richmond Globe nearly always uses a lowercase d (search). It seems to me that there is a good deal of confusion (or carelessness) about the spelling but the preponderance of the most authoritative sources use lowercase d. --209.128.72.169 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you familair with the Main Street program and that MacD/donald Avenue has been cristened as the city's main street, i wonder how does that program of the city spell it, i think that would be the very most authoritative source since its the most recent.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly familiar with the Richmond Main Street Initiative and agree that since the main focus of that program is Macdonald Avenue and the surrounding area they should be an authority on how to spell it. A search of their web site reveals that they use a lowercase d when spelling Macdonald. --209.128.72.169 06:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

well then, i suppose it is now settled, i wonder if we should mention who the street is named after and why, and also the differing spellings either in this article or the article for MacDonald sorry Macdonald avenue article. One note, the MacDonald 80 Shopping Center where Wards and Toys'R'Us used to be was definatly spelled with the uppercase D and since it was how they spelled their shopping center i think that should remain with the capital D also because the article for that shop. cntr. is spelled that way too.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jahvid Best

I noticed that Salesian Alumni/Cal freshman Jahvid Best is listed as being from Richmond. I'm not sure if this needs to be fixed or not; His house is actually in Vallejo, though his high school is of course in Richmond. DukeB-120th 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not need to be fixed, as these sections mention people who are notable and have an association with the city; they may work, get their education, live, do somthing in the city, been murdered there, any of these.Cholga 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

new image requests

Hilltop Mall
Richmond Civic Center
Interstate 80 or 580 in Richmond or Richmond Parkway
23rd Street Business Dsitrict
Commertial or Residential construction site
Cholga 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a picture of Cholga?? :-) --Fizbin 23:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Life is not complete otherwise. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wow i feel so special!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Casino cleanup

cleanup for casinos section, there are many articles on this subject but this section is unclear and erratic someone look them up and rewrite?Cholga 06:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment/I-80 Image

This is a dispute about the inclusion of

in this article. 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

My position on this issue is to keep because the picture reflect something very important for Richmond. Chris! _{my talk} 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

its the image weve got, its free, appropriate and of normal quality. sure it'd be nice if we got a world renowed photograpgher to get in a helicopter and take a photo of oncomming rushhour bumper-to-bumper traffic with the perfect lighting and angle so on and so forth but this is not the case the fact is that any image whatsoever may be ursurped by a better one, but until that better image comes along a good normal image is just fine. and i say keep.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the inclusion of this image (see my reasoning here, on Cholga's talk page). I only came here because of mass solicitation on the part of Cholga (again, see his user talk page for more). However, I think that if the image is kept, it should not be captioned as the "crummiest commute", which is hardly NPOV, or encyclopedic. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a neutral point of view, Caltrans ranks the "crummiest commutes" we are simply reporting it.71.142.91.34 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension needs some work. Caltrans did not call it the "crummiest commute", nor anything else; that characterization is by the headline writer at the San Francisco Chronicle. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The New York Post called Paris Hilton a slut, earlier this month. Should we include in the Paris Hilton article that they call her a slut? I wouldn't say so. The Sun says John Prescott has an ugly, squashed face. Should we include it in the article? I wouldn't say so. Besides, WP:LAUNDRY comes to mind. Richmond, California is not the best place to include information about Interstate 80 that has nothing to do with Richmond, and is not even mention in the Interstate 80 article. I just got your message on my talk page (assuming you're Cholga), and I will be responding there fully now. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Crummy is defined as dirty, unpleasant, or of poor quality, according to my dictionary, the worst commute in the bay area surely must fit this description, after all it is a quote, there is abcking for calling it crummy, crappy, dismall, worst, bad, , poor, deploreable, lackluster, lamentable, dreadful, terrible, horrible, awful... it has the worst congestion. Now in my honest opinion Paris Hilton is a common whore, that's somthing i could say however there is no reasearch behind it, 80 is the most congested. It is totally relevant if a city has the worst traffic in the whole region though its freeways i'd consider that of note and it is irrelevant if that is or not included on the 80 article, perhaps you should add it, i think contra costa county and alameda county should have it added in also even the Bay Area article, there it could say all the congesed areas but this is the discussion for richmond isnt it.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded on my reasoning on my talk page, here, and kind of clarified my point and my take on things. ~~It's probably best if we don't clog up this particular strawpoll with our discussion on this one point, so feel free to read my message there, and offer your thoughts~~. If anyone else wants to offer their opinion, they're welcome. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a strawpoll anymore. I should mention that I'm not really "previously involved in dispute". This is my first involvement here. I was just here before this was renamed. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it adds very much, nor do I think it's particularly representative, but it's better than some images I've seen. (Better than the Hilltop image that was discussed earlier, for example.) I really think people are making too big a deal about whether an image needs to be included or removed this minute. Leave it in for now and take it out in three months time, or vice versa; I really don't care. Unless you're going for a GA review or something, it's probably not a big deal either way. (But I definitely agree with Dreaded Walrus about the caption.) p.s. I was also canvassed by Cholga, but since he seems to have gotten two neutral opinions and not much more, I'm certainly not going to try to claim that it was inappropriate canvassing. Xtifr _tälk 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was definitely not done in bad faith. It looks like (for me at least, not certain about the others), he just went through the history and copypasted the message on multiple talk pages. Hence why I left a friendly reminder on his talk page that it might be seen as inappropriate in some cases (indeed, in the past he got a different warning for the same thing). He certainly wasn't going through a set list of people he knew would agree with him, or owt like that. Just so Cholga doesn't feel we're picking on him or owt. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo is of very poor quality and should be contained in the Commons gallery, not the body of this article. An image with very light traffic directly contridicts the caption claiming how congested the road is. Cacophony 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than a popularity poll, which is a fine thing for grade schoolers, but perhaps not for people trying to create an encyclopedia, I have a question I'd like answered. This is directed to all those who want to retain that picture in this article:

Why do you want the picture in the article? Please try to be specific, by answering this question as well: what does this picture illustrate about Richmond? What would be the loss to understanding if it weren't in the article? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture simply illustrates that Richmond has the most congested part of the I80. The picture might not look super nice, but that reason alone is not sufficient for a deletion. And this poll is showing a consensus in favor of keeping the picture. As a good faith editor, I just want to remind you that your reverts might have violated WP:OWN and you are pretty much in danger of violating WP:3RR as well. I am just asking you to stop editing the page until we can determine what to do with the picture here. Thanks Chris! _{my talk} 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture illustrates no such thing: first, the quoted source (the S.F. Chron article) only says that the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested roadway; there's no way you can demonstrate that, to quote you, "Richmond has the most congested part of the I80". Richmond is not even mentioned in the referenced article. And second, as another editor pointed out, the picture doesn't even show a congested roadway! Next! +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and Richmond is along that portion. I have proven this, do you contest this? No one has said Richmond has the most congested part of I-80, but the Part of I-80 that is the most congested according to Caltrans does run though I-80 does run through Richmond, therefore it is in Richmond, whether or not the portion in Richmond is the most congested portion of the Hercules to Bay Bridge congested area is moot because it is not what is being claimed and the writing the the article stats this, "Interstate 80 at Richmond Parkway. The entire course of this freeway within Richmond has been part Caltran's "crummiest commute" in the Bay Area due to its congestion since 2000."^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo is of very poor quality indeed - it shows something that is completely generic and could be ound in any city in the world and does not illustrate any important point in the article or convey an athmosphere special to the place that is subject of the article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the deletion of the photo because it is not that good. But I still disagree ILike2BeAnonymous's claim that Richmond doesn't has the part of the most congested I80. He just deleted part of the highway section. His claim "the quoted source (the S.F. Chron article) only says that the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested roadway; there's no way you can demonstrate that, to quote you, "Richmond has the most congested part of the I80". Richmond is not even mentioned in the referenced article." is erroneous. Because the phrase "the stretch of I-80 between Hercules and the Bay Bridge is the most congested roadway" already emphasize that every point on that stretch of highway, which include Richmond, is the most congested. The word "Richmond" doesn't need to be in the article for people to understand that simple concept of Richmond or any other city between Oakland and Hercules having the most congested part of I80. Any people living in the Bay Area would know that is true. If anyone here disagree with ILike2BeAnonymous's claim, please discuss. Chris! _{my talk} 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly grasping at straws here. Looking at a map, that "stretch" of I-80 is nearly 20 miles long, and goes through Hercules, Pinole, El Sobrante, San Pablo, Richmond, EL Cerrito, Albany, Berkeley and Emeryville; hardly a situation that gives Richmond any unique claim on the "most congested" status. As someone else wisely pointed out, ths factoid probably belongs in the article on I-80, but not in this article.

Keep in mind that this business of creating an "encyclopedia" involves more than just determining which facts are correct. Any idiot can throw together "facts" to try to create the illusion of an encyclopedic resource. There are also the matters of relevance, context and proportion: which facts actually pertain to the subject at hand, what their relevance is, and whether the facts are important or just trivial. So it's not enough to say "Hey, source X says that this is correct; therefore it should stay in the article". +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, let put this argument aside for a while. It seems to be that you and I can never agree with each other. To me that info is completely correct and I really don't know what your problem is. But if a consensus here tell me that a majority of editors here agree with you. Also your seems to forget that this encyclopedia belongs to the entire community, and not just you in particular. So every decision needs to go through the community to decide. Let just stop editing and wait for someone to response first before doing anything. I will revert one more time just to retain that part of info for people to decide. Please stop editing for a little while. Chris! _{my talk} 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If a city's freeways are the most congested in an area and the city's article talks about its freeways is perfectly proportioned to include information on this topic. And please don't call me an idiot. They do pertain to the subject at hand and are very relevant. Everyone here says so. I'm sure there are sources that say how congested 580 is in Oakland but that's not relevant to Richmond if true or not. But Richmond has horrible traffic, the worst in the area, its relevant and notable. Three differant editors have reverted your content removal youre wrong stop it.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the worst in the area. Read the original report (any references should use this, which is the report from the MTC, and not that SF Chron. article anyhow). The report does not mention Richmond once.

By the way, the report covers 2006, not 2007 (obviously, since they won't have data on this year until next year). +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt have to say Richmond, for instance in the sentance: The states west of the Mississippi river are very cool it doesn't say California or Arizona in name, but it does mean California and Arizona are cool. Likewise all 4 articles mentioned and the fifth source you have provided which states

In addition to afternoon trips from the East Bay into San Francisco and the morning commute along Interstate 80 from Hercules to the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza (a segment that also carries traffic bound for eastbound Interstate 580 and southbound Interstate 880), the Bay Bridge and its approaches account for two more of the Bay Area’s 10 worst congestion locations.

also included in the article Map-07.pdf clearly shows the #1 most congested commute as being in Richmond, only Richmond and Oakland are shown by name. You seem to me to be beyond reason, or you are deliberatly trying to misrepesent the facts, or are very careless which is it?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New Photo Request

I would like to request a photo of oncomming rush-hour AM southbound traffic along I-80 for the article, so we can resolve this issue. Maybe someone could ask the local PBS, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Univisión, Telemundo, Telefutura, Tele Azteca, and indie channels like KRON for a pity pic or a wiki-use only pic?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a whole discussion dedicated to what some say is a lackluster image, I added the photorequest tag and now its being removed because "we have enough pictures allready" i hardly see the logic in that. If we have a photoreq up for a image of the quality that no one is bothered by we can stop argueing about this nonsense. Does anyone else agree that we should have a photo request?71.142.91.34 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think noone's disputing that a better image would be a good thing. It's just that, as far as I am aware, the photoreq tag should only be used for articles where there are no images, or very few. That is, unless you want to do something like this: {{reqphoto|of=Interstate 80, showing heavy congestion}} --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Got Hosed

I don't know how to fix it, but the formatting near the end of the article is screwed up. The Services and Notable Citizens secion is under the Reference section and the Notable Citzens area is completely torqued.--Fizbin 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too, and thought I had saved a "clean" version when I edited. Seems like the prudent thing to do would be to revert back to a recent un-hosed version. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone apparently chopped off the </ref> at the end of a reference. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Cholga caused massive deformation of the article, and constitute vandalism (albeit unintentional). Please check your edits with "Show preview" before saving your edit, especially if it involves more editing more than one section and could potentially disrupt the article formatting. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I check his edit, it doesn't cause massive deformation of the article like you said. So please stop vandalizing the page. This is a warning. Chris! _{my talk} 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and see that there are no hosing issues whatsoever, and that you are removing several portions of well cited text with great relevance to the article itself. You in fact removed content many times to the point that I reported you for vandalism, please stop.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Content removal

Recently Anonoymous removed a large amount of content very sneakily claiming he was removing the freeway image again, however he removed many portions of the crime section, and infrastructure. The statement regarding the congestion on Richmond's Interstate 80's discussion was decidedly in favor of inclusion, he lied on the edit summaries claiming talk supported his edits, i suggest we seek to have him warned for vandalism regarding content removal and 3rr^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw that, he should be reported. Chris! _{my talk} 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reported him he has removed it three times now, i reported him on general vandalism and on the 3rr reporting pages, should i contact the CounterVandalism Unit now too?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also put a formal warning for vandalism on his talk page. Currently it is on level 2. Chris! _{my talk} 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent change

[1] Sorry about that, I misread. I thought it said "one of the most congested strech", whereas it actually said "along the most congested strech". Hence why I changed it to stretches, whereas I should have changed it to stretch. I guess I should have looked twice. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've now made pretty widespread changes to the article, mostly fixing spelling, and redlinks and the like. If I have changed anything that is actually acceptable in US English, please feel free to change it back. I don't think I made any such changes, though (I left center as is, neighborhood, labored e.t.c). Again, sorry I had to make lots of small edits. The length of the article meant Firefox's auto-spellcheck feature only went about a third of the way down the form, and I didn't really fancy reading through the whole article in depth multiple times to make sure I didn't miss anything. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this edit, and my subsequent partial revert. I realise this is a US city (hence why I never changed any other US spelling when I was going through earlier), but Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's 3000 meters Steeplechase is a redlink. Hence, I changed [[Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's 3000 meters Steeplechase|1988 Olympian]] (note the spelling "meter" - which shows as 1988 Olympian) to [[Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's 3000 metres Steeplechase|1988 Olympian]] (note the spelling "metre" - which shows as 1988 Olympian). No change whatsoever to what the end user sees, it simply bypasses the red link, allowing the user to actually see the article linked. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I-80 congestion wording

Your accusation:

"This is the most we can say about this "most congested" business; please don't try to twist the facts to make it more relevant to Richmond.)"here.

I am not twisting any facts and in fact you removed content. You removed that it is the morning commute. And in previous edits you have also removed that it is the weekday commute.

All sources and by your own admission interstate 80 runs though richmond, it runs though richmond in the southbound-towards Oakland/Bay Bridge/San Francisco direction this is undisputed. It's clear that the congested portion runs though the portion of the freeway in Richmond.

The charicteristics of a city are clearly notable whether good or bad. Crime, Demographic, and Climate conditions are all mentioned as are highways and streets. A city's traffic is yet another facet of a city that may be of note.

Please sign like so :~~~~Yes or No/Comment/Neutral