Talk:Richmond, London

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Renaming

I disagree with the argument that Richmond should be placed in London. Richmond may be in the "region" of London, but people do not follow regions in England. People do not refer to Norwich, East Anglia for example. There is no obvious way to refer to where Richmond is: Greater London sounds unnatural and clunky; 'London' is inaccurate as Richmond falls into no administrative area known as London and as I have said, the regional argument does not ring true; 'Surrey' is the final option as Richmond is postally and histroically in Surrey but the problem is that postal addressing can be very unsatisfactory too (especially where villages are clearly in one county but because of postal convenience they are often quoted as being in another because of the post town inspite of the strong opinions of the vilagers involved).

In cases such as this, it is best to take the BBC's line which is to go with local usage. Any Richmond resident will find it jarring to see their town listed as 'Richmond, London'. Instead, "Richmond, Surrey" should win through. It is worth noting that postal counties have much more value in place like Greater London and Greater Manchester as they reflect rather than contradict the historic counties and are popular with residents. As a second choice "Richmond, South West London" might work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.127.225.249 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Richmond, Surrey is a better designation than Richmond, London. Is there a policy which says it should be the former? If so, perhaps the policy needs looking at. DavidCh0 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be Richmond, Surrey. All other areas outside the London postal districts should retain their county descriptive status eg "Barking, Essex". The article itself is contradictory as it has the heading "Richmond, London", yet the text states "Richmond is a suburban town southwest of London"!!!! Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.42.45 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be afraid of this one, so I made a start on it myself. Ogg 11:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the town is simply "Richmond" and that "Richmond upon Thames" was invented as the name of the London Borough when it was created. I'll try and find a source before I edit anything. DavidCh0 10:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond town centre is in Surrey, being on the south bank of the Thames. "Boro of R-u-T" also covers Twickenham, etc., which is in Middlesex.Zir 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision of Britain website seems to confirm this; the list of "Lower level units" on the following page mention "Kingston Upon Thames" and "Richmond": [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.194 (talk • contribs) 6 October 2006.

If this is the case, and it is also supported by the Royal Mail (post town RICHMOND unlike Kingston which is KINGSTON UPON THAMES) and also the station is called Richmond (both predate the borough), this article should probably move to Richmond, London. MRSC • Talk 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport for London have the borough as Richmond upon Thames, but the location as Richmond. [2] MRSC • Talk 08:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to appeal against moving Richmond (where I live) to Richmond, London - we might be part of Greater London, but the town not in any of its London postal districts, being known as "Richmond, Surrey, TW9 or TW10" (or sometimes Richmond upon Thames*) to differentiate us from "Richmond, (North) Yorkshire" after which we were named. I don't think that we have any right to be called the latter* whereas Kingston does, its full title being "Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames " (one of three Royal Boro's).

I hate this creeping "London-isation" because it's causing other entries - "Richmond Hill" for instance - to end up being described as London, (it's not) and is just plain confusing! Grrrrrr! Zir 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the standard dab form for places in Greater London. It is worth noting that the "London" doesn't refer to the postal area (we don't use postal geography at all in article naming), it refers to the region (which here is London). MRSC • Talk 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "dab form" mean? DavidCh0 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Interactive Streetscapes not useful?

I would like to appeal yesterday's removal of the link Virtual George Street, Richmond from this page. Up until yesterday the link had proved exceptionally useful to Wikipedia visitors for months and had taken them onto the world's only hi-res Virtual Interactive Streetscape to discover more about this road. What better way to research a street than to walk along it thanks to Wikipedia from anywhere in the world! (Boy I wish my Children's Britannica Encyclopedias had miles of virtual streetscapes when I was a kid!)

Would you be able to agree that Wikipedia users researching a city or street would find a virtual streetscape effictively allowing them to walk down that city's street useful? Is that not within the spirit of Wikipedia? This site is also recommended by the local Council's own short and carefully picked list of links.

If this is not agreed, then it raises the issue of contradicting the previous editors who felt this was within the spirit of the site, and which led to the link being in place for months. We then have a question of inconsistency and removing useful content from users.

Assuring you of my best intentions for my fellow users. --Ewik 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holder of Richmondshire

(Referred to under "See also"). Who or what is this? No reference to Richmondshire in the article referred to (Savoy Palace) as far as I can see. DavidCh0 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention under Richmondshire either - this artice; just refers to the modern local government division. There was a medieval "Liberty of Richmondshire", and the Savoy Palace article mentions Henry VII, but not as a "holder". I intend to remove this paragraph unless anyone can make sense of it. DavidCh0 (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. DavidCh0 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major centre

Some text and a reference has been removed from the article by 81.109.20.122 (talk · contribs) with the following edit summaries:

London Plan reference removed. An utter waste of space, coupled with three non-specific citations, adding nothing to the article's quality. You've got to do better than that, MRSC
as the entry contributes nothing constructive, pertrinent or meritorious to the article.
MRSC's edit re London Plan removed, as it applies to the article for the London borough, not this separate artcle for the town, and it is therefore an erroneous entry

Aside from the objections of I don't like it, the last edit summary claims that it is because the addition relates to the whole of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. This not so, the major centres are part of the London Town Centre Network in the London Plan: "major centres (35) characteristic of inner London, such as Brixton, Putney or Camden, are also important shopping and service centres, often with a borough-wide catchment. They are typically smaller in scale and closer together than those in the Metropolitan category. Their attractiveness for retailing is derived from a mix of both comparison and convenience shopping. Some Major centres, which have developed sizeable catchment areas, also have some leisure and entertainment functions. Major centres normally have over 50,000 square metres of retail floorspace". [3]

The edit summaries do not therefore give any explanation as to why the text and reference is being removed. MRSC (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no valid objection is raised I will restore the text. MRSC (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name again

The town's full name is Richmond upon Thames, so the article ought to have that name. For some reason that name is currently redirected to London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Many articles have a link to "Richmond upon Thames", and all of those as far as I have been through them, are referring to the town of Richmond upon Thames, not the borough. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I continued my research (with particular thanks to the archives of The Times). I find that Richmond upon Thames begins to appear in articles only from the creation of the current borough. The more usual forms for describing the town, from the nineteenth to the twentieth centuries, was either Richmond alone (or Richmond, Surrey) or more formally Richmond-on-Thames. "Richmond-on-Thames" would appear to be the town's full name then, and the best title for the article. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments under Renaming above. The consensus is that the town is Richmond and the London Borough is Richmond upon Thames (without hyphens). DavidCh0 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Star and Garter Home

Why "former Royal Star and Garter home"? It's still there, and they've pulled out of moving to Hampton Court Zir (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The home has now been sold and has been converted into apartments. Headhitter (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

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

Now beefed up the Economy section and added in a section on 'Leisure Activities'.--86.176.42.147 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: That last update was by me - I forgot to log in first.--Annarack 10:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annadamski (talk • contribs)

I've moved the road information to the Transport section - it was previously in the geography section, which was a little odd. I think the War Memorial section deserves a better picture, although I don't have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E015:1800:A9B7:4F8F:A423:1F06 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Places of worship

The article now includes links to Wikipedia entries for all the places of worship that I'm aware of in the town of Richmond; I've created Wikipedia entries for those that were previously missing. Headhitter (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops: still one missing – Richmond Green United Reformed Church. Another editor is currently working on it. Headhitter (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That church has now closed. Headhitter (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants and cafes

The bullet-pointed list of current restaurants and cafes is extensive and not easy to maintain, as changes are frequent. There are not similar lists in, for instance, the entries for Covent Garden and Soho. I propose that it be deleted; it could be more appropriately placed in an online travel guide such as Wikitravel. Headhitter (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more appropriately, Wikivoyage. Headhitter (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, voy:London/Richmond-Kew might be an appropriate location. --Danapit (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Have also moved, to Wikivoyage, listings of individual pubs and bars and boutique shops. Headhitter (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"affluence"/"wealthy"

Mentioned three times in the introduction and not at all in the article. MRSC (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, MRSC. I'd be inclined to remove all the mentions. Headhitter (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can mention the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 in the demography section. Some details here. [4] The situation in the area is interesting with pockets of deprivation, as in much of London which is why blanket "affluent" statements mask complexity. MRSC (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I much prefer "one of the least deprived areas" to "affluent", though of course the statement refers to the borough as a whole rather than to Richmond town itself. Well done, BTW, for identifying that the town twinning section was misplaced. Headhitter (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to say that three mentions of affluence was excessive, but it is a notable point, so restored once, with references in the final paragraph of the intro. Note that Richmond is regularly in the news for a reasons related to wealth, affluence, low poverty, high life expectancy, house prices etc. This point shouldn't be laboured, but it is legitimate to note it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.216.208 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, but that statement makes simply no sense. Richmond is noted for having exceptionally low levels of deprivation. It is notably affluent. As a related aside, it has often been in the news recently for two reasons i) the highest (or if you take into account the City of London, second highest) number of residents in the country who report they are happy with where they live ii) the longest life expectancy in the country. Why is it not reasonable to state the area is affluent? Could you please back up your statement with evidence? The material that has been deleted is referenced. No good reason has been given for the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.47.80 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to receive any response to the above. Happy to debate before making changes - I'm a good wikipeadia citizen - but if there is no engagement with my points I will reinstate referenced material in an appropriate manner. I do not see how the assertions above can be sustained when material like the following is in the public domain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561186/The-50-richest-areas.html). This is a highly significant fact about Richmond, and certainly more relevant than much of the other material in the intro. If I do reinstate please be sure to engage in a reasonable response in turn via the talk page before deleting or altering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.47.80 (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]