Talk:Richmond#Format of page

Norman Conquest in 1071? This should either read "...in 1071 as a result of the Norman conquest", if it means that Richmond was named in 1071, or "Norman Conquest of 1066" if it means the date of the conquest.

Should these perhaps be sorted by country? There are quite a few places and it would seem better organized if the ones in each country were grouped together --- BRG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2002 (UTC)

:This has been done. Kevyn 00:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone interested to add people too: George Richmond etc. --Media lib 05:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

:Done. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Cayley was born in Richmond, Surrey. This site is not on the list. --xJaM 2 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

:That is Richmond upon Thames - I've updated his page. MRSC 2 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

Perhaps it should automatically go to Richmond Virginia, since that is probably the largest and most popular of these places. Note: I'm NPOV on this, I'm not from Richmond Virginia, or even anywhere near there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:Within the US, this would make sense. However, I do recall that British people think of THEIR Richmond when they hear the name, and same for Australians. Since it seems so dependent on geography, I think keeping it as a disambig. page would make sense. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the US and was trying to get to richmond bc but I guess I see your point TotallyTempo 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Google test Richmond, and then Richmond, VA means ~25% of all Richmond web pages share Virginia. Richmond is a global city ala Atlanta... --M a s 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Don't think so. Never heard of it, but I've heard of Atlanta. 129.31.72.52 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Wow I'm sorry 129. I should've been a little more clear. I shoulda linked to global city. Richmond, VIRGINIA is on the list from '99, no other Richmond's are. --M a s 12:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been some contradictory edits here recently, so I think we need to develop a consensus:

1. I (accidentally editing anonymously) promoted the orginal Richmond to the top of the article, because I felt the 'lede' gave an incorrect impression that the name originated with the Richmond near London.
2. DaveK@BTC reverted this change with the comment Previous version more correct. Richmond, Yorkshire inspired name of Richmond, Surrey (as was) but Richmond, Surrey inspired names worldwide, which statement is true, but isn't the impression the article previously gave.
3. I thought that the best way to deal with this was with more description, so I tried to put DaveK's words into context in the lede.
4. Raime reverted this change with the comment rv; per WP:MOSDAB, the purpose of a dab page is to allow readers to easily access articles; a detailed history of the term "Richmond" does not assist in this process.

Clearly DaveK and Raime have quite different views as to what this page should say. Having read WP:MOSDAB, I tend to agree with Raime. But the problem is that the article already fell between two stools by trying to tell the story of the name, and doing a not very good job. And Raime's reversion has put it back to that state. And that is no benefit.

So either we go with WP:MOSDAB and turn this page into a vanilla dab page with no attempt to tell any story about the name. Or we turn it into an article about the name. What do you think:

• Vanilla dab page - because that is what WP:MOSDAB says - Starbois (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Considering the purpose for which the page will be used (to help a user to decide which page they really want), I believe that it is reasonable to have a small amount of clarifying text (although not paragraphs). The beginning about 'often refers to' is OK - it gives the results that people are most likely after, ie what might be considered the 'most notable' - the biggest and the principle source (although personally I don't know anything about the California entry - maybe it's notable because it's in Calif? ;-) ). We then get into grey areas. I think the citation clarifying Richmond, Surrey (as was) to be the source of most worldwide Richmonds should be moved into the intro and abbreviated. I then think that the Places piece is correct in most part (although does Richmondshire exist still?) and could benefit from a part-sentence clarifying that Richmond Castle was the inspiration for the Royal Palace built in what then became known as Richmond in Surrey. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Vanilla dab page. I agree with Starbois; the remaining "history" of the term "Richmond" is unnecessary. IMO, we don't need to say which Richmond is the largest, which is the oldest, or which has many other Richmonds derived from it. This doesn't help a reader find which Richmond they are looking for, so it should be kept for the individual Richmond articles. To me, ideal pages are Portland and Mobile - as DaveK@BTC stated, some qualifying text can be useful (as outlined at WP:MOSDAB), but stating that Richmond, VA is the largest Richmond seems more like an unnecessary statement testifying to the city's importance and not a clarification for readers. I also think the citation isn't necessary (more suitable for Richmond, London's individual article, IMO), but I wouldn't be opposed to leaving it where it is - at the top of the 'Places' subsection - if it is deemed important to keep. (DaveK@BTC, Richmond, CA is listed because it gets the second most readers out of all the Richmonds, after the VA city - I was equally as surprised as you :-) ) Cheers, Rai•me 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the reduction to vanilla has now been made I am still concerned that we ought to make it clear on this page where many of the world-wide names originated from else we could end up with a number of pages, each with their own expert editors, laying claim (history of this page shows this could easily occur within the UK with claims for both London and Yorkshire having been made in the past). I note that the Portland article, considered ideal, does include reference to origin. DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:But the job of a dab page is to easily allow a reader to get to the page he/she was looking for; adding information and/or references about which Richmond is the oldest doesn't help in that process. As I stated above, I would not opposed to replacing the statement at the header of the Places subsection, but I still think such information it is better served in an article. Cheers, Rai•me 19:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was recently a disagreement over whether there are topics listed here that are sought by enough readers to warrant promoting to the top of the page. I'm providing the following data to help decide that. This shows the number of times each link on the dab page was followed in March, according to the clickstream dataset.

– Uanfala (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks {{U|Uanfala}}. Following on from my talk page (the discussion is more appropriate here). I'm not absolutely opposed to some sort of placement of "most common uses" at the top -- however, as suggested by the data Uanfala posted, the selection in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond&type=revision&diff=1028538313&oldid=1026635689 the anon IP edit] mentioned by {{u|Don.s.okeefe}} seems arbitrary and doesn't match actual usage. I had used the [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&range=this-year&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond Massviews Analysis] (top 20 pages shown below) when I reverted. Clickstream is actually more useful for this purpose, but I'm not aware of an easy to use interface for that dataset, so I opted for next best but readily accessible. In terms of overall pageviews (the Massviews Analysis), Richmond, VA is far and away the most visited with a precipitous dropoff to the next most visited, Richmond Football Club and Richmond, London. Richmond BC is #6 and London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is 11. There seemed no reason to include those two as "most common" over several others. The clickview data (which shows which links on the disambiguation readers clicked on) also shows Richmod, VA on top with wide gap after (although not as precipitous as the massviews analysis).

:

:I could perhaps see mentioning Richmond,_VA, Richmond,_London, Richmond, North_Yorkshire, and Richmond, BC at the top, but even so there are not yet clear standard for where to draw the line. I'm not sure a "most commonly" is really necessary. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

::Interesting to see this data. It seems that many of the popular Richmond-related entries are related to Richmond, London (in which Richmond-upon-Thames and Richmond Palace, among others, are located). It seems likely that a fair number of people searching for Richmond will be looking for Richmond, London (which before I erroneously thought would be covered by Richmond-upon-Thames). I find these "most commonly" sections quite helpful when I search for things. I've looked a bit today around and there are many other place names which follow the same logic, from Charleston and Portland to Washington. This is also common on the Wikipedia.jp for place names like 長浜 (Nagahama) where it is also very useful. Would anyone be opposed if I added Richmond, VA and Richmond, London, or do you think Richmond, VA, Richmond, London, Richmond, North Yorkshire, and Richmond, BC would be preferable? Thank you.

::– don.s.okeefe (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)