Talk:Richmond, British Columbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Top Producer

I've just removed the link to the company "TOP PRODUCER". TP is a pretty small company here in Richmond (around the corner from my current location) and I'm guessing this user is self-promoting (only edit by this user).

Kickstart70 23:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asian Popluation

I made one correction and eliminated one sentence. It was written that "one third" of Richmond's residents were of Asian descent; this is completely inaccurate. According to the 2001 Statistics Canada census, a full 40% of Richmond's residents were of Chinese descent alone. That doesn't include Koreans, Japanese, Southeast Asians, South Asians and Filipinos. All in all, virtually all of Richmond's visible minorities -- 59% of the population, as is correctly noted -- are of Asian descent.

I also removed the latter part of this sentence: "Richmond is a city in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, not a suburb of Vancouver as is often assumed." By most definitions, including Statistics Canada's, Richmond is indeed a suburb. Not wanting to spark an endless debate on semantics, however, I thought it would be pertinent simply to remove the statement altogether.

User:Kilgore Trout 20:44, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver International Airport

I'm not really 100% sure about this, but should there be a blurb about Vancouver International Airport under the "Transportation" heading? Or should it be restricted to roads and highways?

Just thought I'd ask since the airport is a big part of the city and there's no mention of it until the bottom, which is kind of odd considering its significance. --Buchanan-Hermit 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Richmond Third in GVRD?

It seems to me that Richmond (164,345) is actually the fourth largest city in the GVRD, after Vancouver (545,671), Surrey (347,825) and Burnaby(193,954). Or does Vancouver not count as a city of the GVRD? --Andrewjuren 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, fourth sounds more accurate. I'd count Vancouver as a city of the GVRD for sure. Just my feeling about it. I don't think excluding Vancouver would make that much sense. --Buchanan-Hermit 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Duh. "Greater Vancouver" more or less is pretty good evidence that Vancouver is part of Greater Vancouver, doncha think? Whatever gave Andrewjuren the idea that it wasn't?Skookum1 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not write the original article, but whoever did certainly did not include Vancouver in the Demographics section! I've made the change. Andrewjuren 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

As requested, an infobox has been added. All the info is from richmond.ca. --Buchanan-Hermit 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Attn: Dogbreathcanada

You've removed what appear to be good categories and replaced them with a single category specific to Richmond. Why shouldn't this page be in Category:Communities in British Columbia? Kickstart70 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Because, as I understand it, you don't include parent categories. Category:Richmond, British Columbia is in Category:Cities in British Columbia which is in Category:Communities in British Columbia. You start at a base category and go as deep as you can through the subcategories available. --Dogbreathcanada 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I agree with Kickstart70. See similar multi-level categorization at Seattle and New York City. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've re-added it after getting other opinions here and the #wikipedia IRC channel. No vindictiveness or annoyance intended, it just makes more sense this way and provides a better user experience. Kickstart70 03:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's fine. I was just going on an understanding I had about the system. I wasn't claiming it was a correct understanding. *grin*. If this is the correct way to do things, then I have learned something new today. I shall go back to the Coquitlam, British Columbia entry and fix the categories I removed as well. To reflect the correction here. Thanks. --Dogbreathcanada 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable People: Timothy Cuffe

Is he worth mentioning? I've never heard of the guy, which isn't surprising since I don't know much about his area of speciality, but it looks like it fails the Google test since I can only get 270 results for him [1]. Just wanna double-check with you guys -- should he be listed? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• He really doesn't appear notable enough in this case to me. I'm not in his area of speciality either, but having written a few articles for some low-volume magazines doesn't qualify as notable, IMO. Otherwise I'd have my own page as well :) Kickstart70 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll remove him. If anyone has any objections, state your case here, I guess. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Companies listed

Some more attention needs to be paid to the criteria for listing companies in this article (or creation of such criteria?). It doesn't seem to me that Rhino Print Solutions is in any way a notable company. If it, and others, are indeed notable enough for inclusion then they should have their own page created before they make it onto this list. I'm going to remove the companies without their own pages until such time as those pages are created or someone gives a better rationale for their inclusion here. Kickstart70 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think those companies are that big around here in Richmond anyways... Certainly not one of the top employers. Although Sierra Wireless is debatable, since they're borderline notable. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 23:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey 216.90.243.3, that's fine, but then if you know even a little about these companies, which apparently you do, how about creating a stub page for them so that this is not an issue. Blank links for extended periods do no one any good. Kickstart70 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, thats good advice. I will endeavor to make some stub pages for these notable companies in the future!
      • Good to hear :) I've done the one for MacDonald Dettwiler (and fixed the spelling). Kickstart70 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed reference to Japanese relocation

The text had "concentration camps" which is an entirely inappropriate use of that term; there were relocation centres (Bridge River, East Lillooet, New Denver etc.) and there were some outright internment camps (Tashme), but by no stretch of the usual associations of "concentration camps" should that term be used. There were no ovens, death squads and worse, which is the normal association of "concentration camp". Sure, it's fashionable to treat all actions by white Canadians as equivalent to fascism and even Nazism, but if there was ever a set of cry-wolf overused words, that's them.Skookum1 09:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is correct to refer to an interment camp as a concentration camp. That's what the term really means. However, some feel that the connotations that are attached to the word make it problematic. As far as I know, "relocation center" was a euphemistic designation used at the time. I believe that "internment camp" is the preferred general term, and the one used by most historians today. --JGGardiner 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Most historians" today are a bunch of blockheads who invoke politically-charged words out of context, debasing the language and revising history by "tweaking the language". Translation: NewSpeak. Your comment "Actually it is correct to refer to an interment camp as a concentration camp." is completely wild and, if you learned that in school, a good demonstration of why modern schooling has a lot to answer for. "Concentration camp" has obvious meanings in a post-Auschwitz world - slavery, mass killings, torture, human experimentation. The willingness with which the politically-correct establishment has been willing and EAGER to use this term for the relocation centres and internment centres is only evidence of a lack of moral and ethical standards and a complete willingness to twist the facts so as to browbeat "white" history. Unless it can be shown that there were human tasty-bake ovens, torture, firing squads and factories using enslaved internees, the term "concentration camp" is as offensive as the other idle uses of "holocaust" and the like. Just because academic historians have sucked up to the Teat of Untruth doesn't mean the rest of us have to BUY INTO IT. P-Cers might as well be Maoists; in fact, many of them are Maoists....

Fact is, Dr Masajiro Miyazaki's "My Sixty Years in Canada" is very specific in distinguishing "intermment centre" (Tashme) from "relocation centre" (Bridge River, East Lillooet). NOWHERE does he or any other period source use the term "concentration camp". That was invented only during the political hysterias over this in later years, and of course because it makes "us" sound bad the P-Cers want to use it. But the difference between Tashme and Auschwitz should be obvious; if it's not then you're a fool.

Dr Miyazaki was also careful to specify that Bridge River, Minto, East Lillooet and McGillivray Falls were NOT internment centres, nor was Taylor Lake (up near Princeton), which he was also the medic for. They were (in his words and the then-terminology) "relocation centres" and did not have barbed wire or even guards (because of the area's remoteness). No doubt you P.C. types want to take over the documents and change the period uses; what else do revisionists do but "steal language" and twist it to their own end?

I'll be watching this; every time someone puts in "concentration camp" I'm going to change it back to "internment camps and relocation centres", and any p-c justification that's put in will get shot down like the flying gooseshit it actually is. Might even have to find a B'nai Brith statement on the inappropriate use of "concentration camp".

I had a godmother - actually my brother's godmother - who was Malay Dutch and SHE was in a concentration camp run by the Japanese in Indonesia. THAT was a concentration camp. She'd been to Bridge River http://www.cayoosh.net/br_townsite.html. I know if someone told Nellie that Bridge River was a "concentration camp" she would have spit and probably clawed whoever use it (it was a "relocation centre"). She had whipscars on her back - she'd been a child when she got them - and saw people killed daily, and was starved for most of the war.....

I really can't believe the pretentiousness of the politically-correct crowd. So willing to point fingers and call names, so unwilling to understand or learn; so much easier just to learn slogans and march around. Just like a good little Maoist in Cultural Revolution-era China.....Skookum1 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless, that is, the effective expulsion of the bulk of Montreal's anglos can be called "ethnic cleansing", or the current state of affairs in Vancouver be observed to be "colonialism" (as opposed to high-and-holy "multiculturalism"), and the current Islamist uprising over Danish cartoons is "racist hysteria".Skookum1 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1's brother's godmother's political rant aside, by wikipedia's definition of Concentration camp, Canadian internment during the two world wars certainly camps qualify. Because they lack what Skookum calls "human tasty-bake ovens," they don't qualify as Death camps or Extermination Camps - they were instead "intended as places of incarceration and forced labour." Simply because some people misuse the term doesn't change the meaning. Still, because the wikipedia article uses the word internment camp it's probably best to stick with that. I'm going to edit the article to at least show there is disagreement by putting quotes around "relocated" and linking to Japanese_Canadian_internment. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone, including Skookum1's brother's godmother. -- TheMightyQuill 11:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods of Richmond

I was going through the Vancouver neighbourhoods in WikiProject Vancouver and I want to know, how plausible would it be for Richmond to have individual articles about particular neighbourhoods/areas of the city? I know there's not much (perhaps all the neighbourhoods can be in one single article) but there's a fair amount of content there: the Golden Village ("Asian district"), Brighouse/Minoru, Steveston (obviously that already has an article), Riverport/Ironwood, Terra Nova, Burkeville (Sea Island), Hamilton, Garden City, East Cambie, etc. I know it's easy to list off a bunch of neighbourhoods in Richmond (especially easy for a native of this place ;) ), but do you guys think it would be enough to warrant its own article/their own articles? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Richmond for 6 years (up until two months ago), and I never thought of the city in terms of neighbourhoods (except for Steveston). Not in the same way I do with Vancouver. Richmond is too homogenous in age and architecture for it to be delineated in that manner. Vancouver is different in that way. --Dogbreathcanada 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same way too, until I really started giving it some thought. I've been living here for 14 years and even though the neighbourhoods have become more homogenous over time, I do see very distinct characteristics. Hmm. Well, this is an interesting question indeed because the viewpoint varies according to the individual. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to draw attention to prominent neighbourhood, or at least to Steveston. It took me a few minutes to even find a link to Steveston on this page. -- TheMightyQuill 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Education

copied from talk page

I reverted your edit because that blurb was directly from a study done by the Fraser Institute. I added a citation (which probably should have been done from the start). --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have doubts that one year's rankings by the Fraser Institute by city are appropriate or of general interest to the readers of wikipedia. I see no other cities that single out their "best" high school & think can only be contentious to do so. This is not an article about the school but about the city - and a statement about ALL the schools in the city - one that does not depend on one-year's results by one evaluation team - might be more appropriate. Certainly, even if sourced, it should NOT be stated as fact. By reverting ALL of my edit, you have also reverted what clearly were simple improvements. The rankings could belong in an article on the school McRoberts Secondary School(where it is not even mentioned), but not in one on the city. --JimWae 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I understand your point. I'm not sure what action should be taken then, because I wasn't around when that particular blurb (with a previous school) was written. Let's hear what everyone else thinks... --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't seem appropriate to rank Richmond's secondary schools in this article. There is certainly more interesting information that could be added instead. Also, the Fraser Institute is hardly what I would consider an unbiased source! Andrewjuren 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Fraser stdies test the schools' students on subjects and questions that are appropiate for their age. Although it is just a 'snapshot' of the school's current knowledge quality (as mentioned in the brochure), it should be an accurate study, from what I know.

I also want to ask, how can I edit the list of schools in Richmond? I live there; I can fill in the missing schools. GamePlayer623 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Minoru Park

I've created an article about Minoru Park. I'm not sure where it can fit into the main Richmond article, but if you guys can think of something, that'd be awesome. Thanks. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 05:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But, Minoru Park is a part of Richmond, the mere mention of it qualifies for moving the article to the Richmond article. I think that's reasonable.

GamePlayer623 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the amount of information about the park, it might be a better idea for it to have its own article. The Richmond article should talk about the city in general, not have a section for every little structure in the city. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sure..I guess that's reasonable.

GamePlayer623 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

POV statement

As much as I sympathize with this view this statement is still POV: "Sadly, much of the prime agricultural lands in Richmond are being taken out of the Agricultural Land Reserve so they may be paved over to accommodate for strip-malls." Eclecticology 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - but the impact of the ALR is a topic that could be covered in the article --JimWae 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinnaclesideview.jpg

Image:Pinnaclesideview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AberdeenCentreCanadaLine.jpg

Image:AberdeenCentreCanadaLine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed sentence in Demographics

According to new data just released, Richmond has the highest percent of immigrants living in Canada. Information is from the Richmond News. Perhaps the actualy census data could be found by someone. Dgiraffes (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation?

"A rapid, light rail transit line called the Canada Line (formerly the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) Line) is scheduled for completion in late 2009 and will connect Richmond Centre and the airport to downtown Vancouver and points between, and is expected to replace the bus rapid transit 98 B-Line"

Does anyone have any references to confirm that the Canada Line is expected to replace the 98 B-line? I tend to doubt this, since the B-line goes up Granville, and the Canada Line will go up Cambie. There will still be a high demand for the 98 B-Line once the Canada Line is built. Dgiraffes (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed History Section

Added the part about First Nations people in Richmond. This area still needs a lot of work. --Sdesousa (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Richmond, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080519130311/http://www.richmond.ca:80/discover/demographics/hightech.htm to http://www.richmond.ca/discover/demographics/hightech.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926231647/http://www.richmond-news.com/issues07/052107/news/052107nn1.html to http://www.richmond-news.com/issues07/052107/news/052107nn1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009080819/http://vancouvergo.com/Olympics2010/2007/03/30/richmond-is-141-million-richer-thanks-to-2010-olympic-oval/ to http://vancouvergo.com/Olympics2010/2007/03/30/richmond-is-141-million-richer-thanks-to-2010-olympic-oval/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070428093513/http://www.ubcboathouse.com:80/index.htm to http://www.ubcboathouse.com/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100316222740/http://www.bclocalnews.com:80/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/news/86904027.html to http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/news/86904027.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050123045136/http://www.richmond-news.com:80/issues02/082202/news/082202nn2.html to http://www.richmond-news.com/issues02/082202/news/082202nn2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050123034051/http://www.richmond-news.com:80/issues02/082202/news/082202nn8.html to http://www.richmond-news.com/issues02/082202/news/082202nn8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070517060636/http://www.royalcityrecord.com:80/issues03/104203/news/104203nn2.html to http://www.royalcityrecord.com/issues03/104203/news/104203nn2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

New lead image

I have a proposal to change the lead image for this article, with two proposals.

,

Please give me some comment on this. Thank you.

Ueutyi (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The image currently in the infobox shows a panorama of the city, a street, some sky, some businesses, a train line. The photo suggested to replace that photo draws the eye to a huge rail in the middle of the photo. Keep the original photo, which may be of lower resolution but depicts for the reader a more varied view of the city. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the old image more. The tracks in the middle of the photo of the new one detract from the quality quite a bit I think. Even though the old one isn't great, there's more to look at, which I like. Air.light (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Richmond Fire Rescue Department Merger

proposed since 2015. the article has a lot more information now, and the merger is no longer a good idea. it would remove a lot of information there now, and there is too much information to copy into the Richmond article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartColumbia (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

civic numbers

This article apparently does not say what the civic numbers in street addresses (example: the 6911 in “6911 No 3 Rd”) in Richmond mean. I think that this information should be added if possible because articles on some other cities in Canada have this information. Brolin Empey 12:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)

Today I found an official answer: https://www.richmond.ca/plandev/devzoning/address.htm Anyone want to incorporate this information into the article? Brolin Empey 07:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)

@Brolin Empey: Which Canadian city articles include information about this? Air.light (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Air.light: At least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Prairie#Infrastructure under “Street layout”. Brolin Empey 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That is one example, and my opinion below remains unchanged. The explanation there is too granular, trivial, and encyclopedic. The whole street layout section there should be purged. The first four sentences could perhaps stay, but they would need to be copyedited and properly sourced. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is trivial and unencyclopedic. We don't need an explanation on how civic addresses are formulated in a municipality. The furthest any article could go is maybe how a municipality's roadway grid system of roads are laid out, and further maybe truly only if extraordinarily notable beyond any conventional, widespread and therefore widely understood system. But maybe that is just me being cranky at this sleep-deprived hour... Hwy43 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I too think that it is too much information of little importance to the city as a whole, to include here. Air.light (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTMANUAL, explaining how to interpret civic addresses should not be included here and also removed from Grande Prairie#Infrastructure. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)