Jump to content

Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rublamb (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 31 October 2023 (OneClickArchived "Notification" to Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notable Residents

Every time I add Jay Glatfelter to notable residents it gets deleted, I am guessing the reason being that some people think this person is not notable but what is the definition of notable it is all a matter of opinion. Here is my defense of Jay Glatfelter he is a popular podcaster with about 50,000 listeners in 70 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of notability is at WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The shortcut for being listed in "notable residents" type sections is for an individual to have a wiki article of their own. Jay Glatfelter is redlinked because he doesn't have an article. I've removed him- if there are reliable sources that can be used to confirm notability, go ahead and create the article, then add him as a notable resident. Otherwise it looks like spam, and wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. tedder (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Here is a link to a secondary source material which is reliable it is an article on CNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270794/
There is also an article releated to his work on another wili which is called lostpedia here is the link to that http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jay_and_jack#The_Lost_Podcast_with_Jay_and_Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another wikipedia, especially wikia, is not a reliable source. Please read WP:SPS: "self-published media (...) open wikis (...) are largely not acceptable". The MSNBC article is helpful, but more articles would be helpful to prove notability. He may be notable- but create Jay Glatfelter first, please. That way we don't have to have a discussion about Mr. Glatfelter on a page about Raleigh, North Carolina. FWIW, here's another source that may help you in the creation of the article on him.
Again, please stop adding him. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is a good example of why- discuss it here until a consensus is reached before re-adding. To put it another way, I've suggested a great alternative- which is to create Jay Glatfelter and then add him to the notable residents list here. tedder (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to create an article I only know how to edit one can you help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to! I'll take it to your talk page. tedder (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Buildings

The religious buildings section was just deleted, and I understand the rationale of trying to prevent a big list of every religious building in the city. But I think there is may be an easy way to limit the list to only the most important: what if we agreed that only religious buildings sufficiently notable to warrant their own article should be included? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph about population

As I mentioned before, I think the second paragraph regarding population needs to be moved/deleted. This is an article about Raleigh - the capital city, not an article about RTP. This just doesn't belong in the second paragraph. Thoughts on a better way to introduce the city? Jmturner (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the guidelines for US cities, we should have this info:
  • Name of city and location in state (check)
  • City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.) (check)
  • Metro population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.) (check--more than enough--the rest of the 2nd paragraph should be moved later in the article)
  • Brief note about historical roots/founding (missing)
  • Nicknames, if notable (check--city of oaks)
  • Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc...) (missing, should be a sentence or two)
  • Notable unique characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it (anything that would make the lead less boring?)
I agree that the RTP info should be moved later in the article. I don't think it should be deleted; I think it's relevant to putting the city in context. But it's undue weight in the lead. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POPULATION AGAIN

Raleigh, population is stills way off by some bias people who live in or near Raleigh, the urban population is wrong, it has the Metro Population numbers and the Metro has the (CSA) Population numbers (it should be change). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the census department numbers, and can fix this, please do. --Jayron32 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The population figures are already sourced to the most recent U.S. Census estimates. The IP asking this question is the same person who has already been blocked (more than once) for using multiple IPs to change population estimates in several NC city articles. APK say that you love me 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This wrong information put about Raleigh Metro by AgnosticPreachersKid should be STOP1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 2008 Census Numbers Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas 67.197.178.141 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


After looking at recent edits, I'm inclined to think of this more as a content dispute rather than vandalism. Involved editors should be cautioned against violating the three-revert-rule. The key issue appears to be whether the metro population figure should reflect the "Combined Statistical Area" or "Metropolitan Statistical Area" census figures. I took a look at a few of other cities that had both CSA and MSA figures in the census data. Of these New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles display MSA data as their Metro population. LA goes further and uses the infobox's population_blank1 and population_blank1_title parameters to display the CSA data under the label "CSA". On the other hand, Chicago and Houston appear to display the CSA figure under the metro population label, as Raleigh currently does. (Note that in some of these cases, I was not able to match exact figures with the source.)
Personally, I would think that the Metro population should reflect what the Census Bureau calls "Metro", and we should adapt the LA technique of displaying the "CSA", but this inconsistency issue probably needs to be resolved at the project level, perhaps via a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a content dispute. It's a long-term disruptive user that has caused problems on this article and Charlotte since last spring. He has used multiple IPs - too many to list here - and refuses to accept the census figures that are clearly cited in the opening paragraphs. APK say that you love me 07:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information that was request by me from Jayron32 * http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2008-annual.html, I only want to see the right information in the right ares as most cities has it. I also looked at the other large cities in North Carolina and Atlanta If it said Metro Population it had the Metro Population and not the (CSA) Population, maybe the cites especially the larger ones should have a place for the (CSA) Population. Thank You 67.197.178.141 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about. The Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area is listed as a population of 1,088,765 in the document you link, and the Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC Combined Statistical Area is listed as a population of 1,690,557, which is the exact numbers quoted in the article. I have no idea why you are claiming the numbers are wrong, since the numbers exactly match the numbers in the documents you provided... --Jayron32 19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of the CSA as the metropolitan area figure is misleading as this as multiple urban cores. Typically, the MSA is what should be used for the metropolitan area. A CSA just means that two adjacent metropolitan areas share suburbs. In this case, Durham is a metropolitan area in its own right (i.e. Durham is not a technically a suburb of Raleigh) and using the CSA figure gives a figure that is too large. Also, the urban area figure is incorrect. The correct figure is here. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I am still not seeing the problem. The text in the article says "The Research Triangle region encompasses the U.S. Census Bureau's Combined Statistical Area (CSA) of Raleigh-Durham-Cary in the central Piedmont region of North Carolina. As of July 1, 2008 the estimated population of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary CSA was 1,690,557,[2] while the Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was estimated at 1,088,765,[2] making it the nation's fastest growing metropolitan area.[7][8]" Why are we trying to rewrite this as something different. This seems perfectly unambiguous to me. --Jayron32 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figures in the infobox are the ones that are incorrect (urban) and misleading (metro). --Polaron | Talk 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being a bit lazy and ask for the shouting at me to be at a minimum, but is this argument primarily about the definition between Raleigh-Cary and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. Because while we in Raleigh typically think of the complete area (metro?) being the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill while Cary is just a part of Raleigh it seems that the federal government think of Raleigh-Cary being a metro area... so that settles it, right? Also, why the extreme caring... is there reason to believe in insidious forces, or is this just people being stubborn? --Out of Phase User (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting in my two cents now, because I looked at the US Census. I want to say this with the points that I am NOT sure of who is taking what position, and I am certainly NOT a sock puppet. As far as I can tell, there is very little notion at the US census bureau of an urban area. There is certainly a sense of a metro area, which is the Raleigh-Cary area at 1,088,765 (7/1/2008) (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/cb09-45table1.xls). I'm NOT going to edit the main page with respect to this issue, because I am staying disinterested. --Out of Phase User (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the terms "metro" and "urban" are the wrong terms, then one can just fix them. I used the
| population_blank1_title =
| population_blank1 =
arguements in the {{Infobox settlement}} template to change the headers to the proper ones. This should now be perfectly unambiguous, and you can stop fighting over the ill-defined "urban" and "metro" definitions, since the two figures in the infobox now exactly match the terms in the census data. Problem solved. Anyone else is free to take this solution to fix other articles, but don't edit war over it... --Jayron32 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not really ill-defined. Metro area = MSA and urban area is just based on population density (Raleigh's urban area population is about 680,000). It's just that some people seem to think that the CSA is a metro area figure. As long as CSA and metro area are not used interchangeably, then there should be no problem. --Polaron | Talk 02:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Comment: We're almost at the 2010 Census. --Triadian (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Historical Populations table contain a link to census data for Fayette County, Kentucky? FVman 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvman (talk • contribs)

Raleigh Map.

I have a new one at [1].

It's my first draft - I'm not liking the Durham County borders(inasmuch as I think they should go deeper out of Wake, but I need to do more research) and I think I'll do a bit of shading for the city limits. What do I need to do to submit my final image? I don't seem to have any edit tabs on this page. SpaghettiHat (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with background shading: [2] SpaghettiHat (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these guidelines on donating copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, especially the section on donating photographs. Even though this is a map and not a photo, the same guidelines and steps apply. If you have trouble, you can drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated residents list

OK. The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things. But the thing right now is the awful bloated "residents" list. There are hundreds of people on the list, and almost NONE are referenced. Things that NEED to be done are:

  • Split off the list into a seperate "people from Raleigh, NC" article
  • Retain a small list of the 10-20 MOST influential/famous/important Raleigh natives/residents here
  • Insure that every item on the list in this article is referenced to a reliable source.

Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former section on "Raleigh Specific Publications" unfairly limited this article, as it excluded publications without offices in Raleigh but nonetheless cover Raleigh events and news and distribute there, such as Q-Notes an LGBT newspaper and the alternative weekly Independent Weekly. I've changed it to "Print Publications" and included the two papers mentioned above. --User:Matthillnc 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy this argument. If you include every print media that covers events in Raleigh then you have to include papers in Greensboro, Fayetteville, Chapel Hill, Pittsboro, etc. Digitalican (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QNotes is the only LGBT print news medium covering LGBT news and events in Raleigh. Buy the argument. Matt (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, I don't care what it covers, it's not a local paper (Do you have a local bureau? No. I didn't think so.) There are many special purpose periodicals that cover events in Raleigh. That, in itself, is not sufficient to call them a local paper. And...I'll say it simply -- since you're the editor of Q-Notes this smacks of advertising and egregious self-promotion. Digitalican (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm adding back the Independent Weekly. It does more than just "cover events" in Raleigh. It actively writes about issues relevant to Raleigh. Also, they do have a Raleigh office listed on their web site. wfaulk (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Shouldn't there be a section about the demographics with religious beliefs, race, etc. on the Raleigh page? Just wondering. Nctennishco12 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Anyone have a source on racial/economic/religious/etc demographics for Raleigh? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2nd climate graph

I removed the small climate graph on the left side because: (1) It really had no information which wasn't already in the more colorful, easier to read graph. (2) It enabled the picture to be enlarged improving the aesthetics of the article. I also plan on working on the monstrosity which is the history section. If anyone has objections... let me know on my talk page... VictorianMutant (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________

Just some minor edits for clarity...

Hey all. I did some very minor editing on the page this morning, mainly for clarity and appearance. I'm not a WIKI edit king/guru or anything, just hate seeing sentence fragments and grammatical errors. I didn't want to be considered a "vandal" and banned from the page for making a few logical grammatical/spelling edits.

First, under the shopping section, I just edited a typo (choices, instead of "chooses." Second, I edited a sentence about the recent tornado to make it read slightly better...just a slight grammatical error was changed/corrected. Third, there was missing info/fragmented info about the RBC tower. It was all over the place (missing info, TOO much info that was also fragmented). Maybe someone was in the process of editing and wasn't finished? Either way, I really don't think the firm that created the building and something regarding a slight .8 degree incline of the land that the building sits on was relevant. I just capped it at 34 floors. I didn't touch the meter/feet info.

Just a few thoughts....

I was born in this city. I've lived here for 38 of my 42 years (college years spent in another city). I've NEVER heard any section of town called UPTOWN. That's a term for Charlotte's downtown that only people from Charlotte use...why, I don't know...it's just a downtown like any other city (with some very tall buildings). For some reason, there is an UPTOWN section in the article about Raleigh areas/quadrants/neighborhoods. In the article section, it even states that this term is not used. So why even mention it at all? And I can tell you for a fact that the intersection of Glenwood and Creedmoor is certainly NOT in North Raleigh; it's barely outside the inner beltline and considered part of West Raleigh. The northern reaches of Creedmoor Road and environs (Leesville Rd., North Hills Drive, Leadmine Rd.) ARE considered North Raleigh. Intersection of Creedmoor and Glenwood?...NOT. Even the Midtown designation is just a marketing scheme (which you've correctly noted) used mainly by the newspaper and local developers within the last few years...hardly anyone calls "Midtown" Midtown...it's just...Crabtree Valley...or North Hills...or Millbrook. Natives such as myself, laugh at these silly titles. These designations for city areas are a recent thing and only reflects the marketing intentions of certain developers and the newspapers that take advertising dollars from them. (It's also copying Charlotte's rather vain city area designation scheme...)

In short, why not just merge "Midtown" and the mythic, un-used "Uptown?"

Enough said...THAT said, please don't scream at me. I'm just offering suggestions and trying to make my hometown's wiki page logical and correct...and the best it can be.

Thanks.

Forgot...it's June 27, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.198.192 (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's RAH-lee, NOT RAW-lee

I was born and raised here. I've lived here my entire life. It's not pronounced RAW-lee, it's RAH-lee, or ROLLY...rhymes with TROLLY. Or the name POLLY. The dog breed, COLLIE. Or FOLLY.

Actual natives and long-time residents pronounce it correctly as RAH-lee. Some transplants from Northern states/cities may phonetically pronounce it RAW-lee, or more accurately, RUA-lee. Some older residents with thicker Southern accents may pronounce it RAW-leh. But it's never been pronounced by most natives as anything other than RAH-lee.

So yeah, I changed the pronunciation section to reflect the correct pronunciation.

Sorry to sound snarky but editors really should consult with or take the advice of the people who are actually from the cities they are writing about on Wikipedia.

Thanks.

June 28, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.198.192 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have been concerned about the IPA and respelling. I've been trying to find a good reliable source for RAH-lee. Does anyone have access to the source cited? If so, please check that it really applies to the City of Raleigh. Other Raleighs may actually be pronounced RAW-lee. But I've only known of it as RAH-lee as well. Can someone check that source and/or find another one? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the distinction presumes one pronounces "raw" and "rah" differently. Many English speakers do not, which is why IPA exists. --Jayron32 05:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. :) I guess I should have written out my question in IPA instead. lol. I know that it may just be regional variations in how things are pronounced. Two people looking at RAH could say that differently, I suppose. I agree that the respelling should match the IPA, but really think that it detracts from the article to have /ˈrɔːli/ but not /ˈrɑːli/. And, really, I know that the point is somewhat moot until someone can find a reliable source for /ˈrɑːli/. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, according to this map, the local dialect of english DOES make the distinction, so it is important that we get it right. I am just not fully convinced that the vowel is really ɑː; especially because my native dialect does merge the sound, I have a hard time making the distinction myself. But the point is, we have a reliable reference for ɔː, and until we have a reliable reference otherwise, we need to avoid the "because I know so" argument for making the change. --Jayron32 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population number is impossible?

I see that the populations issue has been raised several times, but the numbers in the article are still strange. I was in the city about 9 years ago and judging from photos it did not change incredibly since than. So how is it, that the population between 2000 and 2010 rose by nearly 50% (!) ?

Did they incorporated other towns in the county (why is that not mentioned in the article?) ? Otherwise there would have to be a huge buildup of new quarters in the city including of course 10s of thousands of additional jobs for the *massive* influx of people.

Could someone clarify the confusing numbers?

87.177.248.26 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


__________________

What a difference 9 years makes. Yes, it is true. The population number just shy of 404,000 is correct according to the latest US Census. The population has gone up by almost 50% within the last 10 years. No other towns were incorporated, no suburbs annexed (other than a few small districts that weren't really independent in the first place). Your "massive" influx of people is a direct result of just that: a massive influx of people from other states. The Triangle area as a whole now has a population nearing 2 million; Durham, Cary and Chapel Hill (and it's suburbs) have also increased exponentially in population. This was mainly a result of dozens of national news articles and magazine articles proclaiming the area at the top of it's "best of" lists (Forbes, Money, etc.) There was also a major job boom (which has leveled off considerably) during the past decade or two. Currently, job creation is NOT matching the influx of growth and population, and as a result the area has an only slightly lower unemployment rate than the state as a whole.

So, don't be confused. Lots of things, including the population, have changed since you left.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Religion demographics

I feel that it is important to include a section of religious demographics in the article.. especially since Raleigh is the seat of many religious insitutions. Raleigh is the seat for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, the North Carolina Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, etc. Not to mention the significant Jewish population and prominant evangelical, A.M.E. and baptist populations. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find a reliable source for such information, feel free to cite that source and add the information to the article. --Jayron32 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for that! I think uniformity within a particular category of articles makes the Encyclopedia much more user friendly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

There is a move request concerning a redirect to this page at Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation) Calidum Talk To Me 12:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Raleigh eastern border and Sacred Heart Cathedral

West Raleigh section mentions Sacred Heart Cathedral. Subjective choices for an eastern border of West Raleigh aside, one block from the Capitol building is downtown. An argument could be made for the original grid border West Street, or the better choice of St. Mary's Street, but I see no reason to include the church in West Raleigh section. --Dexmadden (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Raleigh, North Carolina

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Raleigh, North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh, North Carolina → Raleigh – The city name is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and already redirects here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures

I'm sorry, but the pictures on this page by Dennis Ludlow (both of college-age women) seem a little creepy. Does anyone else agree? Or could they be replaced with other pictures of the places being photoraphed? Ramendoctor (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the one in the recreation section because the venue was not mentioned in the text, and the second one because there was already an image of the same university above it. The images are of harmless public activity, but as you mention, seem unsavory when you consider they're by the same author and other options are available. The woman in the university picture looked particularly unwilling to be photographed, and there's no good reason why she should be front and center in a photograph of an entire courtyard. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raleigh,_North_Carolina&oldid=1182753818"