Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raleigh, North Carolina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities: Regional capitals

	Cities portal 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
	This article is supported by the project's regional capital taskforce.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: North Carolina Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Top-importance).

Template:Vital article

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512014502/http://www.mindspring.com/%7enixnox/history2.html to http://www.mindspring.com/~nixnox/history2.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rainfall.weatherdb.com/l/181/Raleigh-North-Carolina
Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20120213174916/http://www.nhpresbytery.org/Pages/contact.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20140707134538/http://www.nhpresbytery.org/Pages/contact.html on http://www.nhpresbytery.org/Pages/contact.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rtp.org/main/
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.ncdps.gov/index2.cfm?a=000003,002240,002371,002383,002281

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]

Oppose - I don't think this meets the bar for primary topic, as this WP:USPLACE may only be highly recognizable within that region, whereas globally, Sir Walter Raleigh is more recognizable and has at least as many views. See note 3 here for a comparable example involving "Washington". The current primary redirect may be a bit dubious and could do with some discussion, but its less drastic than moving the article itself. -- Netoholic @ 13:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:USPLACE. The (oft-debated) convention is to keep the extra disambiguation in the case of American cities. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). 162 etc. (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it not established that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it does not meet any exception to WP:USPLACE. - Donald Albury 15:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Raleigh already redirects here and has done so since 2012, there was a discussion at Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation)#Requested move in 2014 which established it was the primary topic. Raleigh is even given as an example at WP:NWFCTM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guidance at WP:USPLACE in the "Major cities" section has done us well for years and exceptions are generally not needed. Let me quote the exact wording for all to read, so it is not confusing. "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook[2] as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named "City" unless they are not the primary topic for that name. [3] In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above.[4]. Raleigh is not one of the cities listed in the AP Style book for not including the state name, and for that reason, we include it in our title. --Jayron 32 15:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jayron32 and others. And per Netoholic, I think making Raleigh the dab page or redirecting to the dab page potentially makes sense but is out of scope for this discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notwithstanding the guidance at WP:USPLACE and the explanation on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Remove state from US placenames, I also prefer to move Raleigh (disambiguation) to Raleigh. There should be no primary topic in terms of long-term significance between the American city Raleigh and the English explorer and statesman Raleigh. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned USPLACE says its common usage even though I personally think its a good idea unless the DAB is moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, was surprised to learn this is the primary topic for Raleigh. I would have said Walter Raleigh was about as famous and pageviews back me up. The dab page should be moved to the base name with the two top Raleighs at the top. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and also very surprised to find that Raleigh (disambiguation) isn't at the base line. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and move Raleigh (disambiguation) to Raleigh. No clear primary topic, with the cycle manufacturer and the explorer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AP style. Also agree that the city's namesake rivals the shortened title for primary topic attention.-Indy beetle (talk) 09:09, 2 September 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]