Talk:Virginia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Virginia's politics

If you would just look at the map of the 2004 presidential election as well as the 2006 mid-term elections, you would see that the suburban counties around Richmond and Virginia Beach are still supportive of the Republicans. If all of the urban and suburban areas were liberal or "moderate to progressive" as you put it, then there would be no way Republicans ever could have won the state in 2004; rural areas are simply not as populated as urban/suburban areas and cannot supply the needed amount of voters to overtake the more populated areas! If you look at this web page [1] (scroll down to the very bottom of the page) it says that 53% of people in suburban areas in the state of Virginia voted for George W. Bush while 46% voted for John Kerry. That’s why we cannot say that all of Virginia's urban/suburban areas are "moderate to progressive".

Also, progressive is not synonymous with liberal. Progressive is a term that falls under today’s definition of political liberalism in the US. People like Theodore Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan were progressives, but by today’s definition they are not like liberals as we think of them today and would most likely not vote for today’s Democrats. Roosevelt had a too aggressive foreign policy and Jennings Bryan was probably too socially conservative to vote Democrat in today’s world. Progressivism is a sub-group of liberalism like fiscal conservatism, economic liberalism, social conservatism, and neoconservatism are all sub-groups of conservatism.

Lastly, why do we need to mention Obama's victory in the states Democratic primary? Not many other US state articles do. Is it really going to matter after the Democratic nominee is finally picked? Why not mention McCain's victory in Virginia as well? What makes Obama more worth mentioning than McCain?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Once we remove your personal original research, there's nothing left in your comment to respond to. Tedickey (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? And what part of my research is OR, the difference between the term Progressive and Liberal, Suburban areas still being majority Republican, or whether Obama's victory in the states Democratic Primary and the exclusion of McCain's victory is necessary? Please be specific Tedickey, there is plenty to respond to.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can only cite 2004 so far, as 2006 showed notable increases in votes for Democratic candidates, accumulating with the election of Webb. Regardless, I'm sure there must be some solid sources out there to provide a full perspective on the present state of Virginia politics. At worse, it may well need to be a topic put on the back burner until the conclusion of the 2008 election year. I'll take a closer look on this a little later today.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Having glanced at the edits closely, I decided that the Obama reference should be removed (and removed it). It really serves no purpose other than some kind of recent news trivia. If its a big deal that a black candidate won in the Democratic primary, then it needs to be contextualized and stated why this is worth mentioning. Its not ground breaking, except that its a presidential election, versus a gubernatorial (Douglas Wilder). I don't believe the classification of Northern Va politics is off, either. Northern Virginia was given a lot of credit for helping boost Webb into the Senate, and Webb is considered or was at least presented as a moderate, not a liberal. The question of "much" versus "rural" to me leans towards better presented as rural. If "much" of Virginia was Republican, then obviously, the Democratic gains in the state would not make much sense at all. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added Obama's win in the Democratic primary, and as most commentators noted, it was regarded as significant in terms of representing changes in the state. His candidacy itself is historic, as he is the first African American man who may have a serious chance at the Presidency, but McCain's is less noteworthy from that respect. In some state articles, people have added such recent information. I agree the Presidential election will be more significant, but it is just not that terrible an event to note. The context is the already cited data that precedes it that notes changes in VA.--Parkwells (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were the presidential election, and Obama won the state versus a Republican candidate, I would see it falling into the contextual environment of the preceding information. However, this was a primary victory that concerned only the Democratic voters in Virginia. If its important for the issue of race, as I noted above, a black Democrat has already been selected by Democratic voters in Virginia for a major race, not to mention by the state in its entirety. And while I agree it is important that Obama has a significant opportunity to win the presidency, there is nothing to be gained by littering the political section of each state noting if he did or didn't win the primary of said state. Now if you want to provide information placing his win over Hillary Clinton as being significant in Virginia, then feel free to. Otherwise, you're noting something important on a national scale (rightfully addressed in its own article) on a state scale. Thats my opinion, at least. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to "moderate to progressive", I simply don't have a good source to cite that either Virginia's urban or suburban areas are "progressive." The article currently cited is about the rural to urban shift, and says that urban and suburban area are now the Democratic "power base." I've change the sentence around this, to say that moderate urban and suburban areas are their base, as there may are also be conservative areas. I also put NoVA in that sentence as one of these areas because it makes more sense going into the exceptions sentence about Charlottesville and such. I would like to get a consensus on this (and also the big first sentence discussion) in the next few weeks, as with the closing of the last PR the article is now ready for a FAC.--Patrick Ѻ 11:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

Parkwells, were did you find the information on Judaism in Virginia. It's great, but I can't find anything from google.--Patrick Ѻ 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some more looking - I remembered seeing the marker for the old congregation in Richmond, and read something recently about it - then found the articles in Jewish Encyclopedia online, so at least have one cite.--Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This synagogue has a historical marker in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Unfortunately, their site has very little history other than its nearly 150 years in age. The marker in Alexandria, that I recall, marked the former location of the synagogue. Don't know if it'll be of interest to you or not.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Maybe sometime I'll do an article on Judaism in VA.--Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The marker can be seen here. It doesn't say too much. Its the first reform synagogue in the DC area, but if we could find the first in VA then that, with the year, could be noted in the section.--Patrick Ѻ 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The first synagogue was built in Richmond - I note they organized the first congregation in 1789; that's probably enough. They built the synagogue soon after.--Parkwells (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Given the age of the one in Alexandria, it was probably formed by German Jewish immigrants.--Parkwells (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Borders

Added borders per discussion: Template_talk:Infobox_U.S._state#Bordering_States —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPMonday (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Tuesday is the big election, and it looks like Obama will win Virginia. Come Wednesday, Partisans may wish to note this in either the politics or History sections or both. First, would that be historic enough to be in the History section? I could possibly see it in the same sentence with Douglas Wilder, such as "in 1989, Virginia elected Wilder, then in 2008, Virginia voted for Obama". The Wilder sentence ties up the civil rights movement nicely, so this could add to that. Second, in politics, should it be in a sentence with Bush, with LBJ, or on its own? We will also have to hold off on posting new congressional delegations. Mark Warner, et al aren't actually official until January, though I could see Warner getting a sentence like "John Warner chose to retire and will be replaced by Mark Warner". The sentence about Secretaries of the Navy will have to go when he's sworn in too.--Patrick «» 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pick out the Republican former congress members.

An alternative, but lacks any Republicans

Also the image in the Politics section is increasingly out of date. With Thema Drake being defeated, it will, after January 6, have three out of office politicians. There is an alternative from a Jim Webb rally, with Webb, Warner, Obama, Kaine, and Wilder all together. Though you can't really see Kaine, and more importantly, there are no Republicans. Thoughts?--Patrick «» 22:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With Obama winning Virginia fairly easily last year, combined with the fact that both US Senators and the Governor are now Democrats, it would appear that Virginia has moved from being a solidly-Republican state to one which is increasingly Democratic. In 1982 the famous journalist Theodore H. White wrote that "Virginia was solidly Republican, as solid as Vermont" in his book "America In Search of Itself". When I read this article it noted that Virginia would be a "swing state" in future elections, but based on demographic changes - especially the increasing dominance of the Washington DC NoVa suburbs with their large numbers of out-of-state residents who tend to be more liberal than rural Virginians - Virginia appears less-likely to be a "swing state" in future elections than a reliably Democratic state. North Carolina also appears to moving in the same direction and for the same reason (demographic changes brought on by massive out-of-state migration from more liberal states to urban areas like Charlotte and Raleigh), although it is some years behind Virginia in making a complete transformation from a reliably-Republican state to a reliably-Democratic one.

A little math error

Spoken language(s): English 94.3%, Spanish 5.8%
100.1% is something else. Someone find the source and change this?
Blindman shady 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pure coincidence that those almost add up. There are many who speak both languages in those percents, and they don't need to add up to 100%.--Patrick «» 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Koppen categories

Rather than Dfa and Cfb as stated, the document shows Cfa and Cfb for the region around Virginia. Dfa is much further to the west, starting around Cleveland. Perhaps a higher-resolution map would alter this, but the source does not support the statement Tedickey (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, actually there is one little square of Dfa shown in VA between latitudes of 38°30' and 39° and longitudes of 79°30' to 80°, part of which falls in VA. (See the note on the source that the resolution is 0.5°lat/lon. However, for the most part, VA is Cfa and Cfb, so it would be okay with me to throw out the part about Dfa/humid continental, since there is so little of that in VA. I still think we should at least mention that Cfa (humid subtropical) and Cfb (maritime temperate) are present in VA. sbrown146 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a single square of Dfb (not Dfa) directly south of the West Virginia panhandle. Google maps shows 38°30'N 79°30'N in Virginia. It appears to be less than 10% of the half-degree area, and is adjacent to the Cfa area on the southeast corner. So I'd replace the comment about Dfa with one about Cfb Tedickey (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm "Oceanic" is misleading. The Oceanic climate topic doesn't bring this out in much detail (since it combines things based on temperature), but "tropical highlands" (from the topic) would be an improvement Tedickey (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cfb is defined as oceanic, even though in this case it does not occur by the ocean. Tropical highlands, however, would imply a position in the geographic tropics. I think subtropical highlands would be most appropriate, since it is surrounded by humid subtropical. sbrown146 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (subtropical highlands) Tedickey (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about the metro

Why do we have a special place in the template for biggest metro area...WHO CARES!... no other state has this... It has the capitol city and largest city and that is all that is needed. I suspect the editor that keeps it there is either a filthy nova (Northern Virginian) or someone who for some reason likes occupied VA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How to address health in the Intro section

The way I had it, "Areas where the state has lagged behind include health care and environmental protection", but this has come under criticism. Virigina's health ranking is midling, and as of this month is 20th nation wide. There's nothing terrible but nothing to be proud of either, so I used that as a form of criticism. When nominated for Feature Article, the article got an "oppose" from one user because of, among other things, "puffery in the lead and elsewhere. Is it from the governor's public relations department?" It's my experience that some form of criticism needs to be included in the the summary in order to appease the other editors. Ultimately, health should be noted in the summary somehow.--Patrick «» 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I returned a tiny reference to health in the lead: The last sentence now reads "Areas where the state has lagged behind include obesity prevention and environmental protection." I think its hard to argue that the state doesn't have an obesity problem, even if it doesn't rank as bad as West Virginia among other states. This is an effort to get the intro to better summarize the whole article. Sections which have little or no inclusion in the lead are: Health, Media, Law and government, and Demographics. While History and Economy have more than one sentence each.--Patrick «» 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Employment Commission?

Would anyone know if there is an article that contains information on the Virginia Employment Commission that provides public computer access to people? I don't know if it needs its own article, but if somebody could redirect that term to the most appropriate spot with a mention of what it's supposed to be that would be helpful. Tyciol (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wingina

I really don't think we need the legendary etymology in the summary. From what I've read on the topic, it is an assumption that the name Wingina has anything to do with the name Virginia. The derivation of the name from either this chief or from Queen Elizabeth is impossible to prove, but I believe the official line from the General Assembly at least has Elizabeth involved in the name, whether its for or by her. The 1916 source currently used in the introduction does mention the chief, but doesn't even make the connection between Wingina and the name Virginia. Here is a different source which while mentioning Wingina, claims Virginia may be derived from the native phrase "Wynganda coia" which it claims means "You wear good clothes." I've been at this for a while, and haven't found good sources to give a definitive answer. Ultimate I don't think historians know where the name came from, and the article should reflect this uncertainty while referring to the official line.--Patrick «» 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree and disagree (isn't that always the case!) The two sources lisited are airtight...a 1916 study of the original documents (what could be more authentic?) and one of the most respected books on US geographic names....do you have it?....the text from this 1945 book is on Google Books) ....But yes, it's very easy these days to be misled, with internet sites repeating "official versions" hundred-fold whether completely true or not. It is clear from p. 22 in the 1945 book and from the original writings from the 1584 expedition sent by Raleigh, that Wingina (as spelled in those writings) was simply the most powerful chief in the entire (Roanoke) region, compared to Powhatan. Just as the first English settlers named a river after Powhatan for years (later changed), they suggested that Wingina be the name of the new land, and Q. Eliz. modified that when she met with Sir Walter Raleigh that fall to "Virginia."

So, no, though more widespread and "catchy", the "Virgin Queen" derivation has no more verifiable provenance than does Wingina, and both should be listed. But as for the "agree" part, I'm not at all sure why a name derivation has to be included in the opening part of the article, though many people seem to insist on putting it there in many articles. Removing it from there, and relegating it simply to the history section makes sense. DLinth (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the expedition wrote about this chief Wingina. The problem I see is that the connection between Wingina and Virginia isn't made by any contemporaries, and not for hundreds or years, and also hasn't been made in more recent books I looked at, and nor is it made in the 1916 you refer to and use to source the claim. No primary source I've seen ever uses "Wingina" as the place name. This 2001 book, this 2008, the 1945 Stewart book, and others, including this primary source, mention the name "Wingandacoa" as the place name and possibly what led Elizabeth to "Virginia". Again, Raleigh wrote that "Wynganda coia" derived not from the chief's name but from "You wear good clothes." May I now suggest that this topic could even be its own section or article.--Patrick «» 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again.....Before I forget, keep up the good work on all of those articles.....The Father White one is a particularly good topic!

Ooops....I meant not the text in Google Books on the 1916 source, but in the 1945 George Stewart source which directly makes the link (below.) You've put your finger on a quandry....it's an event starting and ending in 1584 (no name and no expedition sent yet in 1583, name "Virginia" in writing by 1585.) So with your extensive background I need not reiterate that evidence from 1584, "original materials", would be paramount, scarce, and, possibly, quite dated. The 1916 author and George Stewart in 1945 both had access from and quote the actual original written report of Raleigh's two captains who said that the "country" was "called" after the overarching "king" or head chief, Wingina (as they spelled it in their report.....yes, you've got the version with the ending above that makes it "place of.") What is odd is that, with Stewart's seminal work being republished several times since 1945, including in 2000, no scholar (that I've seen) has directly offered a rebuke to "Wingina" as at least "inspiring" the Queen, so we should definitely give it a co-equal mention in WP! I think it gets left out due to short shrift being given for hundreds of years to Native American chiefs in favor of the royalty instead, and it's a "sexier" (UK usage!) derivation story (the Virgin Queen derivation (or was it the virgin status of the land?))

But it seems incongruous that the captains, freshly back from the first English expedition there, could put "Wingina" in writing as the name of the whole "country" in their report to the Queen, she and Raleigh would review the report, immediately "Virginia" would result, and yet there would be no "link" or "inspiration"??! (which is really all that many word derivations are, in fact....earlier, differently spelled versions.) Perhaps more details, as you say, could be added in this or a different article.....I'm off across the pond to the National Archives in Kew (London) shortly so maybe I can turn up something else?....I'll let you know. Thanks.DLinth (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot-generated content

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Virginia (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 00:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Climate table

I have an issue with the table of temperatures, and I want to lay out my problems with it. In summary it's bulky, uninformative, and better in the subarticle. I would like to hear what any other editors think of it. I'll also try to get a reviewer to look at the article soon. My first issue is the size of the table. The only other section to have tables is the Demographics section, which has historic populations, ethnicity, and religion. There is no table of Universities, or Hospitals, Rivers, economic indexes, or major roads. Why temperature? Why not barometer? Precipitation? Why highs/lows? Why not averages of these? There's a forest of table options, why this one?

That the numbers are in Fahrenheit makes them meaningless to a large portion of humanity, those outside the United States and Belize. To include both Fahrenheit and Celsius swells the size of the table enormously, as can be seen in Climate of Virginia or New Jersey. The cities are not a great choice. They were chosen by this non-scientific spam travel site, "ustravelweather.com," to be identical to tourist centric ones displayed there. This is a Google bombing page that tries to show up whenever someone searches "Virginia weather." These tables were originally mass added to each state article by user Mikevegas40 (contribs) in May 2007, who I have to assume is related to the spam travel site and directing traffic to it. Why not use different cities, or why use cities to begin with? Why not use non-urbanized areas, maybe mountain tops or state parks? Why not take averages from counties or regions that might mitigate the slight bump urban areas add to temperature?

Now Wikipedia articles never have to follow a pattern, and each is an individual snowflake, but I the places where look for guidance suggest that we don't need this table. Few country articles have such tables, they are primarily used for cities (like Washington, D.C.), where they makes sense. I think U.S. state articles should be more modeled more, with obvious exceptions, after country articles rather than cites. Many states are the size of countries with similarly large variations in climate. Look at the length of the climate section in featured articles such as Germany or Cambodia and see that Virginia's is longer. Many of the better U.S. state articles on Wikipedia have removed these Mikevegas40 tables, including California, Minnesota (FA), and Texas (GA). As have Alaska, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Washington State.

What I'm getting at is that I don't fine it very informative. Because of the gradation in climate, this table tells the reader very little. This is the reason articles that cover large areas don't include such tables. Further there is little that is unique about Virginia verses that of the Mid-Atlantic region of seven or eight states. Indeed, the climate classification links the parts of the state to a certain temperature range already, isn't it enough to list that? Primarily this article needs to be a summary of the highlights and particularities, and should branch off into various articles for additional more detailed information. All of the questions I ask about the data of the table pertain to the one which is already displayed on the subarticle, Climate of Virginia.

If we are to have a table here I have some thoughts. First, could this be made into a visual chart, that would be the image for the section. Louisiana uses a series of charts, and while I don't think this is the way to go, it reaches toward the summary style, and includes metric conversion. Second, perhaps a table could be collapsible, with both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

As a side note, I don't consider the sections to be sacrosanct, and perhaps the power plant information isn't exactly part of the Virginia climate, which is why it might not belong on the Climate of Virginia article, but I think this info does belong on the Virginia article. I worked it into the end of climate, but I could see it being worked into economy or a "transportation and infrastructure" section.--Patrick «» 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The temperature data table for various cities within the state, which is in question here:

Monthly Normal High and Low Temperatures For Various Virginia Cities
City	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Lynchburg	45/24	49/27	58/34	68/43	76/51	83/59	86/64	85/62	78/56	68/44	58/35	48/28
Norfolk	48/32	50/34	58/40	67/48	75/58	83/66	87/71	85/70	79/65	69/53	61/44	52/36
Richmond	45/28	49/30	58/37	69/45	76/55	84/63	88/68	86/67	80/60	69/47	60/38	50/31
Roanoke	45/26	49/29	58/36	68/44	76/52	83/60	88/65	86/63	79/57	69/45	58/37	49/30
[2]

I will jump in here because I am the creator of the table in question. I have reproduced the table in question above.

Firstly, the table is far from bulky. It takes far less space than most tables like it. Unless you are using an extremely LOW resolution, this table is actually rather small. If you would like to ask why temperature, then I will ask why demographics? Why any table at all? You say the information is useless. I 100% fully disagree with your assessment. The general and vague information included in the article about the state's annual extremes, do nothing to give anyone even a rough idea of what the climate may be like. Neither did the article itself. I made some changes to the article to reflect the widely varying climates within the state, that generally change from the mountainous highlands in the west, through the piedmont in the central portions of the state, and on to the coastal plains, lowlands, wetlands/ marshlands to the east. The temperature table helps to show these variances. As I have stated before, the 4 cities that are listed are generally along the same latitude, close to 37 North. The cities are spread from far west in the state, to extreme far east along the Atlantic coast. The climate in these locations is not the same. The temperature table gives a glimpse into these differences. I am open to using other cities in varying locations, but I think the clearest picture can be painted by using cities that are close to being along the same latitude. Another option would be to use cities northwest to southeast within the state, as this will generally yield the same results as it relates to the widely varying climate of the state, which, as has been pointed out falls more along a west to east line than it does north to south.

Regarding Fahrenheit: This article is about a state, which is part of the United States of America. In this country our official measurements are in English, not metric. There is no reason why the table should not be in English measurements. If someone from a country that uses metric wishes to visit Virginia, they should be able to do the conversions themselves. If they cannot, there are numerous free tools online for anyone to do the conversions easily. If I was visiting a country that used metric as their official measurement system, I would not expect them to cater to me, and post information in both English and Metric measurements. When I travel outside of the United States, I do not go around asking for my host country to do conversion work for me, I try my best to do it myself and conform to that particular country's way of doing things. Why should we not treat our visitors any different here. Thus, your claim that the data contained in the table in question is "meaningless" to those outside of the United States, is in fact irrelevant. That said, I am not opposed to using both, and as I have stated to you already in the past, I am perfectly capable and willing to create the table with both measurements. It can be done, and it will not be "bukly" if the table is coded correctly, such as I have done with the current table.

Regarding the sourcing: I have revised the sourcing to reflect where the data was taken from. It was not taken from "ustravelweather.com", as was originally discussed, it was taken from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the data in the document I sourced was compiled by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As stated I did further research, and found that the website "ustravelweather.com" does in fact use this same information. The only difference is the information has been compiled and displayed in a way that is easily read and understood to any average reader, such as I have done here.

I disagree again, with the notion that states entries on wikipedia should be molded after country pages. Countries in general are much larger geographic areas, and are usually broken down into smaller areas, regions, counties, provinces...etc. Information for a country is far more general than that of a specific area belonging to a country, such as a state. States are at times small enough to use one location as a general rule of thumb for such measuremants, and at times are large enough to warrant the usage of data collected in varying locations within it. Virginia is not a small geographic area, and thus falls into the latter category. Furthermore, as you have pointed out, each state's entry page here is unique, and "like a snowflake" yet you wish to make a list of states with which you think the Virginia page should conform. This does not seem logical to me.

Your assessment that the table is "not informative", is a personal opinion of yours, and likely one that is NOT held by many others. My personal opinion is that the information contained in the table is very useful. When I travel within the United States, one of the first places I look to read about my destination is its state's page here, and one of the most important parts of those pages to me is the climate section. Of even grater importance and usefulness to me, is any temperature data table. Why? Because it gives me a general idea of what I can expect weather wise during any given month of the year. If I want more specific information, I can certainly research that myself, but generally, the information in these tables is enough to give me a good idea of how I need to pack for my trip, and dress during my stay at any given location. The information is far from "useless" or "not informative". Furthermore, why force someone to do a further search for what is generally considered to be general, but important information such as average temperature. You say it the main climate article is a summary of "particularities", and the average temperature table is exactly that. It is a summary of monthly averages taken from "particularities" which would be average daily high and nightly low temperatures, for every day, of any given month of the year. I hate to so strongly disagree, but I have some serious issues with your logic as to why this table is not relevant and should be left out of the main climate article. I do not mean to be rude, but during our conversations about this matter, I get the distinct feeling that you wish for the Virginia page, or at least this section of it, to cater to your own personal liking. Some of it does not cater to my personal liking, but I have left it any way because it is useful. The portions I have found that are irrelevant and/or are miscategorized, I have removed.

Regarding using an image: I can certainly create the table offline, and make a .jpg or .png image of the table itself, and upload it as an image file, if that is absolutely necessary. However, I will state here that I do not feel that going that route is not at all necessary.

Regarding Energy: I have removed the portion about what percentage of Virginia's energy comes from coal/nuclear, as it is completely irrelevant to the climate article. I would further add, that the information regarding air quality does also not belong in the Climate section, because it is an environmental factor / issue that is caused by man, and is not part of natural climate. Also, the portion citing the air bad air quality of certain locations within the state is irrelevant to the climate article, and is also not properly sources/ cited, and thus should be removed from the climate article. This should significantly shorten the climate article.

Regards,

KJ

--DCA Palms (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This really doesn't belong here because the table is about cities. My point was not to use cities at all. Imagine if, instead of a demographics table, we had a table with the demographics of those four example cities. While that's very interesting, it doesn't give you the overview you need on the state's article. I don't think I'm expressing a personal opinion when I say this article should be about the forest, not the trees. When you travel you look at the city's article, where this sort of table belongs.

Local measurements, here Fahrenheit, do matter, but per WP:UNITS, conversions should be provided with only a few sports related exceptions. The point about the snowflake is that there are exceptions, but more often you look to the Manual of Style and to what works for others. Now I know there are climate differences between Virginia Beach and Roanoke, but this article is about the state in general. For these reasons, I'm replacing the images and the cities chart with Template:Climate chart with the statewide average highs, lows, and precipitation. I hope this is a compromise we can live with and that it resolves the issue. Also, I am looking for a source to bring the data to 2009, since NOAA charges $300 for what we need. Help with this is appreciated!--Patrick «» 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Demographics to climate, is comparing apples to oranges. It is irrelevant. Each one has zero bearing on the other, and just really can not be compared. If you read my reasoning behind using the 4 cities I did, you would understand what I am saying. Using those 4 cities was the best way to give the broadest view as they are all on the same general latitudinal line, yet spread fairly widely apart longitude wise, thus giving you variations in terrain, elevation, relationship to the ocean...etc. If you still fail to see my point, then we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

At any rate, I had thought about using that chart which you have used, but I had not had the time to get around to researching the data to find a "state wide average". Life gets busy sometimes and I definitely do not have tons of time to "work" on wikipedia. I like that chart better than the table I created honestly, and just had not spent enough time trying to find the proper data to fit it. Thanks for doing that. I think we BOTH agree that the chart now in use is the best example, and does what I had originally intended for the most part, and is more comprehensive in that it displays annual average precipitation. I also like that chart better because of its ability to be displayed in English measurements, while making metric available to those who choose to look at that.

AS for the rest of the climate article, I think that it is where it needs to be with the exception of the last paragraph. The "urban heat island" affect's information should definitely stay, because while it is an environmental factor, it DOES directly affect climate in that it causes temperature change. The rest about the air quality/ pollution needs another look, and I feel should most likely end up removed from the climate section all together because they are environmental factors/ issues, that do not directly affect the climate. Perhaps they could be re introduced into a different section in peices. In specifically, the part about automobile pollution would be much better suited to inclusion in the article about transportation, while the coal power plants pollution affects would be much better suited for inclusion in any future section regarding Virginia's energy production/ consumption. I do not currently have the time to go and tweak the text of the climate article right now, but I should be able to get around to it in the next day or so.

Again, we definitely can agree on the chart that is now currently in use! Thanks again for taking the time I could not, to find the data for it.

KJ

--DCA Palms (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the chart works. On pollution, again, I don't see the sections and subsections as limiting factors for what to put in them, just an organizing tool. The section, Geography, is really a broad topic which is somewhat divided into those three subtopics, including "climate." Some articles divide Flora and Fauna into two sections, and even make "State lands" its own section. Organizationally, I avoid short sections, and try to keep them around three to five paragraphs long, preserving a visual balance over the page. In specific, we need pollution to hold out hope of making this a featured article. Some form of criticism in the summary and in the article itself of the subject is always expected at an FAC, and here the pollution problem fills that expectation.--Patrick «» 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ARIS 2008

New 2008 religion table?
Christian:		76%		Baptist:	27%
	Protestant:	37+%		United Methodist:	8%
	Roman Catholic:	11%		Lutheran:	2%
	Other Christian:	65%		Presbyterian:	?%
Judaism:		?%		Episcopal:	?%
Islam:		?%		Pentecostal:	?%
Other religions:		4%		Congregational:	?%
Non-religious:		15%		Other/general:	?%

Smaller table?
Christian		76%
	Baptist	27%
	Roman Catholic	11%
	Methodist	8%
	Lutheran	2%
	Other Christian	28%
Other religions		4%
Non-religious		15%

A new religious study is available, and I'm debating using its data. The data currently used is from the 2001 version of this study. However, as it is currently released, it is not as detailed as the 2001 data. You can see what the table would look like here, and you'll see what I mean. Judaism, Islam, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Pentecostal, and Congregational are missing from the data. I emailed the institute, and got a response that full data would be released in two years, or I could pay at least $250. So do we use eight year old info that gives more detail (and will be 10 years old before it may be updated) or do we use one year old data that makes fewer distinctions between faiths?--Patrick «» 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To make it clearer, on the left now is what numbers we do have.--Patrick «» 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an implemented this smaller style table. Any thoughts? I kept Islam and Judaism in it, underneath Other religions, with the reference mentioning both 2008 and 2001 studies.--Patrick «» 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The US "Commonwealth"

The other uses tag states "This article is about the U.S. Commonwealth of Virginia." Shouldn't this say "US State of Virginia"? It is a US State which uses the word Commonwealth in its official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archons (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Virginia is the South, not the Mid-Atlantic

Geographically Virginia is South-East. The very center of the United States is Lebanon, Kansas. Use that as a point and make a line which is the central United States. Northern Virginia goes through the line but the majority of Virginia is below it. So geographically Virginia is Southeast and not Mid-Atlantic.

--> By this definition, the "mid atlantic" would be non-existent b/c everything is either above or below that line. In reality, Virginia is considered to be in the South and Mid-Atlantic by different people and each of the articles on those regions specifies this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.93.189 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---> Geographically, Virginia is INDEED Mid-Atlantic. The geographic term of mid-Atlantic refers to being at the middle of the Atlantic Seabord not the middle of the United States. That's why Virginia is not called "mid-America". So Virginia is not Southeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite 169.253.4.21's poor argument (positive assertion without any support), he is indeed correct geographically speaking since people tend confuse the historical South (i.e, CSA) with the geographic South. Nonetheless, as Parkwells pointed out, the official US Census Bureau definition says that Virginia is in the South.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

JUst use the US Census Bureau definition, which is that VA is in the South.--Parkwells (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Textual references

I've been amping up edits to this article this week in a third push for Featured Article status. One big project I've yet to tackle lies at the bottom. Last time, we failed FAC largely because of a perceived lack of books referenced. I've been considering breaking the books out of the current setup, and moving any that are used more than once to a "Bibliography" section or similar, then using only the Last-Name-Page-Number style in the citation. Is this a good idea? A step forward? My instinct says it's a step back to an older, uglier, less user friendly Wikipedia. But I don't want to fail this again.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I count seven books that are used more than once. Would putting them above the current references make it look like we have a lot or a little number of books?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And an example of this system might be Boston, Bratislava, or Australia.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The FA status article for the state of Minnesota, which presumably could serve as an FA template for other U.S. State pages, does not include a bibliography section, so I personally do not think necessary to include. Also, thanks for the good job with all the hard work cleaning up and improving this page. Arbogastlw (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I can't seem to find a good example of what I mean, so that's probably a bad sign. If we did Harvard style for only those seven that are used more than once, it might look weird, like why these seven. Still, if there's a way to highlight the 27 or so books we use, that would help. Anyways, I was going to let the article cool for a week or so before starting to notify old users of it going on FAC again. So if there are any ideas or issues, let's hear them.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the metro listed

There is not section about biggest metro area in any other states site, i have a feeling it was added by a Nova... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking

User:Ealdgyth over at the FAC has expressed his thoughts that this page is over linked, both with wikilinks and external links. Since I've previously expressed my preference for more, rather than fewer links, and am not sure what to unlink, perhaps another user could take this up?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a crack at the excessive wikilinking. It didn't seem so bad to me, but there was some unnecessary linking of pretty common terms.--Kubigula (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Looks good. I don't know how I missed adding links to the district and circuit courts of Virginia articles, seems pretty obvious.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct metro area listed as largest?

While everyone can agree that the Washington DC area is much larger than the Norfolk-Va Beach metro area (Hampton Roads), shouldn't the infobox name the largest metro area anchored in the actual state? That would be Hampton Roads. While NOVA on its own has more population than Hampton Roads, it is NOT a standalone metro area, it is a suburban area based around a city that is not in the state. Calling NOVA a metro area at all is misleading. Washington DC is the metro area, and it is not in Virginia.--Conk 9 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that Northern Virginia probably should be listed in the infobox because if it were able to incorporate it would be the largest city. Virginia's laws regarding city incorporation are explained in the article. "Metro area" is for our purposes a very vague term, and I don't think we're intending on equating it with the OMB and Census designation "Metropolitan Statistial Area", but instead to mean just "urbanized area", and indeed the word links to United States metropolitan area, the general term. Further, Northern Virginia is a proud part of the state, and I disagree that it's proximity to Washington, D.C. in any way changes this. So I just don't think we should mention Washington, D.C. in the infobox.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While I make no argument NOVA holds the largest concentration of population in the state, it is still not a metro area. It would not exist without Washington DC. And any of the counties of NOVA are free to change their incorporation to that of a city, they choose not to. State law allows conversions of counties to cities, but doing so means that the new cities have to take on additional responsibilities like more funding for roads. This has been cited as a reason that Fairfax chooses to remain a county rather than becoming, by far, the state's largest city. But, even if Fairfax was to become a city, it would remain a suburb of DC, and not become its own metro area. I won't change the infobox since I believe some way of showing NOVA as the biggest area is logical, but I don't agree with calling it a metro area.--Conk 9 (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hispanics

Quick question for anyone around here: Should Hispanic be listed in the new table of Race? It gets confusing, since races are first divided excluding it, and then a second time including it. So, for example, 5.4% of Virginians defined themselves as Asian, but some of those also defined themselves as Hispanic, so only 4.8% are non-Hispanic-Asian. This gets confusing since the larger number is used in the text, but in the table each of the other races are given by their non-Hispanic number. This is all trying to replace the old, complicated template that now resides on Demographics of Virginia, but it's becoming complicated itself. The alternative is to ignore Hispanics in the table altogether. Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, do we just let the numbers add up to more than 100%? Would that be a problem?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

?

7,104 per 100,000.? TKS! TLUG (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastern elk

An editor has reverted an insertion about the Eastern elk becoming extinct, in part, due to Virginian's overhunting them. He suggests a subpage "Fauna of Virginia."

The easy part first - Fauna of Virginia is just wonderful once there is enough information to fork there. I ran across this headline in the paper, and thought it would be nice to have permanently in the article. Guess what? No place for it, a not uncommon occurrence with article development. So it should probably go somewhere IMO. It seems way too early for a forked article. but if someone wants to establish a stub, I'm uh game.

The second part refers to Eastern elk not being a significant species. No, they aren't significant! They're extinct, for Pete's sake! Want to bury that under the rug? Hmmm. Student7 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm just not sure there's a place for the elk here. From what I understand from this map, they covered much of the east half of the country, and there might be twenty-seven states whose articles this sort of info could go in. I just don't see why we need a whole paragraph on this one extinct species, when we only give a living one, like the ubiquitous white-tailed deer, a single mention. If we had a subarticle on fauna (an/or flora as well), I could see it having a history section, where we could bring attention to this and other extinct species like the Carolina Parakeet (or Giant Beaver!); West Virginia does have a article on the fauna, perhaps we could start an "extinct species" section there as a first step.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Point made about "extinct species" section. That would clearly be WP:UNDUE at this juncture. And, yes, its extinction was certainly not all due to Virginians. They had lots of help from people from other states all acting exactly the same way. I just don't see why a one-liner can't be made for this, or other species, here, until the material can be forked. This is pretty much the same as with any article in its development. You get trivial stuff and have to put it someplace until it can be properly organized. Student7 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Virginia's area

An IP user changed the area of Virginia, and because they'd been cited for Vandalism earlier today, I assumed it was wrong, and reverted it. Never-the-less, I poked around to check that we had it right, citing National Geographic with 42,774 square miles. And while I found a similar number at virginia.org with 42,767, I saw that virginia.gov says 40,767, and significantly the USGS says only 39,594, based on the Census Bureau's 39,594.07. Additionally, WolframAlpha rounds it up to 39,600 while Google sources us. At first I was inclined to believe the .org number there. I know National Geographic's number is from a few years back (read 90's), and we likely have lost some barrier islands due to erosion and rising sea levels, perhaps accounting for the 7 sq mi change. But the difference of 2,000 or 3,0000 sq mi I'd have a hard time rectifying, even though I would think USGS/Census would be the best source. Anyone have an opinion? Anyone got a better source?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found the issue buried in a Census Bureau document. On page 71 there it says 42,774.20 total area, 39,594.07 land area, and 3,180.13 water area. So I suppose it depends on if you think water area should be included in the number. I'm going to change the page to note these.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying these figures. Glad you picked USGS. We need a baseline for all states that we can trust, just like the census. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New welcome sign image

File:Virginia new sign.jpg

I took this picture of the new Virginia welcome sign at the Virginia welcome center on I-95 at the NC state line. I was wondering what others think about using this image to replace the previous image of the older sign under “State Symbols”? The image that’s already there is good enough so I didn’t want to change it without consulting first. Aurora30 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Keep things fresh. I know the current welcome photo is a few years out of date, and isn't the one they use anymore. My only concern is that I had to fight to prove that the bird/dogwood logo wasn't copyrighted on this one, or had at least lapsed, so you might also check that out on your new one.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 02:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I added the new image, although I'm not sure about the copyright status of the bird/dogwood logo, but I'd assume it's ok since it's just a photo of the sign and not a logo from the internet. Aurora30 (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Which private universities?

Any editors have nominations as to which universities deserve mention in the Education section? We give most deference to the public schools, UVA, W&M, and VT. VMI, GMU, and VSU all get shout-outs, as do three christian schools in the Religion section. I've noticed users consistently adding and subtracting from the last sentence in the Eduction section, which goes "there are 116 private institutions, including...[insert user's school here]." Perhaps we should have a standard. Right now there's Washington and Lee University and today someone added Hampton-Sydney. I could suggest Richmond University or Marymount, but any others? Long lists of things are discouraged, so should we list some or none or do those four suffice? Are they too much?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Without a list-of topic to steer these off to, it'll grow indefinitely Tedickey (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the largest Virginia university... VCU. DWood 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

Ah, I did, but only in my list there, not in the article. And List of colleges and universities in Virginia is divided into two sections between public and private.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Attorney General

I've been wondering why the Attorney General isn't listed in the info box under Lieutenant Governor? Graywolf323 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

TFA nomination and Religion section

Two things. I've placed Virginia on the pending board over at Today's Featured Article requests for June 26. There are four good dates to pick from, May 14 or 15 and June 25 or 26, but the 26, which is 234 years since the state's first constitution, is the only one readily available. So just to be aware of, we might get the article on the home page then. Secondly, I've wanted to reorganize the religion section of a while now, but just can seem to get a version that works. Right now the second and third paragraphs are the longest two on the page, and I'm not sure its presented as well as it could be. Ideas?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So it does look like we can get the 26th. That's a pretty big deal. So I'd love people's help in getting any issues resolved in the next two weeks, and if anything that can be updated, could be, it would be really nice to present the best face this article can show when it's on the main page. Thanks. And anyone who wants to add their support or comment can go here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#June 26.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

State Symbols

I was tiding up the portal and noticed this edit changing many of the symbols. I wonder about the validity of the changes, especially the Virginia reel → square dance change, which should be corrected considering that this page will be on the main page in two days. I would appreciate any input. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you need a short answer, the official state dance is "the square dance." But the law actually goes on to specify, and the Virginia reel is basically the only specific dance among them, since "the square dance" isn't a single dance:

“ Square dancing, the American folk dance that traces its ancestry to the English Country Dance and the French Ballroom Dance, and is called, cued, or prompted to the dancers, and includes squares, rounds, clogging, contra, line, the Virginia Reel, and heritage dances. ”

So this page should probably list square dance in its bulleted list, though we have a sentence that sort of makes up for it. And we didn't actually get it on the front page yet. Two users decided that Grand Folks, South Dakota, which ran on June 15, was too similar to this article. Don't get me started...-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Detailed analysis; I went ahead and made the change in the list, as the other source says that it is "one" of the many square dances that are all considered the state dance. Too bad on the TFA... --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Environment of Virginia

Hi all, I wanted to post about an article I just started, Environment of Virginia. I've felt Virginia needed an article like this for a while, so that the information in the Geography section could have a little more "room to breath", and grow more naturally. The geography section here is very curt, and can't really have many lists and long sentences without overwhelming summary style and the broad focus this article has. I'm hoping other editors could lend a hand in shaping this new article into a good overview on the subject, and also as a place from where eventually articles like Ecology of Virginia or Geology of Virginia could be branched off of. I also moved much of the info from User:173.79.251.249 over to there, mostly because again it was long lists that broke the paragraph style and was also unsourced, so perhaps it and other additions to this page could be first worked on there before being implemented in the sections here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about moving all those topics under "Environment." I think "Geology of Virginia" should be forked directly from the main Virginia articles when ready. Maybe "Ecology.." as well. The "Geology" topic is formal under the guidelines. So it really shouldn't be demoted.

I don't think that exiling unreferenced stuff is a good idea. Why not wait until it gets referenced in this main (widely reviewed) article, then fork it? It is more liable to linger unreferenced in the forked article. Then it will be deleted though it may be accurate. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Education standing

Just wanted to mention that frequently (but not always), southern states do well for both black and white students, when they are separated out. I just looked up Virginia for 4th grade math standings, both were above average, the white students standing 12th. Northern states often appear to do well because they lack minorities. They don't do quite so well when white students are compared against white students, black students against black. See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/statecomparisons. A bit of work to sort these out BTW. (For the record, Massachusetts look good either way. Mississippi looks bad either way! So it doesn't always revert lumping everyone together statistics!). Student7 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cities and towns

Beside correcting 4 to 3 other independent cities, I hope that I have clarified wording in the first and third paragraphs of this section.

Although I have cited the 1871 date from Political subdivisions of Virginia or List of counties in Virginia, I wonder whether independent cities have some earlier history. Notes to printed tables of the 1920 Census explain the origins of independent cities and other young counties. For nine of the ICs, about half, the stated origin is "before 1870" (and I have entered those Origins in the list of counties in Virginia, without changing the overall reference to 1871). All three articles would benefit from reconciliation on this point.

By the way, that list of counties needs attention especially in its Date and Origin data. Maybe "desperately". --P64 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Home to"

The use of trite phrases is discouraged by WP:MOS and other applicable style guides, such as Strunk and White. "Home to" is often used when the editor couldn't think how to tie a topic into a paragraph. It sounds amateurish. "Virginia is home to..." is undesirable because "Virgina" is already the article's topic and is probably overused. It is generally better to try to tie the topic into a better structured or more informative paragraph. For example, instead of saying "Virginia is home to the Lee Estate," one might say, "The Lee-Custis estate has figured promintently in the history of the Northern Virginia area. (Then describe how and footnote it! Not necessarily easier to be stylish! Student7 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography article do pose this issue of how to say that a thing is in the region covered. I disagree that "home to" is in any way informal, and its not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Indeed, the MoS specifically advises that editors "avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality." Alternatives such as "contains", "is found in", or "has" are often not suitable for the subject of a given sentence, and are more distracting that any minor informality.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No major league franchise

Just went through this with another state. This sounds Appeal to pity. Poor me! Nevermind there is a suitable reference (there always is), listing what a state doesn't have is WP:ISNOT. Listing all Virgina's alleged "lacks" would wind up with an article several times longer than it is now. Student7 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This sentence served to summarize the Sports section of the article, which is the purpose of the introduction. I don't see it as an appeal to pity. Indeed, it makes the state somewhat unique to be able to claim the status of the most populous state without a major franchise. However, a fact doesn't have to be unique to be included, and just because other states can also claim university sports programs, doesn't mean we can't.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, articles are supposed to contain information that is unique to an area. There is plenty unique about Virginia that can be reported without straining. I edit at least one much smaller state which has trouble coming up with superlatives (think "smallest" "poorest" etc.). Virginia is not in that category I would hope. There is no state that doesn't claim to have wonderful collegiate sports programs. It is therefore common and boring. Also, collegiate sports are regarded as non WP:TOPIC for place articles. The place for collegiate sports is in the college articles themselves or related articles (NCAA, for example). There collegiate sports (which are legally amateurish) can be explained with more detachment. Is NC better than Virginia? Topic cannot presented objectively here.

Negative inventories are WP:ISNOT. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about inventorying states with no ospreys, or no greater yellow headed vultures, or...., assuming, of course, they were in the minority? Lots of ornithologists out there... There is no state that "has everything." Most states lack thousands of species, types of teams, types of schools, types or lengths of roads, statutes, the list is endless, which is why listing things that aren't there is a policy. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Collegiate notable?

No, articles have no mandate to contain unique information. Only accurate, well sourced information that fully covers the subject at hand. Indeed this often is "common and boring" information, but this is an encyclopedia. College athletics draw more spectators than any other team sporting events in Virgina, with NASCAR being the other big draw. I'm unaware of a policy suggesting that collegiate sports aren't relevant to geography articles. Unique is good, but I would say that ignoring such a subject because the same is true about some other states would make this article delinquent in its coverage of the subject. And if its the most significant part of a section, then it also belongs in the introduction.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Next, a majority of states do have professional sports teams (28 with, 22 without), so no, I don't think it constitutes a "negative inventory" to state that this is one of the ones without, or that this statement will lead to others which could make the article significantly longer. And again, I don't see any suggestion on WP:ISNOT that there would be a problem with this. Perhaps there was a more specific policy?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several guidelines that may pertain. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is listing bunch of college teams is - they are amateurs, after all; WP:NOT#FANSITE, which a general list of colleges seems to be. What other reason would they be listed since all states have them? WP:BOOSTER seems to apply as well, since seems to be no other reason to publicize amateur teams generally. Student7 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Student7, are we talking about the introduction, or were you actually proposing removing college sports from the Sports section? I admit I am baffled by this suggestion. How is it indiscriminate? It is discriminate, and the section only notes those collegiate programs or conferences with have achieved notable status. That's the same policy we've used when selecting what hospitals, schools, state parks, and theaters to mention here. We mention only two schools by name, which have the most prominent programs. What do you find "excessive" or "academic boosterism"? Calling those teams "competitive"? What is the issue, and maybe we can try to fix it.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Looking at one section, hopefully the only one, we have:"Virginia does not allow state appropriated funds to be used for either operational or capital expenses for intercollegiate athletics.(footnote)" - good

"Despite this, both the Virginia Cavaliers and Virginia Tech Hokies have been able to field competitive teams in the Atlantic Coast Conference and maintain modern facilities." - the "despite this" seems to draw a conclusion and seems WP:OR. The rest maybe, but we are talking amateurs here. Would we do the same for Little League? Or high schools?

"Their rivalry is followed statewide." - This seems trite. All colleges in every state are "followed statewide." Every team in every state is followed with baited breath, if you listen to afficionadoes only.

"Several other universities compete in NCAA Division I, particularly in the Colonial Athletic Association. Three historically black schools compete in the Division II Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and two others compete in the Division I Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference. Several smaller schools compete in the Old Dominion Athletic Conference and the USA South Athletic Conference of NCAA Division III. The NCAA currently holds its Division III championships in football, men's basketball, volleyball and softball in Salem." This seems good stuff for "Education in Virginia" (Athletics subsection). Seems like a poor idea here. All states have colleges in some divison or other. Trite IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Map:Ancestry vs Ethnicity

The ancestry by "county" makes the state seem as though it is 1/3-1/2 black, when, in truth, it is, by ethnicity, 3/4 white. An interesting map but not really that useful IMO since it conveys inaccurate information. Student7 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the downsides of choropleth maps. (I'm not going so far as to say it should be removed, but like the highest-religion-by-county maps one sees here or there, they can be both somewhat useful and misleading.) AlexiusHoratius 11:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The map only shows the largest reported ancestry by plurality in each of the counties. It isn't inaccurate, its data comes from the 2000 Census, and it's just a cropped and colored version of this nationwide map, which actually has its own article of correlative maps at "Maps of American ancestries". When this article was up for FAC, that demographics table, of which the map is a big part, was actually one thing that several users complimented us on, and helped get us to Featured status. Perhaps when the 2010 data is released, then we can think about a better way to present the state's ethnic makeup visually.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this sort of thing doesn't come out of those poisonous "red vs blue" maps, where people conveniently forget that there are a lot of "blues" in red states and a lot of "reds" in blue states. All a bit misleading. Okay for election night, but not really a good basis for political discussion. Maybe this is in a similar category? Student7 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Modern times"

A respected editor has changed back a subtitle to "Modern times." I appreciate his dilemna, but we should try to avoid words like that. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Precise_language. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I don't know what would be a good title. 20th Century is okay, but I was looking it over, and realized 9/11 is in the 21st. What to call the present day is always difficult, but United States uses "Contemporary era", and I'm okay with that. You could also try something like "Post World War II", but that seems out of place. Perhaps "Integration" or something civil rights related, since that's the main topic of the section.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with VRE ridership

Dr. Gridlock] claims that VRE set a ridership record with 19,300 on one day, yet the "average" in the article is 20,000. That bothered one editor so much that he deleted the Dr. Gridlock claim! The latter seems to suggest that the average ridership is much lower, say 11,000/day, not 20,000 at all. Someone needs to check this out with a third party. I suspect Gridlock is correct and the average ridership is much lower. Student7 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Their average ridership in February was 18,569. We can put that exact number in, or note the 11% rise in that number since October. The article on VRE uses 17,600, the average from last July.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Hi guys, I've nominated this article again for a spot on the homepage for May 14, the anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. You can check out blurb and my comments (and add any you have!) over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#May 14.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, there are a lot of out of date statistics in the article i.e. 'as of 2000', 'as of 2006' etc, would improve the article if you or someone else could update them, cheers Tom B (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I'm going to make sure we update wherever we can in anticipation of TFA. To editors here, it looks like we got May 14 for the front page, so any assistance in prepping the article for thousands of new eyes would be appreciated. And on the day of, its usually pretty hectic.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reason Foundation

The Reason Foundation has a nice looking report ranking state roads. Take a look at state rankings at url=http://www.reason.org/files/9bbbda199a9e7c16b2d877e42fdc5b53.pdf. They seem a bit bizarre. The reports are necessarily based on self-reporting by the states which are sometimes self-critical, other times, praiseful; both suspiciously political. Bridge rankings may be worthwhile. Those may be more solidly based. Then again, people would like to repair bridges!

I question the use of this report. The state rankings (pg 5 of report, pg 12 of pdf) are strange. NJ is at the bottom. NJ is crowded, but I thought they did a pretty good job considering their density. Alaska with almost no roads per capita or area is above NJ. Hawaii with a similarly strange road situation with Alaska, is near the bottom as well. South Carolina ranks high. Why? Their roads seem no better than NC, which is well down the list. Vermont has horrible roads because of frost heaves and large number of roads per capita. It ranks 30th, which is just below average. All very very strange IMO. I don't think this report is worth much and should be avoided where possible. It is probably npov, but has such odd results that it doesn't seem up to encyclopedic standards. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Reason Foundation is a Libertarian think tank, and they aren't NPOV. Their bias is stated on the first page of the PDF. When doing their ranking, they also look at who's doing the most with the least tax burden. This said, they are well respected, and I don't know if we have another organization doing ranking for roads. I'm fine using their ranking as long as we state where it comes from, and link to get info on them, but don't see it as vital to the section. I also changed the description from "best" to "most cost effective", and we could add the adjective "libertarian" before Reason's name.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not question the pov of the researchers who seem to be using state reports to put this together. I do question the underlying state reports. We don't seem to have a choice here, there is no other source as far as I know. though there may be federal bridge inspections, which are ostensibly the same for all states. But self-reporting by states and just collecting them, does not yield comparable results unless the states all share the same criteria for reporting, which I very much doubt.

I'm just observing that the results seem odd. We may be forced to use them, but they don't have to be prominent. IMO using the comparison (okay to use the data) with other states, is not useful and not germane, because of varying standards. I cannot say with any certainty that Virginia's roads or bridges are "better than" or "worse than" (say) Idaho's. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We should not use them; we should not use any partisan paper at all, if we can help it.

In addition, praising Virginia's roads because the Virginian lack of public spending has resulted in merely mediocre roads, not proportionally execrable ones, may be a libertarian value; but it is not what most readers will expect those phrases to mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Omissions

• Explicit links and discussion of Kentucky and the Old Northwest. For readers who do not already know better than this article, the mention of mid-Western states will convey nothing, and Kentucky is not in the Mid-west.
• Numerous individual manumissions were inspired by Quaker abolitionists and the revolution's principles is rather less than a half truth. Quakers did not flourish in Virginia; the manumissions were only permitted by Revolutionary legislation, and they were severely restricted by legislation of 1806, which also required all freed slaves to leave the state within a year.
  • Gabriel's Rebellion.
• The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830, which failed because of the gerrymandering of votes to the seaboard counties.
• The colorable claim of the Wheeling Convention (which was in 1861, not 1863) to represent the legal legislature of Virginia.
• Despite underfunding for segregated schools and services and a lack of political representation, African Americans still created vibrant communities and made progress. In Virginia of the 1930's? Only in the sense that there was nowhere to go but up (and of course the Northern states, which were better than Virginia, if not much). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• There's virtually no information on this page pertaining to the southwestern portion of the Great Commonwealth. In particular, the economics portion of the article describes the economies of the Tidewater and Northern regions, but makes no mention of the timber, coal, or natural gas industries that thrive in the southwest. Additionally, there is no mention of the distinct cultural differences that separates the predominantly Scots-Irish inhabited Heart of Appalachia from the rest of the Commonwealth.

on the North American Plate

Virginia is not "located centrally on the North American Plate." --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, its on the North American Plate, and not on a fault line, so that's why it says "centrally." But if there's a more accurate description, I'm open to suggestions!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Well inside" or "inside, well away from the edges"; but mention the ancient weaknesses resulting from the merger of two ancient plates at the Appalachian Mountains. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed to "away from." I never appreciated before that distance from the edge of the plate determined all this. Interesting. Probably should have distance in mi/km with a referenced source, but won't be easy to find for an area. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"The mother of Presidents"/ Monticello Omission?

I added a list of 8 presidents born in Virginia in the history section in order to substantiate the nickname reference at beginning of article.Don't usually like lists, but in this case, I thought it seemed useful information for researchers/students. Seemed like a reasonable place for it. After all these men have impact on Virginia mythology/ideaology. btw, not much on the huge contribution of Jefferson to Virginia lore anywhere in this article. That seems very strange. Monticello deserves something here too . It is a UNESCO site! Kgenereux (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC) UVA grad, class of 1976

We link to Virginia dynasty at the bottom of the "Statehood" subsection and Lists of United States Presidents by place of birth#By state of birth in the introduction, and I think that's easy enough for interested readers. UVA is mentioned as an UNESCO site, but it does indeed include Monticello. The homes of Washington, Jefferson, and Lee are mentioned as the "birthplaces of American and Southern culture", but I'm not sure what other attention we could draw to the house itself.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice try at a total put-down of my effort, but you make me laugh. I just looked at the page history. Why did you have to lie about a link that wasn't even there when I made my addition??? You added the link to that wiki presidents page, AFTER I MADE the ADDITION. Instead of pretending that I missed all your precious links, you could have thanked me and said you deleted my list AFTER adding that president page link at the intro section. I don't get it. Are you trying to impress someone? It just impressed me that people who write for wikipedia would rather lie than thank another sentient being. "But I'm not sure what other attention we could draw..." Is that the royal we? Who is "we"? I'm a total newbie on Wikipedia, but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be TRULY collaborative? So you are saying that anything more added regarding Virginia's architectural heritage will be personally deleted by you? Kgenereux (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I only fixed the anchor tag part of the link where it was directing to the specific section, which has been renamed since the link was put in. I didn't change what article was linked to. Of course you are welcome to make additions, and the page used to list the 8 presidents, right in the introduction, but several users during WP:GAN and WP:PR recommended that we, the people discussing changes here, do away with the listing in favor of links, and it hasn't been an issue since. I don't know what info should be added about Monticello, so I can't comment on that. What do you think needs to be said?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 07:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to PN: I want to apologize for my sarcasm. I hadn't read all the rules and didn't know that sarcasm is frowned upon in the talk pages. Personally, I feel that deleting someone else's efforts and "fixing" your own contribution to cover the other person's added content (without ANY appreciation noted) is worse than sarcasm. I used to have a boss who did that all the time. It's just not a very "collaborative" style.Kgenereux (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did get us to fix the link, which needed to be updated, and I do appreciate that. Editing a Featured Article on the day its on the main page might not be the best place to start on Wikipedia, since Featured Articles usually have gone through more levels of discussion, revision, and are in a state closer to being complete than other articles.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that articles in Wikipedia are always supposed to remain "in progress"? Also Imo Wikipedia needs to remain collaborative to fulfill its mission, and claims to ownership of articles are in opposition to wikipedian principles. But please correct me if I'm wrong. I think this article is obviously of good quality, and all your hard work is evident. Kgenereux (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Virginia's Architectural Heritage following Smithfield Ham?

Architecture is a science/art created by uniquely qualified individuals. It is not a broadly generated form of culture like regional culinary specialties. Discussing architecture in the same paragraph as ham is rather a non-sequitor imo: If this was an article about Italy, would you relegate the Colosseum to the end of a paragraph that starts off with pasta and meatballs?

Memories of any city or place I have ever visited, are steeped in mental images of historic buildings, gardens and special places. I definitely think a section with short mentions of key Virginia sites such as Monticello, UVa, Jamestown, etc. is a reasonable suggestion. Considering that Monticello and UVA are the only 2 buildings in the entire USA that each separately comprise a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a mention of their Jeffersonian Architecture would not be anecdotal. (The statue of Liberty isn't really a building, and the other 18 US sites that have this honor are all building-free national parks.) To anyone interested in aesthetic form/design/architecture these 2 Virginia sites are absolutely iconic!

Kgenereux (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on architecture not being culture. That said, possibly the paragraph could be rewritten to include architecture at the beginning after the mention of Washington and Jeffereson, who may have helped establish a certain kind of architecture. You could be right about the two UNESCO sites. Student7 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dillon's Rule

A sentence reads, "Virginia limits the authority of cities and counties to pass laws expressly allowed by the state legislature or which are necessary to effect powers granted under what is known as Dillon's Rule."

I don't understand this. (I do not care if Dillon's Rule is interpreted differently in other states. I'm just concerned with Virginia, for the record). Does Virginia stop cities from enacting tighter zoning requirements?

I think the sentence needs rewording. Maybe "Virginia limits the authority of cities and counties to pass more restrictive laws than those granted by the state legislature to effect....Dillon's Rule." If that is true! Since I don't really understand it, I don't dare change it myself!  :) Student7 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

THE TRUE

The first European accession was Spanish.. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/opinion/09horwitz.html?pagewanted=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

THE TRUE

The first European accession was Spanish..

This one is the correct link http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/opinion/09horwitz.html?pagewanted=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian Tribes

I believe there needs to be a section mentioned in the Virginia aricle on Indian tribes. Currently the state of Virginia recognizes 11 Indian tribes. Here is the link: Virginia Tribes. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

Why is there no section on slavery in the Virginia article? Slavery lasted 236 in Viriginia having started as early as 1629. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were prominent slave owners. Slavery was by no means a southern institution. Slavery was practiced by the Puritans in Massachusetts during the early mid 1600's. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

With so little integration of slavery and other aspects of African-American life in VA, this looks like something from 40 years ago. Slavery issues were directly involved with colonial thinking about citizenship and definition of persons' social status. Thousands of African Americans escaped during the Revolution, which shows one aspect of AA agency. Afterward, enough slaveholders were inspired by rev ideals and Methodist/Baptist/Quakers to free their slaves - the proportion of free blacks in the population went up from <1 % in 1790 to 8.3% in 1810, and was 13.5% across the Upper South. I added this data before, sourced to Peter Kolchin's 1993 synthesis. Why was all this taken out? This is part of the current academic consensus.Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, realized I added the data to the History of Virginia, but agree with Cmguy that the institution of slavery deserves more coverage in the main state article - all of the first statesmen were part of the planter elite who made their wealth from slave labor; they defined slaves as non-citizens; slavery influenced the society for more than a century after the Civil War.Parkwells (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as we keep this an article about Virginia. Slavery is a huge topic, and there are a host of other Wikipedia articles about the history of the U.S., the South, and about the institution of slavery. We just need to focus on the parts where Virginia stands out.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am for a fair balanced view on slavery. There were slave owners who set their slaves free. There were slave owners who did not whip their slaves. And there was an anti-slavery movement in Virginia by the Baptists and Methodists. Also, slavery had roots in the North, i.e. the Purtans in Massachussetts colony during the 1620's. Slavery has roots in a Puritan religious view that blacks were inferior or cursed. Indians were made slaves in Massachusetts and traded for African slaves. I believe there needs to be research if the Virginia Indians were made slaves. From what I understand on Virginia slavery was that institution was unregulated until slave codes appeared possibly in the 1680's. The height of the institution was around 1732, when the Virginia government had a complete monopoly on slavery. Only the state could grant permission of freedom to the slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely need "balance", links to general articles and specifics where Virginia stood out or "led." I think slavery was legal, not only in "Puritan" states but in the entire British Empire (and probably most other places) until it was banned by Parliament in 1833. So there should be a highest level article on "slavery" someplace, "Slavery in the British Empire" someplace, "Slavery in the colonies" someplace and "Slavery in the South" someplace. All somewhat different IMO. (Okay, some may be subsections, not stand-alone article, BUT, we need something to link to from each of the articles on the Southern States, individually and as a US/American subsection. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)