From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Virginia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 14, 2011.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Virginia (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Here are some figures you can update:

January: Quality Counts report
May: State of the Air report, Fortune 500
June: Gross Domestic Product
July: Population figures
September: Forbes state rankings
November: Newspaper subscriptions, America's Health Rankings
December: Median Household Income, K-12 school attendance
Every month: Unemployment percent

New Ancestries Map[edit]

Because the 2010 Census dropped the Ancestries question, I used data from the 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, which was released in March, to create a new Ancestries Map, File:Virginia Ancestries by County 2010.svg. The first issue is that this is an estimate, unlike the 2000 Census, which, though completely out of date, was more accurate for its time.

Comparing it with the old 2000 map, it does look very different. Mainly that's because "African American" isn't an option on the Community Survey. African Americans seem to respond with either "American" or "Other groups", though in two counties and one city the plurality there did respond with "Subsaharan African". The first issue I saw in making this map was that if we include "Other groups", that would be the plurality in over half of the counties, with 33.2% of Virginians. I didn't feel that demonstrated much, so I ignored it. But would we rather have more than half of the counties be gray?

One other problem however is the chart/legend next to it. While the five responses that had pluralities in any county didn't change, they're not the top five total, as several responses had higher totals than "Subsaharan African": Italian, with 3.7%, Scots-Irish 2.3%, Scottish 2.2%, and French 1.9%. Subsaharan African only had 1.8%. Do folks find this to be a problem or possibly misleading? I'm okay with it, since it serves as the legend for the map, but wanted to check with other editors here. I know ethnicity is always delicate topic.-- Patrick, oѺ 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Five Year ACS has only a slightly smaller sample size than the long form 2000 census had so the data should be fine. The methodology for the 2000 map is a little complicated since it involves merging non-white races with the white ancestries, that is why the number of counties with African American ancestry declined. Hamiltonl (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

from British Overseas Territories[edit]

Did you know Virginia is a British Colony? Respect is earned. Tiyang (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you know Virginia ceased to be a British colony in 1783? Or arguably 1776? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what this conversation is trying to accomplish. Virginia is currently a state, but the article links to the Colony of Virginia article. So, is this talk topic resolved? RVA all day (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update needed[edit]

This listing indicates that there is some text in this article that needs attention (search for every "as of" date in the article and update the data where possible). Is someone watching this article who can take on this task, so this FA won't appear on this list as needing attention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I worry that your toolserver might be misrepresenting the data here. In my own editing, I do make extensive use of the Template:As of, which seems to be what this list is really showing. Data for a previous year is often not published until midway through the following one, particularly when we're dealing with population numbers, and some of the older data is only published once a decade, mainly because of the expense in collecting it. The religion survey is what comes up at 2001 data, and while there is newer data, it costs money to access it. Thanks for checking in.-- Patrick, oѺ 03:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

There is a common misconception that all images should be a default size, 220 pixels wide, which often times is way too small. Many of the images in this article were way too small, forcing the readers to break away from the text just to view an image adequately. Adjusting image size is allowed by WP:MOS policy if there is a "good reason to do so". If possible readers should be able to comfortably view images as they read along, just as they would if they were reading a book.

Several of the images, including two maps, have therefore been slightly increased in size, none of which exceed the 500 x 400 pixel limit set by MOS. None of the text has been crowded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That is true, maps are an example of images that can have set sizes. The ancestries map under Ethnicity does have a set pixel size. But images using the "thumb" attribute need a really good reason, even if its a map, and "because it looks small to me" is not a good reason. Yes, exceptions are allowed for charts and maps, but why do these specific images, like of the Civil War or Pentagon, need to be at these specific resolutions. Readers can have very different display resolutions, so what you may view as small may be the perfect size for another. Specifying a size also denies those users that have a preferred size set in their preferences from using that. I also don't understand why remove the "upright" field from an upright image, and the use of Template:Clear to drop the ethnicity table below the populations table. Template:Clear should only be used in extreme cases of image stack-ups or with the final sections, such as before the References section, so I'm reacting here to a user that looks like they're forcing the page's appearance based on one particular machine, rather than aiming for a wider approach.-- Patrick, oѺ 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
My apprroach was wider, thank you. Yes "readers can have very different display resolutions" but you have shown nothing that says keeping all the images small is better for anyone. Most readers who come in to Wikipedia from a web search don't have accounts, let alone know about setting preferences for image size. Most registered users don't bother with it either. Do you? Also, all the images are small on almost any machine, esp on public library machines of which I frequently use when I'm away from the house. Los Angeles county has dozens of public libraries and 100s of public computers -- all the same. The images here are also tiny on my lap top and on my desk top machines which have average sized monitors and settings. Maps aside, which I see you have also reverted to tiny size, MOS allows image size adjusting if there are good reasons to do so, as I have already pointed out. The small increase in size has not caused any text crowding or other issues and allows readers to view the images adequately without having to break away from reading just to view an image, so I don't quite understand your insistanece here. Unless you can cite actual MOS or other policy violations or show how an enlarged image is causing specific problems I will be (re)enlarging several of the images whose details are otherwise obscure. Frankly, I have seen larger images in a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't be treated as such. I will give you a chance to explain your insistence on keeping all the images small, including the maps. Again, unless you can cite specific MOS violations or point out specific problems with enlarging some images so they can be recoginzed while reading along we need to increase their sizes, especially the maps, which are commonly enlarged throughout Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The issues you raise here are about the default size, which you refer to as "small." Again, I suspect that is because you're using screens with larger resolutions. If you wish to challenge the default size of images, you could possibly raise the topic at Image use policy, but calling the default "small" or "tiny" is simply incorrect. If the standard size across Wikipedia is unsatisfactory to you or any user, I do recommend changing the setting in preferences. In 2009 this size was actually brought up to 220px from 180px. As for specific instructions from the manual of style, I'm not sure how you missed "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default", or "a fixed size can be specified... although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default" and "in general, do not define the size of an image" in the guidelines you linked above. The same is also said at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, and there's more about the purpose of keeping the default size at Wikipedia:Autosizing images. If a subject isn't adequately displayed in a thumbnail, Wikipedia's guidelines recommend cropping that file, rather than setting a larger pixel size. The problem here isn't with crowding (which, again, is based on local display resolution) but with taking user's preference away from them in favor of what looks good to you. If you still feel strongly about it, we can ask for a third option at WP:3O or even WP:DRN if you prefer.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As was explained to you already, I was and am referring to average screen sizes with average settings, typically used on lap tops, desk tops and library computers. Most folks use them. Few use iphones or large screen tv's to view wikipedia. Relatively few readers who come to Wikipedia for information have user accounts and/or know about preferences, let alone use them. And I have't overlooked anything in terms of policy. What you however continue to ignore is the idea that images can be adjusted if there are "good reasons to do so". I have increased the size of the other map, and I suppose we can live with the maps only being enlarged. No, I don't "feel strongly" about images sizes, and didn't realize I would encounter such rigid and lengthy opposition just to get a few images slightly enlarged. I usualy spend this much time and effort on issues that really matter and try not to engage and antagonize other editors over trivial and opinionated matters like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, its easy to blow disagreements about images out of proportion on Wikipedia, and I hope I'm not guilty of that here. But I hope you get that, even if its a small problem compared to others, Wikipedia has these defaults because of careful consideration of its userbase. I can tell you from the last Wikimania conference, we discussed how the iPhone had the fastest growing share of visitors. The site as a whole has around 400 million visitors daily; this page alone had 4,237 just yesterday, and 27,318 over the last week. I for one can't presume to know what an "average screen size with average settings" is, which is why the default setting is important. I hope that makes sense!-- Patrick, oѺ 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it makes sense. Thanks for seeing your way clear of a compromise with the image sizes. Not to many people can do that, unfortunately. See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[edit] (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In The World[edit]

I am at a loss. How do I succinctly state the important fact that Virginia is the first colony, in the entire world of England and what will become the British Empire? I was astounded to read, on the Slate website that Jamestown was the first colony of the British Empire. The author of the Slate article quotes William Kelso, directly, as telling, Queen Elizabeth, "Your majesty, this is where the British Empire began, this was not just the first American colony, this was the first colony in the British Empire." To me this is an astonishingly important fact, that as an American I was never taught. Everything that Americans write, read as did this article, emphasizing the importance to the United States, while ignoring the importance to the development of the British Empire.

Please I am not being nasty to the authors. I would have written that first sentence that way, which is exactly my point here. That, that sentence as originally written misses entirely the world-wide historical importance of the founding of Jamestown. This colony was a success, which prompted others in England to want to get in on the profits. There quickly followed other successful colonies, and, though no one at the time knew it, the British Empire began to grow.

It just seems to me to be essential to mention here, that Virginia is the start of not just the United States, but of the British Empire. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. and I also noted the similarity of British colonies in America to those of the Greek city states, as opposed to the British colony in India which was more akin to the imperial system of the Roman Empire. We need a good scholarly source... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolute claims of "first" are always a tricky concept. I would note that many consider Ireland to be the first British colony, particularly the area known as The Pale around Dublin, which is where the article on the British Empire begins its "Origins" section. Further, the idea of Empire is also a broad one, and I could even see someone claiming Cyprus, which Richard I took in the middle ages, as an earlier colony. If we were limiting the definition to those founded during the Age of Exploration, the first colony might also be the failed Roanoke Colony. Anyway, the claim of being the "first colony" would make more sense on either the article about Jamestown, Virginia or the Colony of Virginia rather than this article, which is mainly about the state.-- Patrick, oѺ 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so bothered by absolute claims as long they can be directly attributed to a reliable source. This article from Slate magazine does not appear to be a reliable source because it appears to supply no references for the material it presents. The most reliable sources are secondary scholarly sources and this hasn't undergone an accredited peer review process nor does it even provide sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, the source is a bit bizarre for this assertion, in a story about a modern reenactment of Pocahontas. It might actually work as a source for the Pocahontas image caption, or the sentence about myths at the beginning of the History section. But I guess I'm also confused at what Nick Beeson was asking for here, since we do introduce the Colony of Virginia "as the first permanent English colony in the world" right in the introduction.-- Patrick, oѺ 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the part your referring to was added by Nick at the same time he made this talk page discussion.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, as opposed to New World. Not sure how I missed that, but per the discussion here, was going to revert the edits. I'm sure the Queen was impressed by the fact, but I'm also sure that a historian like Kelso himself would rather have the fact qualified in a way similar to the way we had it, as the first "New World" colony.-- Patrick, oѺ 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

State nicknames[edit]

I added a section on State nicknames, written as two paragraphs rather than bullets to follow a more encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant paragraph on nicknames found in State symbols, as the State nickname section more adequately discusses them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the two major nicknames, "Old Dominion" and "Mother of Presidents," are covered in the Infobox, the Introduction, and the State symbols section, with "Mother of Presidents" also being covered in the History section together with "Mother of States." The nicknames are fundamentally a trivial topic and don't require their own section in this article that duplicates the efforts above it. Additionally, much of this text would be copyright violations from the website "Netstate." Even as a source Netstate is not reliable, and specifically came up during the featured article process, which is also where a number of editors objected to the listing of all eight Virginian presidents. Instead, we link to Virginia dynasty and List of Presidents of the United States by home state#Places of birth. Let's discuss this, but I would suggest that the "The Cavalier State" is useful, provided it has better sourcing, and could be included in the state symbols section next to the Old Dominion sentence.-- Patrick, oѺ 14:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of a response. Of course, reference to a List of Presidents of the United States will omit two other Virginia-born presidents, Sam Houston of the Republic of Texas and Joseph Jenkins Roberts of the Republic of Liberia. I suppose there may have been objection to their listing in the past, to one for taking a Native-American wife, and the other for being African-American. I would hope any explicit reasoning was only npov copyedit objection to the clutter. The list sort of illustrates the decline of Virginia after the first half of the 19th century due to mistaken priorities, but I digress.
Your points all make sense except the copyright violation comment. But rather than debate that, perhaps we can use Salmon, Emily J. and Edward D.C. Campbell, Jr., eds., The hornbook of Virginia history, 4th ed., 1994, ISBN 978-0-884-90177-8, p. 88 in the chapter, "Emblems of the Commonwealth", under the section titled, "Nicknames". It includes "the Old Dominion" along with references from John Smith, Charles I, Charles II, and Virginia's 1663 new seal bearing the motto in Latin, "Behold, Virginia gives the 5th [Dominion]".
And from the Interregnum, Virginia was called the "Commonwealth of Virginia", which lapsed at Restoration of the monarchy, readopted in 1776, referring to a state in which "the supreme power is vested in the people."
"Among the many other nicknames that have been applied to Virginia are Mother of Presidents, Mother of Statesmen, and Mother of States. Virginia is also known as the Cavalier State: the Cavaliers were those who supported the monarch against Parliament and Cromwell during the English Civil Wars." Salmon, Emily J. and Edward D.C. Campbell, Jr., eds., The hornbook of Virginia history: a ready-reference guide to the Old Dominion's people, places, and past, 4th ed., 1994, ISBN 978-0-884-90177-8, p. 88.
Thanks for your consideration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say something about not being a reliable source but decided to wait and see if there was any dispute with Patrick's reversion. They don't properly cite their information and I agree with Patrick on this.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That leaves us with six from “The hornbook of Virginia history”: the Old Dominion, Commonwealth of Virginia, Mother of Presidents, Mother of Statesmen, Mother of States and Cavalier State. Even though in some ways, "Commonwealth" and "Cavalier" are contradictory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Like I said before, my impulse is not to repeat information from the History section in the State symbols section. "Mother of States" is not a nickname commonly used outside of references to the pioneer period of American history, so I rather think its enough to explain it under History and list it in the Infobox. The same is only more true about the archaic "Mother of Statesmen", which, for what its worth, is also claimed by Ohio. The issue I have is that Wikipedia articles must be about their subject today, and "statesmen" was never in wide use outside of these Virginia factoid lists, and certainly isn't today. Lastly, Sam Houston and Joseph Jenkins Roberts aren't, as I understand it, the basis of the Presidents nickname as we source it, so it may be an anachronism to mention them here. What I will say Historian, is that earlier this year I created the article Nicknames of New York City, and know that several cities have whole articles on their nicknames that aren't as notable or numerous as Virginia's, so if you feel I'm leaving information out here, maybe you'd want to head up an article called Nicknames of Virginia or similar? There's also List of U.S. state nicknames where more might be listed.-- Patrick, oѺ 20:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This argument is as specious as earlier fright about copyright infringement and the straw man denial of the sourcing. In a section which includes the state beverage, it can hardly be claimed that nicknames "Mother of States" and "Mother of Statesmen" are trivial factoids. The same rationale which struck a separate section on "nicknames" applies to the section "state symbols", all significant elements are listed in the info box, including the most popular nicknames. Nickname articles per se will of course be deleted in due time as lacking WP:SIGNIFICANCE and NOTABILITY. But as a marvelous trivial pursuit source, I could not object to the charming aside represented by the "State symbols" section. I truly admire its breadth and breathtaking scope, I mean no offense by trying to join in the fun.
Yes, Ohio as a Virginia county was once represented in the House of Burgesses, Revolutionary veterans received Virginia state land grants there, and the Ohio state bird is the cardinal as is Virginia's, so Ohio may also choose to nickname itself "Mother of Statesmen" as a nod to its Virginia roots. Fun facts about Ohio do not bear on the question of including two referenced nicknames that you arbitrarily choose not to acknowledge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Why no "real map" of Virginia?[edit]

Virginia Counties and Cities at Wikimedia Commons

It sure would be nice if the article somehow included a political map that details the location of the various towns & cities within Virginia. This article is woefully incomplete without that.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest or upload a free map to use or help create one. Scarlettail (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you go to Google Maps if you need a map of cities and towns, but feel free to pursue the options on the commons for maps of Virginia!-- Patrick, oѺ 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The existing map at the subsection Cities and Towns shows the outlines on a relief map. I like the existing map better than the political map only, which is found at Wikimedia Commons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Highest GDP per capita adjusted for COL[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that Virginia has the highest GDP per capita when adjusted for cost of living? Maybe in the economy of virginia page? I don't know. Jakebarrington (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, is there a good source for that? I'd put it at the end of the sentence about the GDP in the first paragraph under Economy.-- Patrick, oѺ 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)