Talk:Virginia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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