Talk:List of former counties, cities, and towns of Virginia

about article

Beginning author's note: Unlike much of my WP work, most of this was put together off-line during a long period of time, and very little was pulled from other WP articles. When we had the February 21-22, 2005 server problem, I had time to reflect on how much I enjoy the WP work, and instead of worrying, I resolved to work on something to have to contribute content-wise when the system came back up. I am not in a position to help with the financial end, but I appreciate those who do.

This article will focus on the some of the "lost" counties, cities and towns (both incorporated and not) once located in Virginia. At least at the local level, most (if not all) are not truly "lost", as was North Carolina's Lost Colony from Roanoke Island. In Virginia, it is known with a high degree of certainty (and some secrecy in a few instances) what became of them. However, while the Tar Heel State has only 1 lost colony, ever-competitive Virginia can lay claim to hundreds of lost localities. In facts, at least 5 former county names have been "lost" more than once!

Of course, some of these "lost" communities which are now in other states currently exist under their prior names, and surely the citizens of each do not consider them to be "lost" at all. However, from Virginia's perspective, they were lost to Virginia, even though they may live on in another. The principal author of this article (who is a transplanted Virginian born in what was once Illinois County) would hope that non-Virginians of these areas would think kindly of Virginia as sort of an old fashioned version of today's organ donors, even though the mother colony and state (named for the feisty Virgin Queen Elizabeth I of England) did not always donate gracefully.

Within Virginia, most records seem to prefer the word "extinct" as opposed to "lost." In a strict interpretation, the dictionary defines "extinct" For this article, the words should be considered interchangeable. Personally, I feel extinct sounds mostly sad, while lost is more intriguing.

Researching some of the lost counties, cities and towns of Virginia will lead one to stories of success, failure, great wisdom, honor, tragedy, and even national security. Some of the stories will make many Virginian feel proud, while others will be cause for a moment of thoughtful reflection, maybe even a prayer for lost misdeeds and lost souls.

I realize that this entire topic is a bit lighthearted in its approach as opposed to many Wikipedia articles. I would appreciate the help of other WP editors, especially as I feel this article has FAC potential. Suggestions, constructive criticism, and editing by others, particularly more content, and factual corrections would be welcomed by me. I feel it is timely as Virginia is ramping up for Jamestown 2007.

User: Vaoverland Mark D. Fisher, Richmond, Virginia February 22, 2005 (George Washington's Birthday)

Excessive extraneous info?

It seems that much of the Jamestown material is unrelated to the toic of the article and is better put in the Jamestown, Virginia article. Any thoughts? AjaxSmack 07:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

• I agree with you. Have at it! Mmoyer 15:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that the counties section appears to be taken out of another article and has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Especially the second paragraph, which goes on to describe the counties of other states. I am hesitant to change it as it appears that is has been there since the beginning and possibly may serve some purpose. Thylacine222 13:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of the article around the use of the term "lost" and a suggestion

Hello. I may be wading into something that has been long resolved, or that no one sees any problem with, but I have a few short comments.

The article is very informative and well laid out, but the use of the term "lost" to mean "no longer an existing county, city, or town within the givernmental framework of Virginia" is rather atypical for Wikipedia. The tone of it reads more like a local history written from the point of view of Virginians. While this is not exactly biased, it does seen against the spirit of NPOV.

Also, the inclusion of issues as disparate as South Boston, Virginia, Indiana Territory, the former shires of Virginia, Berkeley County, West Virginia, and the Lost Colony all fit nicely into the literary conceit of "loss," but seem (for lack of a gentler,or more specific, term) unencyclopedic.

I would be happy to go through and make some edits to change the harmonious use of "lost" to more specific descriptions and categories (which would simply follow the current structure of the article), but I want to give others a chance to give me feedback before I dive into an aricle that has clearly taken a lot of work, and seems like a labor of love.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples of "more specific descriptions and categories" before any big changes get made. Remember, Virginia has many more "lost" entities than many other states by virtue of the fact that it was part of the original thirteen colonies, a divided state during the civil war, and that it was split to form West Virginia. Out west they'd be called ghost towns, but here, well, it seems almost a uniquely Virginia thing. Mmoyer 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see a need for more precision here. The first sentence runs "Lost counties, cities, and towns of Virginia are those that existed in [phases of Virginia], and now exist no longer." Without substantial searching, it is clear that many towns and counties mentioned continue to exist with the exact same names, simply in other states; "exist no longer" is inaccurate. Since the article notes that Virginia reused some of the names, even "no longer exist within Virginia" would be, on some level, imprecise. I'm from "out west," and a ghost town has to be almost entirely abandoned. In the name of neutrality, alternatives like "former" should replace "lost." If necessary, a section could mention Virginians' (and other states') perspectives. I would go so far as to apply this to the article title. The headers need reorganization. "400-year history" is not a standard approach; "History" or "Background" would be sufficient. Most of that section's subsections could be classed under "Organization" or "Formation." "Virginia in 2005" is also too focused on the time of writing; "present day" headers should be named so as not to automatically become obsolete even when nothing changes. I would suggest re-titling and expanding that section, or merging it with those that follow. Lastly, the following excerpt (early 4.9.1): "Taken by the government: Not all the destruction of communities that are completely gone occurred in earlier times. The state and federal government each had a hand in some major actions of this type, albeit theoretically at least for the public safety or good." As mentioned previously, opinions should be clearly indicated as such. The subsection introduction should be neutral and specific, without "some major actions" and "albeit theoretically at least." Since a prior request for details was made, I am giving this a week before I start implementing. --Martin Berka (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

This article has some duplication, like the shires, for example. --AW 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlisted town

Has anyone ever heard of Claudville, Virginia? I can't seem to find it on any of the Wikipedia lists, and I'm wondering if it has an alternate name? --Elonka 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like it was an unlisted unincorporated community. I went ahead and created a stub. --Elonka 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Put simply, the arrangement of the article is really sloppy. We need to come up with a coherent arrangement for this article of former Virginia localities. It currently doesn't "flow", but we need to determine how to make it so. We need to determine an arrangement and make it consistent throughout. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As a former resident of Virginia, this page has been somewhat on my watchlist for awhile. It's very interesting and historical. But I think it's mostly a collection of notes, mostly written by User:Vaoverland, who died 2-3 years ago, sadly. There really is a lot of information here, and I'd hate to just delete it. Though maybe some of the lists of counties and cities might be better organized in categories? I think a photo or two -- possibly historical maps of Virginia -- could help the article a lot, too. WTF? (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Not disputing the historical interestingness at all, but the citations are lacking, and that's a problem. Once I get back from Chicago, I'm going to see if I can figure out what all is here and a logical way to organize it all. Then we really need to get going on citations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comma in title

Usually when a comma is used, it is not located before an and. There are only very rare exceptions to this and this is not one of them. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 10:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is entirely true for British English, and this change would be proper and necessary if the article was about Wales instead of Virginia. The final comma is actually a standard in US English, which applies here per WP:TIES. I will revert to the previous title (but leave a redirect) unless you would like to discuss alternative article names not involving lists. My own attempt to move to a shorter name was blocked.--Martin Berka (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Some view the serial comma as a TIES issue. Some view it simply as a personal preference that should not be changed without discussion and good reason. Either way, the article used the serial comma throughout its history and should not have been moved to get rid of it. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is an American English thing, I will leave it. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Lost"

I wandered into this set of cuff notes. There's some interesting narrative here I wouldn't have known. Much of the detail on city and county narrative history could/should be moved into the corresponding individual articles. The length and scatteredness of the text are offputting. I don't know how to synthesize it. "Lost" as in Roanoke Colony isn't the same thing as "lost" Bourbon County. We know where the county is, and it's in the same place as it always has been, though it, like many early counties has become some fraction of its former self. Many counties in Virginia have "lost" most of themselves. Saying "County X lost the southwestern portion, because it's now county Y" is quite in context with much of what is already here, and we'd have hundreds of those statements, to be true to form. Yo? The counties of Kentucky, West Virginia and maybe a few others weren't really lost, not in any common sense. If we just chopped those out, or if necessary, move the lists into footnotes, that'd clear out a lot of cruft. I'd have to think long and hard to make the rest of the article work. Sbalfour (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Diction

The lead tosses out this: "ascended to a higher level"... sounds like some divine or new age transformation happened, and presumably, they're now at a higher level of consciousness; or "descended to lower level", so they're now idiots and savages? It's worth lampooning. I'm not sure what those quaint phrases mean anyway - they suggest that for example, a city might become a county, or a county become a city. Bah. Sbalfour (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)