This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Virginia: Northern Virginia High‑importance 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject Cities standards might help.

Since I've been placing a few civil war notes on this site, I've been pondering how to link "Union". It's been going to a disamb page which says the Northern States in the American Civil War or some such. I don't think linking to United States of America is satisfactory, either. Confederate redirects to Confederate States of America, if I recall. This is not the only place that I've linked to "Union". I need to think of something....

how about [[Union(Civil War)]], which specifies the time and circumstances, instead of the whole USA and every subtopic it presents.

Sounds workable to me. -- Zoe

I've done this - except I made it Union (American Civil War), which is yet more precise. I'm correcting all the union links as well (I also corrected yours above.) Derrick Coetzee 23:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In updating the infobox, I put down the city manager (right now, from everything I've seen, acting city manager at the moment) instead of a mayor under "leader_title" and "leader_name". Everything I remember from seventh-grade civics class at Metz (albeit eight years ago) is that the CM holds all the real power, and the mayor just runs the city council and is a bit of a figurehead, not unlike the "constitutional monarch" system of govt. Do y'all think we should leave it as CM or change it to mayor? MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who told you that Larry Hughes resigned; he hasn't. Stop changing it back when I correct it, please.

I replaced the overly detailed info about two Amtrak trains with a more generalized description (that can be greatly expanded) on all of the rail services for Manassas, plus a bit of history. I do not believe that the detailed schedule information belongs in a Wikipedia article at all, btw. Mmoyer 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised that this page doesn't contain any word about the "Liberty wall", even if it is well known worldwide, maybe a little line could be interesting. (sorry for my poor english, I'm European,. Klem 193.49.48.244 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Are you talking about that large board with a long message about Mexican immigration? I agree, this should be included in the article. (You actually have good english.) 69.255.170.118 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement in the article that "Rabid white supremacist groups are expressing concern about the number of undocumented workers and have recently started to shoot Mexicans." I live in Manassas, and I'm pretty sure that this would have made the local, if not national news. Not only is the statement about "shooting Mexicans" not accurate, but I could not find any news articles to support this statement. 69.243.5.247 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone has removed the References section from this page. 69.243.5.247 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a change by user Gurduloo today. He states that the Manassas is not the county seat of Price William, and quotes the Prince William website (in general; he gave no reference/citation).

It is true that the county government offices are in a campus called County Complex off of the Prince William Parkway near Woodbridge. However, I have found nothing that states that the county seat is Woodbridge. The county courthouse complex is housed in Manassas.

Historical documents on the 'net state that the old county seat was in what was then the Town of Brentsville, and in 1890 moved to Manassas. There is nothing stating that it is somewhere else.

If you do indeed have a reference to back up this claim, I invite you to bring back Gurduloo's change, and change the Prince William page, including a reference, and the page for the place that holds the county seat-dom. --Tim Sabin (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The county courthouse complex is located in an enclave of Prince William county within Manassas city limits. It's like a donut hole, where the donut is Manassas City. The Independent City of Manassas is, however, still the county seat according to the National Associate of Counties (http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx). Thomstevenson085 (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list references the City of Manassas Public Schools website. Yet three schools on the list - Stonewall Middle, Stonewall High, and Osbourn Park, are not within the city of Manassas, and are not part of Manassas Public Schools.

I will remove them. However, if everyone thinks schools that have a Manassas address but are outside of the City of Manassas proper and are not part of the Manassas City School System, then those schools should be added back, along with Parkside Middle School. --Goosedoggy (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Mexico"? Isn't this too derogatory and POV for Wikipedia? If I don't hear otherwise, I'm going to revert this edit. --Tim Sabin (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entered a couple of days ago a request for sources to support a paragraph that sheds a bad light onto the Manassas police and its practices. I hope that who entered that paragraph will find something. I will wait for a week before I remove the paragraph completely. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hogan is a notable person in the community due to his success in collegiate football at West Virginia University and progressing on to the Carolina Panthers NFL team Jnet teller (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he?

I live in the Manassas area, and have never heard of him. An IP user added this, and reversed my reversal. If anyone knows of a reason why he should be put in the list of "Notable residents", please let me know. Otherwise, I'll reverse this entry - again. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the History heading, I'd like to add a sentence or two mentioning the 1911 Peace Jubilee held in Manassas. It was a fairly big deal, as it was the first time in modern history that combatants from opposing sides of a battle returned to the scene (in this case, 50 years later to the day), met on the battlefield and shook hands. 1,000 veterans from the Union and the Confederacy met there, as well as some 10,000 spectators. The festivities were attended by President Taft, who gave a speech regarding the need for world peace (whouda thought?), and the activities that took place during the Jubilee (July 16 - 21, 1911) were used as a model for the 50th anniversary commemorations at Gettysburg. I'm in the midst of composing my thesis which is based around the Jubilee, so I can provide plenty of primary and secondary sources - just want to get the go-ahead from other contributors.

Thomstevenson085 (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it!Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss the rationale for removing him from the notable list. Please do NOT remove his entry per WP:BRD until consensus has been reached.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove My rationale is simple. He is no longer a radio personality, therefore keeping this note on the Manassas page is a lie and is not worthy of Wikipedia. He is not a historical figure, therefore his entry should be deleted. --Tim Sabin (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines for being listed as a notable resident include the subject being notable enough to have an article entry, which O'Meara does. The fact that he is not "on the air" at the moment is irrelevant. The fact that he was a notable radio personality for a significant amount of time IS relevant. Many notable residents are deceased in this and other location articles. Does their death justify removing them?Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, a person must have made a significant mark during his/her lifetime to be "notable". As far as O'Meara having his own article, the question now becomes: should he any longer?

I have been a computer programmer for over 30 years. Does that make me an expert? Or notable? Should I have my own article on Wikipedia? The answer to all these questions is absolutely not. --Tim Sabin (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sumbit that O'Meara is notable per WP:NOTE. If you agree with my interpretation then it would follow that you should agree he is notable enough to stay in this article as a resident. However if you don't agree (that he is notable), then I propose that you nominate the O'Meara article for deletion. If it gets deleted then per guidelines he can be safely removed from the notable residents list in this article. Does that work for you?Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are included in lists for what they are notable FOR. Not for what they used to be. Let's see if there are any style guidelines.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked help desk about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#List_notability_and_styles. I agree with the assessment that O'Meara could at any time go back on radio, and that he is also a media personality, though he is notable for being on the radio. I'm not so sure about podcasting.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When and if he goes back, I'll be his greatest cheerleader, and I will - personally - immediately remove the word "former". Until then, however, "former" describes his current status. --Tim Sabin (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes one on one conversations with editors who have opposite opinions can be difficult, so let me weigh in with my two cents. Having looked at the this article and the O'Meara article it is my opinion that a)O'Meara is notable b)he deserves to be listed as a notable member of this town c)the word 'former' is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWS) So we don't keep changing a person's status based on what show he left or what new show he may take in the future. He has a career: radio personality. To me, adding the word "former" is, in this case, a form of editorializing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: his career is not "radio personality" but rather "talk show host". He is currently a podcaster. He used to be a radio show host. This is not news, it is fact. His article (Mike O'Meara) says so. --Tim Sabin (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Radio Personality. O'Meara's career certainly falls within that category. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable if we asked for an RfC on this issue to get others to clarify?

Radio Personality is a redirect to Presenter. It says nothing about podcaster. I submit that Mike O'Meara has (at least temporarily) given up his current status as a Radio Personality (not his notability) with his now being solely a Podcaster.

Do an RfC all you want. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Your stated intention to engage in tenacious editing is troubling. Just because you are upset with notability being forever is no reason for you to make a WP:POINT. Understanding what Wikipedia is WP:NOT is equally important to editing with WP:CON. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - although I dislike the fact that Wikipedia treats notability as being forever, I have previously stated that I will abide by this policy. I am not questioning this policy. I am not deleting Mike O'Meara's entry. This discussion is rather about whether he is a (current) "radio personality" or a "former radio personality". We're on opposite sides of this debate, that's all. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your intention to ignore BRD with respect to the "former" issue. This article had a state of consensus until you made the edit, which i reverted. At that point discussion should take place. Not revert and discuss. As you have correctly poitnted out that BRD is not compulsasory. However it is a good guidleine for preventing edit wars.Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable before he is always notable. Notability is not temporary fame but enduring. The answer to the problem is simple. If current sources call him a radio personality then use that wording, if current sources call him a former radio personality then use that instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added a RSFasttimes68 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does state that he is a current radio personality. But the reference is from August 18, 2011. The radio show ended September 19, 2011 (see Mike O'Meara). The reference is from before the show ended, so therefore it proves nothing. --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added an RS that is AFTER Sept 19, 2011. I'm starting to feel that you are not showing Good Faith. Please prove me wrong.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RS reports this. Find another RS to counter this if you can. If you continue to revert using your current reasoning I'm afraid we are at an impasse.Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating section for RfCFasttimes68 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an RfC is necessary. Re-state the current contention and then seek a third opinion as per WP:3. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically we already have a 3rd opinion (and 4th, yours) as someone else came in and looked at this (unsolicted on my part, though he recenetly posted on my talk page about another issue so I suspect that is how he came here). I suppose I could go ahead and make the change right now, but I would prefer a wider net to be cast. Unless you have a other objections I would prefer to leave this in RfC to address the larger style issue. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out this is not a futile exercise. The style guidline could be updated as a result of this discussion.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the post on your talk page and came over to have a look. I think the real issue here is a single editor editing against the consensus of three other editors. Wikipedia is not a vote, but if the issue is discussed and the result of the discussion is that most of the editors agree on a course of action that is consensus. I would suggest WP:DRN at this point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per IRWolife's suggestion, I added a RS that backs up the "radio personality" claim. Apparently this wasn't acceptable because the date was after the subjects last radio gig ended. I could have pointed out that this is still against consensus, however I found two more RS items after the said date. If a revert occurs again I will open a DRN.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is demographic information in this article from 2000, 2005, and 2010. Do we really need all of them? --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to me. Though if you read it in sequential order I'm not sure what years some of the "stats" refer to. For the graph that starts with The median income for a household in the city was $60,409..., is that referring to the 2005 information? Very hard to tell. I'd be in favor of deleting the lot and just keep in the 2010 information, and possibly the blurb about the 2007 Hispanic increase. Do the representatives belong in this section? I've no idea if there is a MoS for this. Help desk might know, but I wouldn't object to you being bold and taking a swipe first. IAR and all that. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any info about the dates of establishment? All I found starts with Civil War... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dako59 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History before Civil War? Toponimy?--Manfariel (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have some genealogical "information" that claims one of my ancestors immigrated to Manassas in 1699. Considering the original name of the town was "Manassas Junction," I'm willing to bet it wasn't founded until after the invention of the locomotive. GnatFriend (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I decided to stop being a lazy sod, and I googled it. Apparently the railroad junction in the area was completed in 1852. The town was legally incorporated on April 2, 1873. GnatFriend (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added a 400px wide map to this article showing many of the neighboring counties, some over 50 miles from this city. Similar maps have been added by this editor to a number of city and county articles. There is already a map in the infobox which seems very adequate. Also, WP:USCITIES#Geography suggests that a map be used to illustrate the "geographic space" of a settlement; it does not suggest that a map showing 20+ surrounding counties be included. MOS:PERTINENCE states that "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". It's not clear how the readers of this article about a city would find a map of all the surrounding counties relevant. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily change the size of the map: | width = whatever. Abel (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current Adjacent counties and independent cities section is an example of riveting text: "Prince William County, Virginia – northwest, west, south, east, Manassas Park, Virginia – northeast." Seeing how those counties relate to each other by location, size, and space on a map could not possibly help anyone in any way. Abel (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the map you added "could not possibly help anyone in any way", why did you add it? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. Abel (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the large map of surrounding counties be added to this (and several other) articles? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y The current Adjacent counties and independent cities section text explains little: "Prince William County, Virginia – northwest, west, south, east, Manassas Park, Virginia – northeast." Seeing how those counties relate to each other by location, size, and space on a map could help article readers. The size of the map can easily be changed at any time with | width = whatever. Abel (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as long as we're talking about [1]. This is a 41x42 pixel map, and I can't think of any reason why it should be blown up to a width of 400 pixels. Am I missing something here, is it not unreadable to others? Besides, I wouldn't recommend any map be wider than 250 or maybe 300 pixels, assuming it is legible in the first place. --NoGhost (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of the map can easily be changed at any time with | width = whatever." Abel (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is whether this map should have been added in the first place. I doubt the readers of Wikipedia went the article about Manassas to see a map of 25 surrounding counties. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The commonwealth has 95 counties. How many people have them and their locations memorized? Abel (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: True, but that doesn't change the fact that the image is 41 x 42 pixels and loses all definition when re-sized. I checked on a couple of my devices and it wasn't legible. As for @Magnolia677:'s concerns, I don't actually have an opinion on this at the moment, but I will look into it more. --NoGhost (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Prince William County, Virginia – northwest, west, south, east, Manassas Park, Virginia – northeast" is somehow better? Darn sure is not more informative. Abel (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked into it a bit more, and regarding the usefulness of a map, I have to agree with @Id4abel: that a more detailed location map does provide better context (especially for visual learners, and people like me unfamiliar with the region at amazed and the number of tiny counties). However, consensus on settlements at WP:USCITIES should be considered. Regarding the map file and map size I don't believe Abel's statement that "The size of the map can easily be changed at any time with | width = whatever" is correct. I attempted to change to the file width to 300px and the map labels become too compressed. Abel, my recommendation is to 1) find or create a larger file size so that you don't need to stretch out a small file, and 2) figure out how to position all the map labels on a map no larger than 300px (I would rather not play around with this myself, being unfamiliar with the area). I think you would have to agree that a 400px map is far too large and overbearing. Lastly, @Magnolia677: you might want to crosspost this RfC on the Washington, D.C. talkpage and on WP:WPDC? Thanks! --NoGhost (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The labels are also easy to change | label_size=whatever. So if the map was 300px you are fine with it? If so, not a problem. Abel (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the underlying bitmap needs to be converted to svg otherwise scaling will not be good. In addition the labels should be in the svg file. I'll take a quick look and see if I can get a proof-of-concept version created. --Erp (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: Until there is better version of the map file, please do. However, please remember that the locus of Magnolia677's RfC was whether these maps should be included or not. More editors will need to comment before consensus can be reached. --NoGhost (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoGhost: Yes. In addition, it seems logical to me that if one editor prefers a 300px map then other editors might also prefer a 300px map and I can make that happen. Abel (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoGhost: Is now 300px. Is that good or is the map itself the problem? Because another map can be uploaded to replace this one if that is the issue. Abel (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: I think you've resolved 1 issue, the map is no longer overbearing on the page. The issue of map quality still remains, and an additional issue of map label size now exists (placenames probably not be legible on some browsers). You might want to play with it still, or you might want to just want until the RfC has been resolved, it's up to you. --NoGhost (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoGhost: Uploaded a new map from OpenStreetMap. This version uses their standard layer. They offer four different layers. Also, OpenStreetMap is only one of many options. Is this version more to your liking? If not, there are plenty more options to try. Abel (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this RfC. The idea of a regional map is good. The implementation, so far, is not - and that looks to me to present some challenges. The base map needs to be of high quality (not a small map blown up by factor of 100), the jurisdictions need to be legibly and attractively labelled, and the whole thing when it's done needs to be of a size it doesn't overwhelm the page. The map in its current form isn't, IMHO, quite ready for inclusion. Are there examples from other articles that can serve as templates? JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think too that the map should be revised according to the article it is illustrating. If it's in an article on Manassas, then it should center on Manassas, not (approximately) Fairfax. It may also be helpful in choosing areas to label to consider their regional importance, rather than only their proximity to the subject. I don't know that Baltimore even belongs in a map on Manassas, but if it does, it seems like it should be labelled. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the metropolitan Washington, DC area I've added two maps to Wikimedia Commons (these are very much draft) which should be easier to read and edit. Thoughts? I consider the main reason to have a location map other than the one showing location in state is the nearness to the state border and that the main big city is not in the state. --Erp (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this new image has the same coordinates as the current image, and it looks like it matches perfectly, we can just upload the this new image as a new version of the current image and all the location module business will still work perfectly without having to change anything more than the summary.Abel (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The projection may be slightly different. It looks like another map has been slipped in but a key problem is that (from my view) the labels are overlapping each other. My guess is you want to label each of the counties in the metropolitan area (1 West Virginia, 5 Maryland, 8 Virginia) plus DC plus the independent cities in Virginia (6 in the metropolitan area), plus possibly the counties and cities on the map that aren't in the metropolitan area (2 in West Virginia, 9 in Maryland, 13 in Virginia). I might suggest using a legend (mark the counties with numbers and the cities with letters).--Erp (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I uploaded a new version of the same map using OpenStreetMap because 1. OpenStreetMap is quick, 2. very easy to have the exact same coordinates, 3. OpenStreetMap has its very own Wikipedia compatible licence. That is only one option available from OpenStreetMap. Since we have not yet decided what is the best option I figured might as well start with the easiest, just to show how quick this can be fixed. I like the image you created. It looks just like the original, but of a higher quality. Just go to the current image and upload you image as a new version. Edit the summary to overwrite OpenStreetMap with your work and problem solved. If the coordinates are slightly different, not a problem just let me know the new top, bottom, left, and right map borders in decimal notation and I can replace what is in the module, or you can if you are comfortable editing those. The easiest way that I know of to get those coordinates is to find a spot on your map in Google Maps because the Google Maps url will automatically show the coordinates in decimal notation for that spot. Abel (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All look at Falls Church, VA and how it handles maps. --Erp (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One nice feature of location maps is that with linked text like this, the city or county in question is automatically displayed in bold. So the exact same code can be used within the Fairfax (the city) article and also within the Fairfax County article and each will have the right bold without anyone doing anything. Also blank location maps can be used for all kind of things from showing one specific location like a single high school to showing multiple campuses of a university. All that matters is that the geographic coordinates of the map exactly match the coordinates in the module for all the dots to magically appear in the correct locations (if needed we can change what is in the module, not a big deal). Abel (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't help matters if one can't read the labels in the first place. Either the map is so large that it overwhelms the article or it can't be read. Now making the map large for the Washington metropolitan area article might be justified but not so much for all the articles about the component parts (a large map for them should be of the town/county itself marked with significant points within). --Erp (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Another advantage of location maps can address that issue. The Washington metropolitan area article can include a larger map (thanks to svg scaling) with every city and county labeled, while city and county articles can use the same map, but smaller, with less stuff labeled. Abel (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A note about how Virginia is odd, not good or bad just different that most other places. In most states cities are a part of counties. Not true in Virginia. In Virginia cities are legally completely separate. Citizens pay taxes to a city or a county, not both. Map wise this means that the Washington Metropolitan Area (as defined by 47900 DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area because there are like seven different definitions of DC area) must include tiny cities right next to counties without everything overwriting each other, no small task. Abel (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The colors seem to make the text a bit hard to read. Clearly your svg skills are far superior to mine, would you consider posting another version with different colors?

Comment - I'm still concerned about this map, and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus about where or if it should be used. User talk:JohnInDC suggested the map be centered according to the location it is being used. This has not happened, and at Warren County, Virginia it adds little to the article, overwhelming the article with it's size, and showing only locations east of that county. At Falls Church, Virginia, the text is illegible. As well, the text does not distinguish between links to cities and links to counties. I started this RfC with the question "should the large map of surrounding counties be added to this (and several other) articles?" At this point I can only see this map being of benefit to Washington metropolitan area. However, at that article it has been added to the infobox, where it has created an infobox so large it takes up half the width of the article. I propose that this map be removed until it can be improved. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what your settings are, but I can read that “illegible” text perfectly. Is the text easier to read when the image is larger? Of course. However, people complained that 400px is too large and 300px is better, so 300px it is. There are lots of random demands made above, yet so far as I can tell, only two people have done any work to change anything. So saying things like “every city and county needs its own custom map” is all well and good, if other people have the time and inclination to do all that for you. That of course completely defeats the purpose of location maps, some of which are used in hundreds of different articles, but if someone wants to make dozens of custom maps certainly no one will stop them. Abel (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a matter of browser and browser settings (especially default font size). I'm using Firefox on a Mac with a large default font. The map in this article has overlapping labels and so is not readily readable. An all in one SVG map has the advantage that one can click through and blow the map up, but, that doesn't work with this type of map since the labels are overlays on the image (clicking through only shows the basic image). --Erp (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: You write: "There are lots of random demands made above, yet so far as I can tell, only two people have done any work to change anything." It's your map, why should you expect other editors to fix it? The text is too small and can only be read by overwhelming articles with its size; you've added it to places on the fringe of the map; and on the one article where it does belong, Washington metropolitan area, you've created an enormous and awkward infobox. Just because you have spent time experimenting with map creation does not mean you can add your creation to every article you feel it belongs. Again, I propose that this map be removed until it meets the level of quality suggested in this discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not too small. I can read it fine and so can Erp. Your computer settings and eyesight do not allow you to see it just fine, that is not something I can solve. I can add a bigger version for people who share similar settings + eyesight problems, which I did to accommodate your demands. The current map meets every level of quality in the discussion:

“I have to agree with @Id4abel: that a more detailed location map does provide better context (especially for visual learners, and people like me unfamiliar with the region at amazed and the number of tiny counties).”

“1) find or create a larger file size so that you don't need to stretch out a small file” Erp did exactly that.

“2) figure out how to position all the map labels” I repositioned the map labels for both a smaller version (the one that your settings and eyesight have problems with) and a larger version.

There is nothing in this discussion that has not been addressed, however, I am sure you will find a new complaint somewhere. Abel (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't read your map around the Manassas, DC area. --Erp (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't have a problem with the graphic itself and I think that it is useful. My concern, looking at the article, is that we already have plenty of graphics while the prose remains sparse by comparison. Encyclopedia entries are carried by prose and enhanced with graphics. Adding this graphic would damage the already disproportional balance. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If balance is an issue why not add to the text? Abel (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A discussion about the appropriateness of this map is also taking place at Talk:Warren County, Virginia#Adjacent counties. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know I am chiming in after the dust may have settled, but I wanted to throw out one other option that I don't believe has been discussed yet. Given we seem to be going back and forth regarding size and legibility (given we want the map in the first place), is there any interest in redesigning a smaller-type map (circa 250-300 pixels) that has labels for the surrounding counties and for Manassas as follows? It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done and in article (). Abel (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: No it is not. Your map is 380px. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: "The size of the map can easily be changed at any time with | width = whatever." Which I just did.Abel (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: Why is "Fairfax" identified as "Fairfax County", but Prince William County and Loudoun County just say "Prince William" and "Loudoun"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Fairfax is a city, Fairfax County is a county. There is no city named Prince William or Loudoun. Abel (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: This sort of confusion is likely not helpful to the readers of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I did not give a city and a county that border each other the same name. Abel (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now I understand I'm really late to this, but there's still issues with text overlap, I really think the whole map thing should be scrapped with a map of the county, with the image coordinates being linked. I realize this is extremely hard to do, but it may solve clarity issues in the long run. —JJBers 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take and post a screen shot of the overlapping text. On my screen the text is no where near each other. Abel (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the resources to compile the data myself but to whoever has put data out there for the rest of the counties of Virginia, if you could post the results of Manassas, VA that would be totally awesome. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSFCA (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added section on neighborhoods has some problems:

• The description of Georgetown South portrays the neighborhood in a negative way that is inconsistent even with the 6+ year old Washington Post article that it cites, even while also borrowing text liberally and directly from that article
• While I’m sure the residents of Oakenshaw might be pleased to see their neighborhood appear here, there doesn’t appear to be any notable information offered about the neighborhood to distinguish it from other Manassas subdivision built during the 1980s/90s, or to justify its inclusion. If it deserves mention at all, it might make more sense to mention it as part of a larger discussion about the city’s development in the late 20th century.
• The section on Old Town has some interesting historical information that might be worth preserving somehow, but some of the information, particularly the discussion of later development, has no citation, is factually incorrect, and does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view.
• As far as I know, the area bounded by Grant, Sudley, and Portner has never been known as Old Town Triangle, and no citation is given for this. That area (which I believe is actually called Northwest) is part of the Manassas historic district, which most simply call “Old Town Manassas”. Old Town is not generally thought to be limited to downtown, despite what the cited tourism website says
• Citations to Google Maps and Zillow are not helpful, and the inclusion of current home values in specific neighborhoods doesn’t seem at home in this article.
• In general, the idea of a section on neighborhoods in Manassas seems like a good one, but the current iteration needs a lot more information from a larger collection of quality sources to justify its inclusion.

Jbholes (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pronounced like "molasses" or "Arkansas"? Any ideas on a source to add the IPA to the lead (I couldn't find anything)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This video shows the Manassas Police Chief pronouncing it like "molasses". Dictionary.com has an entry as well; I added the IPA to the lead and cited it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the word "Manassas" come fruit m? Aboudaqn (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LogicalLeaf129:...you continue to edit war to include one of your self-made maps, despite removal of your maps in the following instances:

• Ashburn, Virginia, where User:Drmies described your map as "ugly and unreadable".
• Northern Virginia, where User:Rabbipika removed your map.
• Fairfax County, Virginia, where User:Bartzyx wrote "this style of map is inappropriate for an encyclopedia".

There was also considerable discussion at User talk:LogicalLeaf129#Your map, where User:Jbholes also joined in. Comments included:

• "unencyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia"
• "garish"
• "tourist style"
• "violates NPOV"

Would you consider removing your map? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit early in the morning here for the headache I get by looking at these maps. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet you continue to look at them and offer no constructive criticism to better the information presented on it. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Magnolia, I just looked at that user's talk page. If this gets exploded to ANI the editor is likely to end up getting blocked, considering the careless responses and their disregard for how Wikipedia works--by way of consensus. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Wikipedia's Assume good faith and No personal attacks policies, editors are expected to evaluate content based on policy and verifiability, not personal opinions or insults. If no policy-based reason is provided for removing content such as violation of Verifiability, Neutral point of view, or No original research (which none of you have cited) and instead the reverts are based on editorial bias or personal commentary, the edit may remain. If your complaints were backed by wikipedia policy i would have no issue accommodating them LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you talking to me about this issue , unfortunately without you or the other editors citing direct wiki policies that it violates your issues with the map are nothing more than editorial preference which is not what Wikipedia information map or text caters to. None of the editors/comments about the map you cited were backed by any form of wikipedia policy just insults. Also I am not sure what Drmies last comment implies, nothing i have uploaded or edited on wikipedia has violated any direct policy and the use of my edits are appropriate. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LogicalLeaf129, on your talk page, User:Bartzyx has alerted you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions and Chartjunk. Please also see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Most important, a consensus of editors find your maps to be poor-quality, per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE]], images are appropriate when they support nearby text. The map wasn’t in an infobox or used as encyclopedic cartography it was placed in the Etymology section to show surrounding, officially named communities relevant to the name’s origin. If it was mispositioned inside a header box, that’s a formatting fix, not a reason for deletion. Subjective claims like “poor quality” don’t override verifiable, relevant content per [[WP:V]], [[MOS:IMAGEQUALITY]], and [[WP:PRESERVE]]. Also that was a isolated instance unrelated to yours , i resolved it by removing it from the template box. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When everyone but the creator thinks the map is a garish monstrosity, the creator might want to consider why and perhaps learn something about proper map making. File:Western Prince William County Map.png according to you is suppose to help with the etymology section and had the caption "Map of Manassas, VA and surrounding communities in western Prince William County". Unfortunately given the size and color of the roads on the map, it is very difficult to see what the surrounding communities are (not to mention that bit of text more properly belongs in geography). Ideally the map should be proper svg and the wikipedia style preference is not to use strong colors in maps; the idea is to supplement the text not draw attention away from the text. Erp (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a user with Logical in their username user:LogicalLeaf129 you aren’t being very logical I think you could learn a thing or two from the Vulcans of Star Trek in not letting your emotions and bias get the better of your judgement which clearly you’re failing at Rabbipika (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your a grown adult with "Pika" in your name , lets not start talking about usernames bud lol, i reverted your edit because you provided no edit summary which is a clear violation of policy, i see this platform is selective about when policy is applied so I do not expect that to hold much weight to you. I could careless for Star Trek or whatever pointless irrelevant film you recommend , if you have nothing to add to better the conversation go back to the page and learn how to properly edit. Only reason I have not put my map back is because I am in the process of fixing it despite no constructive criticism before deletion under WP:Preserve LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet no constrictive criticism or ways to improve the map over deletion via WP:Preserve which i can see now policy is used selectively on this platform so I do not expect that to hold much weight with you , nothing but insults that do not add any value to a discussion among editors. LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WPMAPS for a lot of pointers. IIRC you were using zip codes to support your argument (though that seems to be contrary at least according to one person to what the source you used allows) but your map does not show zip code regions. Roads dominate but aren't part of the argument. You might want to look at the previous discussion from 2017 about a map for this article. Erp (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved a chunk of text from etymology to geography. The first bit about the zip codes is reasonably ok but it then goes on to state "This broader understanding [of Manassas] includes adjacent areas such as Buckhall, Bull Run, Sudley, Yorkshire, and Loch Lomond." The zip codes link maybe supports Sudley Springs and Manassas Park but not any of these. The paragraph then goes on to list some primary sources but no good secondary sources making that claim. Erp (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving this content. I had been working on trying to improve the other information under Etymology and moving it to History, but I wasn't sure what to do about this additional information pertaining to CDPs and zip codes. I agree that it seems more appropriate to have it under Geography, if it is to remain on the page. Jbholes (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I saw this after removing part of the text being discussed here. The individual points in the section about Zip codes and the surrounding areas contained some sources, but are used to synthesise entirely unsupported conclusions - that it apparently unusual that nearby businesses choose to identify themselves using the nearest city and, especially, that "ZIP codes and shared infrastructure influence local identity". Dorsetonian (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]