Template talk:California

Harmonizing Template:California

Finish harmonizing Template:California BigBang11 23:27 Pacific Standard Time, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regions

What criteria is being used to determine what regions should be on this template? I do not want to see an edit war over this section similar to what happened with the metros section before we decided to strictly use Census MSAs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see no reasonable criteria other than something larger than a city and less than a state. Actually, that isn't even correct, since the ambiguously named Harbor Area article is all part of the city of Los Angeles. Personal opinion: Anything in the regions section that is a subset of one of the other links should be removed. There may be a dozen links that all fit under Southern California for example. ^BlankVerse 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you on that, except that if we take that to its ultimate conclusion, then all we need are three region links: Northern California, Central California, and Southern California. But regions like Silicon Valley and Wine Country should be significant enough to be mentioned in the template! So I am really not sure what is the best solution. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If there was some official, credible source to copy, it would make life easier. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted a bunch of 'regions' that are just parts of LA or LA County (e.g. Palos Verdes Peninsula). I also deleted some of the minor valleys such as Conejo Valley. I think that even with my deletions the regions section is still too large, but every criteria that I can think of would probably eliminate too many regions.

The list that User talk:Geomeister seems to be following is List of regions of the United States#California. ^BlankVerse 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But that list suffers the same problem in that there is no official, credible source. Both that and the template seem to be listing arbitrary regions. Therefore, I am removing it from the template until this matter is resolved. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Geomeister is adding a bunch of links that aren't regions. How are Salton Sea and Santa Ana Mountains regions of California? Are we going to list every mountain range and lake as regions? —Kenyon (t·c) 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think listing the San Andreas Fault as a "region" is also a bit of a stretch. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just purged some of Geomeister's original research again. SanSan and Tech Coast are both science fiction fantasies that have never come into use outside of very small geek communities; that is, they are not known or used by most of the people in the areas which those terms describe. Including them on the California template is nearly as stupid as putting the U.S., Canada, and Mexico on a North American Union template. While some North American intellectuals, myself included, believe that a North American Union is a laudable long-term foreign policy goal, it is currently a science fiction fantasy among a relatively small community of intellectuals which has little hope of becoming a reality in the foreseeable future. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of random information per official policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If Geomeister wishes to push SanSan or Tech Coast, he or she is welcome to build their own site on WikiCities. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such must conform to certain content policies (otherwise it would not be an encyclopedia). --Coolcaesar 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Upstate California" because it is a hoax region and citations about it lead to a perhaps non-profit entity which cannot be found in the IRS non-profit lookup service. Wiki is not a place for hoaxes or original research. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Garish Color!

Don't know about anyone else, but I think the bright gold we're using here (and in every county template) is waaaaay too saturated. It should be toned down to something more like the Delaware template or West Virginia or even (if you still want a bright gold) New Jersey. As it stands it's hard to look at, and makes all the California-related pages stand out too much. I don't think a template such as this should be distracting from the main content, and this one sure is right now. All opposed? (Also, is there any way to mass change all the counties or is it a manual thing? Thanks) trisweb (Talk) 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Seriously. It looks much better. trisweb (Talk) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Color

I just acted boldly and changed the color of the template..so if it is for the worse, just revert..I didn't like the first color as it appeared like the fool of new messages.--Alnokta 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First, color that you added does not look too good. Second, the shade of gold is basically the same as Template:Pennsylvania and Template:New Jersey. Thirdly, I have never ever heard of a navigation template fooling people into thinking it is the "you have new messages" box. How is that possible? Unless you are using a different skin and/or tweaked your monobook.css file, I think the California flag with the white background, the view/talk page/edit/ links in one corner, the hide/show link in the other corner, and the large "State of California" makes it distinguishable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant the color only, why use it in another place..there are many many colors could be used..I wonder if there is an alternative to the current color..it is just a convenience imho..--Alnokta 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

iirc, gold was chosen because California is "The Golden State". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

you remember correctly, its also called:

1. Grape State
2. Land of Milk and Honey

smile.svg--Alnokta 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New California Flag Graphic

New version - updated bear

I recently created an new SVG for the Flag of California. The new version is designed to give a more accurate depiction of the bear. In particular, I attempted to get the textures and shapes as accurate as possible. The position of the star and size and proportions of the bear are compliant with the official flag code. To create the shading effect on the bear, I used an actual California Flag as a reference. The colors used in this image are also the official shades of red, brown and green (unfortunately, manufacturers rarely attempt to get the colors correct).
Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions on the changes ... and if we should use this image rather than the current one. Perhaps someone could replace the existing file on Wikimedia Commons (I created an account, but it is far too new). I also added this topic to the California discussion. Thanks for your time.-DevinCook (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Template expert help requested

This template has a "show/hide" function so that it does not present its bulk unless requested. The template "ElectionsCA" sorely needs a similar function. Can anyone please add this? I had to move the template call to the bottom of the article "Politics of California]] to compensate for this lack. Display of these follows. (Please remove when fixed) Thank you, Leonard G. (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I can change it so it has show and hide rows similar to {{Politics of California}}. But I will not change the overall vertical format unless I see some consensus to also change the format of its sister templates like {{ElectionsAK}}, {{ElectionsDE}}, {{ElectionsFL}}, etc. Is that ok? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mircoarea

The section about microarea's is a bit ridiculous and likely needs to be removed. South Bay (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it "ridiculous" when the information was gathered from the United States micropolitan area and Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas articles? Is there something wrong with the United States Office of Management and Budget defining these types of official areas around the country? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Metro areas linking to cities?

Why do the metro areas link to the cities in those areas? If we're going to have a list of cities, then we might as well call it "major cities". But if we're going to have metro areas, then let's link to the metro area articles. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the decision to link to the cities was made well before almost all of the metro area articles were ever created. And so, it hasn't yet changed since then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If we dont have major articles on the metro areas, then we should include the names of all major cities in each area. im thinking berkeley should be added to the string for hayward/oakland/fremont. problem is, thats not the metro area, i think sf/oakland is the metro region. Oh, heres a category: Category:Metropolitan areas of California, we already classify the entire bay area as one metro area. So, I wonder if we should have a section for metro regions as defined here, and ANOTHER section for major cities. just a thought.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mess

the metro stat and micro stat sections are a mess. too much original research. not that the research is inaccurate, its just not supported by external refs. I think i need to tighten it up. some helpful links: California census statistical areas, San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA, Los Angeles metropolitan area, Greater Los Angeles Area, San Diego metropolitan area, Sacramento metropolitan area, Metropolitan Fresno, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)