Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox U.S. state

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJKazin (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 9 November 2009 (→‎Electoral votes added: Removed electoral votes field from the infobox, as per consensus.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. States#Template

Syntax

{{US state |
 Name = Arizona |
 Fullname = State of Arizona |
 Flag = Flag of Arizona.svg |
 Flaglink = [[Flag of Arizona]] |
 Seal = Arizonastateseal.jpg |
 Former = Arizona Territory |
 Former_flag = Flag of Arizona.svg |
 Map = Map_of_USA_highlighting_Arizona.png |
 Nickname = The [[Grand Canyon]] State,<br/> The Copper State |
 Capital = [[Phoenix, Arizona|Phoenix]] |
 OfficialLang = None |
 Languages = [[English language|English]] 74.1%, [[Spanish language|Spanish]] 19.5%, [[Navajo]] 1.9% |
 LargestCity = [[Phoenix, Arizona|Phoenix]] |
 Governor = [[Janet Napolitano]] (D)|
 Senators = [[John McCain]] (R) <br> [[Jon Kyl]] (R) |
 PostalAbbreviation = AZ |
 AreaRank = 6<sup>th</sup> |
 TotalArea = 295,254 |
 TotalAreaUS = 113,998 |
 LandArea = 294,312 |
 LandAreaUS = 113,634 |
 WaterArea = 942 |
 WaterAreaUS = 364 |
 PCWater = 0.32 |
 PopRank = 20<sup>th</sup> |
 2000Pop = 5,939,292 |
 DensityRank = 36th |
 2000Density = 17.43 |
 2000DensityUS = 45.2 |
 AdmittanceOrder = 48th |
 AdmittanceDate = [[February 14]], [[1912]] |
 TimeZone = [[Mountain Standard Time Zone|Mountain]]: [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]-7<br />|
 Latitude = 31°20'N to 37°N |
 Longitude = 109°3'W to 114°50'W |
 Width = 500 |
 WidthUS = 310 |
 Length = 645 |
 LengthUS = 400 |
 HighestPoint = [[Humphreys Peak]] |
 HighestElev = 3,851 |
 HighestElevUS = 12,633 |
 MeanElev = 1,250 |
 MeanElevUS = 4,100 |
 LowestPoint = [[Colorado River]] |
 LowestElev = 21 |
 LowestElevUS = 70 |
 ISOCode = US-AZ |
 Website = www.az.gov
}}

States using the template that have various oddities

Unemployment rate

Any objection to adding unemployment rate and linking to List of U.S. states by unemployment rate? Cburnett 20:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

overall a beautiful table, but far too much data. conciseness! 90% of viewers won't care about the same 90% of that data. get rid of it.

Languages spoken

An anonymous user added a "languages spoken" line to the infobox. There are a couple problems with this: First, none of the state articles have this information in their infobox template, so it shows up as an ugly {{{Languages}}} tag. Second, I'm not sure how this is intended to work. I'm sure that every state has English speakers, French speakers, Spanish speakers, Chinese speakers, etc. Are we supposed to put percentages here? Is there a threshold for including a language? The third problem is the infobox is already very large, and I don't think we should add more information to it. For these reasons, I'm reverting the template. Rhobite 20:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

km2

My wife complained at me that the area for New Jersey is expressed in square kilometers. It seems unintuitive that the template for US States be metric. I'm not advocating we go through and change all them to SAE, but it would be nice to have both values. the page for kilometer has conversion values. the unix program units(1) can also convert. i'd like to see square miles (as opposed to, say, acres). Avriette 19:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kansas and Missouri already list both. If you simply want to update New Jersey in a similar fashion go right ahead. If you want to change the template to explicitly include both measurement forms it's a bigger change, but I suspect no one would exactly mind. To do this, the least instrusive way is to first change all the state articles to reference the new parameters (presumably something like TotalAreaMi2, LandAreaMi2, ..., and don't forget about width, length, and elevation), and then change the template. Since the units are clearly labeled when you look at the article I personally don't think this is worthwhile (and I think it's nuts that the US hasn't switched to metric, but that's another issue). -- Rick Block 20:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I doubt very much that the original complainant really just wants to see New Jersey that way, in a way different from the rest of the states.
What's this "similar fashion" nonsense? If it's not in the template, that's not something you have a right to expect. You have no cause to bitch if you don't get consistency.
Futhermore, there is no really good way to do this, without editing the template.
The thing is, the people who entered this information in the first place almost certainly already had this information, and better information than someone can get by converting back from the numbers given, and could have built the template to accomodate it.
The other thing is, if you leave it to piecemeal additions by whoever cares to make them, you have no cause to complain if the unconversion of the converted numbers ends up being slightly different from the original. That can happen even using the best conversion factors, and there is no guarantee that the people making these piecemeal additions would use the best conversion factors.
It is, of course, also unreasonable to expect that someone making a suggestion like this is going to know enough about how templates work to make changes in the template, or to expect that undiscussed changes in the template will be left standing. Gene Nygaard 17:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and add US units to the template. While I agree that the metric system is probably a better system in the long term, the fact is that most Americans probably don't have a good sense of what the units are, in an everyday sort of way. I'll go ahead and convert the units, probably using google. --Mcpusc 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been converting states in alphabetical order, but I need to stop for now. I've commented out the relavant parts of the template until I can finish later tonight. I've been using Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states#units_in_the_infoboxes when data exists; otherwise I've been converting using Google Calculator. --Mcpusc 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template busted in IE

For some reason this template is busted in the IE shipping with Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP SP2 (possibly others). No text displays to the left of it, causing articles to start far down the page. It shows up fine in Firefox, so I'm not sure what's going on. Deco 19:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. state test

Template:Infobox U.S. state test has not been edited in awhile. Is it still needed, or can it be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 11:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Representatives

Is there a reason that senators but not representatives are included in the state's info box? Although some large states (i.e. CA) will have many representatives, it seems fitting that representatives be shown right after senators. How do you all feel about this?--R6MaY89 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Senators are included but not representatives since there are exactly two senators and a variable number of reps (California has 53!). Perhaps the template:xx-FedRep template (e.g. template:CA-FedRep) should be included in each state article (rather than in the infobox)? --Rick Block previously unsigned
Yes, that would be a good idea, but it makes the senatorial part redundant. Is there a FedHouseRepOnly or something that we could use?--R6MaY89 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know. Perhaps we should simply delete the senators from the state infobox? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support moving this out of the state box and putting the FedRep template at the bottom of each state article. Less duplication that way; if needed a link can be placed in this template to jump down to the fedrep template. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages

Sorry, can someone summarize how many states actually have "Official languages"? Missouri certainly doesn't, and some well-meaning editor added English but it caused confusion. Is there a better way to phrase it, being mindful of the "Language spoken" foible above? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana has both English and French as official languages. However, I could not find (it was a quick search) any law saying that French is an official language. There are laws that protect it from discrimination and encourage its use; but nothing that seemed to say official language. It would be nice to see some citation for its status as an official language.—MJCdetroit 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please make this an optional field. Many states do not have an official language, and those with none but special status (such as New Mexico) need more explaining.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information?

Shouldn't the template include the state bird, state flower, state tree, and state song? SCHZMO ✍ 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, there was talk about adding state symbols. At the time, the problem was there was no way anybody could think of to make the list of symbols variable depending on the state (some states have a dinosaur, some states have an insect, etc.). The general technique for building tables that have entries only if some parameter is supplied is now fairly well know, so I think it makes sense to revisit this. We might want to wait a bit until the qif vs. #if controversy settles down (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit order

Recent edits indicate some disagreement about what order the measurements should be listed. The relevant guideline about this is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement which says If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. It's not obvious to me which is the source value and which is the converted value, but if we can determine this then I think listing the source value first is appropriate. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced values can be different from state to state. There by making the sourced value hard to put first in a template setting. That's why because the article is U.S. Centric in nature, it should be U.S. Customary first and metric second.—MJCdetroit 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time zones' new style

I really like this change. It cleaned up the Michigan infobox quite nicely. Good job Rick. —MJCdetroit 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't been happy with the timezone presentation for the states with multiple timezones for a long time. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State motto

It would be cool to get a line near the nickname for the state motto. I was just about to add Montani semper liberi to the West Virginia infobox but there was no place for it. I thought about being bold and adding a line to the template myself, but I have absolutely no idea what I am doing in that department. I know other states have mottos, too, so it would be a useful addition for all 50. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like in Template:Infobox City. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added an optional field for this; Motto = . I added Montani semper liberi to the West Virginia infobox. However, other than church stuff my latin is not very good. So I only added the Latin. My best guess is that it means the Mountains are always free. You will have to include the English translation next to the Latin. —MJCdetroit 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Montani semper liberi has its own article so I just linked it in the WV infobox. MJCdetroit 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the mottos to the infobox of all of the states. It seems to have gone over ok, although a user from North Dakota has objected on the grounds of it being in the article. I've opened a dialouge with him and we'll see how it goes. Either way, there should be consitency in all of the infoboxes. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding the state motto to the infobox...it is optional (for now). However, just for the record, before anyone starts asking about state trees or flowers or dirt or any other state symbol...no, no, no. Stuff like that can stay within the text of the article (in my opinion). —MJCdetroit 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Adding those sorts of things to this infobox would be borderline statecruft to start adding to the infoboxes. You'd then have to start including state soil, state pancake topping, state reality shows, state chewing gum, etc. before too long. I think motto and nickname are good places to draw the line. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Median household income

I think readers might be interested to know the median household incomes of the states. I have added a line for median household income and am going to come around and the median household income to every state template next week, unless somebody beats me to it ;-). Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formatting a bit, and added the income rank as well. See Colorado for an example. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different look

I've changed the formatting a bit, using "infobox geography" (recently added to MediaWiki:Common.css). If anyone notices anything that looks odd in whatever skin and/or browser you use, please let me know. I realize there is not yet consensus about this, but this is in line with the guidelines I've proposed at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes (I'd like to use this template as an example). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Quarters

ProjectUSA

A project has suggested that each of the 50 State Quarters are incorporated into {{Infobox U.S. state}}. Is this doable? Biggest problem I see is that a few states still don't have one and the image filenames aren't homogenous. See Colorado for an example. CQ 05:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be done, but let's not. In my opinion, I don't think that it belongs in Infobox U.S. state. If the editors of a page want it in that article then add it to the US state insignia infobox like is done in the Colorado example. MJCdetroit 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Representatives for All-(State name)

Some states have small enough populations to only have one US Representative to Congress. Could the Infobox be modified so that those states could add their representative under the title "US Representative for All-(state name)"? I don't know how to yet. Dkreisst 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could do this, but there are so few states for which this is appropriate I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I believe there's an article for each state listing its congregational delegations, e.g. United States Congressional Delegations from Colorado. How about adding a link to this article? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol buildings

Given that the infoboxes have entries on various other symbols, like state flower and state song, it seems appropriate that there might be a link to the article about the state's capitol building, nearly all of which have good pictures. Thoughts? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The capitol city article usually has a link to the capitol building. The flower and song can be considered symbols of the state; is the capitol building also such a symbol? Is the capitol building as significant as the governor's office or home? Do most states have capitol buildings or are some less centered (such as separate State House and State Senate buildings)? (SEWilco 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The capitol city articles actually frequently do not have such links. Also, the links that are already in the infobox can often be found elsewhere anyway, the point of the box is that it's all centrally located - - the article on the state has a link to the article on the capital city, but it's still in the box. The capitol buildings are certainly symbols of the state, although to what extent is certainly debatable; and every state does, in fact, have a capitol building that is the central location of its government and the meeting place of its senate/assembly/governor, if only ceremonially. The only possible exception I can think of is Nevada, in which the assembly and senate meet in a building next door to the official capitol because it is so small. Not every state has a governor's mansion, nor do many such articles even exist. The whole point of capitol buildings is that they are grandiose (usually) symbols of the state. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I actually meant to post this on a different talk page - I am looking for the box that goes at the bottom of state articles. Like, if you go to Longmont, Colorado and look at the bottom, there is a big template. Where do those things live?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit that page and look near the bottom for a template call. Or click the Preview button and a list of templates will appear at the bottom of the page. (SEWilco 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

map caption hawaii alaska

Is there a way to change the caption for Hawaii and Alaska? because these arent maps of the US with the state highlighted. --Astrokey44 11:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I added a #switch so the map tooltip for Alaska and Hawaii is different from the others. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Tax

Could someone add sales tax to the template? I don't think I'm experienced enough yet. Sean 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that am crazy about a sales tax parameter, but how some "blank fields" instead? —MJCdetroit 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too crazy about listing the sales tax either (note the comment at Sales taxes in the United States which says these things change frequently). I'm not a big fan of blank fields either - it's really sort of hit or miss for whether the new thing (whatever it is) ends up in an even remotely reasonable place. In general, I don't think there's a big problem with adding fields so I don't really see the point of blank fields. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city vs. largest metro suggestion

It came to my attention recently that there has been a fair amount of debate/edit-wars over the concept of "largest city" in the state infobox. There are two definitions of city that are being used in these debates, they are:

  • A city defined by the legal jurisdiction of an incorporated municipality (city limits)
  • A city as designated by the census MSA (metropolitan statistical area). (anchor city and suburbs)

This can be pretty confusing and misleading for somebody not well aquatinted with a particular state. Some confusion has happened on the state pages for the states of Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana. All but three of the states listed above already list the largest metro area in the info-box. What it comes down to is that all of these states have incorporated cities that have larger populations than the incorporated anchor city of the largest metropolitan area in the state. The confusion sets in when one realizes that according to the Wikipedia article on city people usually refer to the entire metro area (anchor city and suburbs) as one city. There is already a value in the info-box for largest metro and it appears to be de-facto optional. I suggest we keep it that way. I just wanted to make sure that there was a consensus and wasn't added with out anyone noticing. Comments welcome. Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New question...should the largest metro area link to the city page or the MSA page? Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the item is metropolitan area, why would you link to anything other than the MSA page? ENDelt260 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense lets do it. Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest vs Most populous city

Has there previously been discussion of the ambiguity of the phrase "Largest city" with respect to the word "largest?" It would be more accurate and less confusing to use the phrase "Most populous city" as "large" is rather vague and seems to imply geographical size rather than population. --ElKevbo 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Would I have to make the change first before anyone had a comment or an opinion? --ElKevbo 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with the change. -Ravedave 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording still has the same above problem. It is now labeled "Largest metro area", which is vague. Is it the most populous metro area? Does the metro area have the largest area? I think that the current wording could equally mean either. I think the intent is to identify the metro area with the highest population. It would be more accurate to label it as "most populous metro area."--MicahDCochran (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states by elevation

The table on the List of U.S. states by elevation is now sortable and is more useful now. The other tables which have identical data but sorted in different ways should now be nuked. But that would impact this template. Any help in adjusting the template to accommodate would be much appreciated. It doesn't make any sense for the one article to have multiple tables sorted in different ways. Americasroof 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the best option is to simply unlink the "Highest point", "Mean", and "Lowest point" fields, leaving the "Elevation" field linked to List of U.S. states by elevation. I can't think of any negative impact on the state pages. Hoof Hearted 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the list, I will change the template. -Ravedave 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population (2000)

Is there any particular reason that this template doesn't even support the use of more updated population figures? I understand the national census is held every ten years, but the census bureau does provide updated estimates. It's 2007, this information is getting really badly dated. We have more current information and I think we should adapt this template so it's possible to use it. --JayHenry 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montana

Montana has a problem. Someone put "representative". I believe this removed the postal code link. I think I may have corrected the problem by adding | after it. Could someone please double check this. It's important to have MS well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank fields?

Would anyone be opposed to having blank field(s) toward the end of the infobox. There is some concern for standardization, but I think it is a reasonable idea that has been suggested here before. I worry it might be hijacked by the kooky Quarters people. One thing I want to use this for is for a "slogan" field. If there aren't opposition to this, I may do a test of this next week.--Patrick Ѻ 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "blank fields". If you mean generic fields where the user can set the title and the value? If so then I am opposed unless you have specific examples of where it is needed.-Ravedave 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms?

I think it would be great to have an optional field for the demonym used by the people of the state: i.e. does someone from Maine call themselves a "Mainer", "Maineite", "Maineian", "Maineonian", "Mainiac", or what? I'd put this in the population part of the infobox, after the totals. See the Los Angeles, California article for an example.--Kharker (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -Ravedave 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of this, and was going to suggest it right now. Absolutely.--Patrick Ѻ 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added Demonym as an optional field below the Capital and Largest city section. It could alternatively go within the Population section, at the bottom, below median income.--Patrick Ѻ 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No website failure

Resolved

When there is no website defined, some junk gets displayed. See infobox in State of Jefferson. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it. Based on testing, it appears to be working fine now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only postal abbreviations and ISO codes displayed in "Abbreviations"

On the Abbreviations line, the template should have and display a value for traditional state abbreviations (in addition to the PostalAbbreviation and ISOCode). It's misleading to list postal abbreviations and ISO codes as the only abbreviations for US states. I cross-posted this concern at WikiProject US states. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is already supported, see example usage at Colorado. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate classes and timezone format

user:Buaidh recently changed the Colorado infobox content to add the senate class for each senator and to reformat the listed timezones, see this diff (the senate class numbers have since been turned into links). Anyone think we should add the senate class to all state articles, in which case I think it should be a parameter? And does anyone care about the timezone format? I don't particularly like either of these changes but thought I'd bring it to a wider forum for discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bordering States

An IP has recently added this (just under the map) to the template. This should really be discussed first, as there are a number of issues involved. First, is this needed in the infobox at all? Second, should it be placed where it is, above everything but the map? Third, are we counting just US states, or Canadian provinces (or Mexican states, for that matter). Fouth, do states with only water borders, like MN-MI or NY-RI count. Finally, should 'Bordering States' link to 'United States', as it does now? AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, and not below the map.--Patrick Ѻ 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also in some cases the technically correct answer yields a counterintuitive result - e.g., Michigan "borders" on Illinois and Minnesota (by water) in addition to the expected Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the newly added info is not important to have in the infobox and is poorly placed as well. older ≠ wiser 12:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To amplify on my thinking - these infoboxes are pretty full already. This particular entry adds more clutter than information, inasmuch as the identity of bordering states is already largely ascertainable from the accompanying map. The textual information would be helpful only in the case of smaller eastern states (e.g. Rhode_Island), where it's hard to see what abuts what, or for users who do not know the names of the states. When you add these concerns to the uncertainty about what "bordering" or "neighboring" should actually mean in the case of international or water boundaries, I think it should not be included. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it neighboring states to avoid the confusion, if that's still felt to be ambiguous it could be changed to "Adjoining states". I find the information extremely useful though. Also, I have no reservations about changing it's placement. (MJDTed (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Given the degree of redundancy this squib presents, I would say it is marginally useful at best. Perhaps others will add their views. Utility aside, we are still left with the question of whether this information should include Mexican states and Canadian provinces, and whether states that share only a water boundary (e.g. Michigan / Minnesota as noted above) qualify too. And even when we arrive at an answer to those questions, there's no easy way to capture such nuances in a word. "Neighboring", "bordering" and "adjoining" all mean the same thing in this context. JohnInDC (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current (informal) thinking on this edit stands at 3:1 against, plus 1 expressing several reservations. If that doesn't improve substantially, it should be removed. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the people who might find it useful are not here to contest the decision. I'm only speaking from a personal pov, but it is sometimes hard or impossible to glean which states share a land border from the article itself. I often wish there was something similar for articles on countries as well. Alos, this was intended just for US states. Maybe that needs to be made clear as well. (MJDTed (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I am opposed to this addition, I have just noticed on Indiana. If it is going to be kept (by consensus) then it need to be be moved lower into the box, perhaps after land and water area - it should not be top. And it should be changed to bordering states, neighboring states could also mean states nearby, but not bordering. I think that land or water border should count, but should be specified. I think that to name bordering foreign states or provinces is too much info, however I would be ok with adding Canada or Mexico - not the state. If the provinces\states of foreign countries are added, it needs to be made clear that they are part of another nation. So in brief - I am opposed. If it's kept i beleive those changes need made to make it at least marginally useful. Charles Edward 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come to this from the Virginia article. Virginia has six states it borders on land, and because this would take four lines to write out, I used just the acronyms for the states: DC, KY, NC, MD, TN, WV. What do people think about this? Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri would each have eight states to list here. As a side note, does Washington, D.C. count as a state for these purposes?--Patrick Ѻ 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would count DC even though it is not a State. (Hm, neither are the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Massachusetts or Louisiana. But I digress.) I would not use USPS abbreviations if it can be avoided inasmuch as those are US-specific and of limited meaning or use to folks looking in from elsewhere. Perhaps there is something in the Manual of Style on that point. Two more reasons, I think, that this addition to the template is not a particularly good idea. JohnInDC (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acronyms are fine as long there is a link to that state's article. As I said before, I'm not opposed to moving the section down to wherever it would best fit in, and specifying states which share water borders might be a good addition too. (78.149.3.190 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I guess I'm somewhat in favor of removing it as well. It isn't that it's not notable or helpful at all, but I would sort of put this in the category of things like second-largest city or the number of counties, as in they are things that should be mentioned in the article, just not the infobox, in the interest of reducing clutter. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the infobox seems superfluous; why don't US state articles begin like many country articles do, by listing its neighbors? For example, the Zimbabwe article begins: Zimbabwe... is a landlocked country in the southern part of the continent of Africa, between the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers. It is bordered by South Africa to the south, Botswana to the southwest, Zambia to the northwest, and Mozambique to the east. The Vermont article could begin in a similar way: Vermont is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America, bordered by New York to the west, Massachusetts to the south, New Hampshire to the east, and Quebec to the north. This would also resolve the issue of whether or not Mexican and Canadian states should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPMonday (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good way of articulating what has been one of my principal objections to presenting this data in an infobox - there are too many variations and permutations to it to permit it to be condensed, sensibly and consistently, to one single infobox format. It's not like "governor" or "square miles", definitions for which are pretty consistent across all 50 states. Conveying this information in *prose* makes it simple to accommodate, case by case, the many variations that may appear. (And it does away with that pesky question about abbreviations too.) I certainly think this information has a place in each state's article, and the first paragraph seems as good a place as any for it. Much better than the infobox in any event. JohnInDC (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed it. This information is far better presented in the text (or perhaps with better-labeled maps). --JayHenry (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Population estimates

User:Cchow2 seems to be on a crusade to change the population figures for each state to the 2007 estimates. I object, for three reasons:

  1. The number is wrong. The number is simply an estimate, with a larger degree of inaccuracy than the 2000 figure.
  2. It means updating every year, which is more work.
  3. All other states provide the 2000 census numbers.

I'm open to suggestion, but I don't see any reason to change the numbers. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually emphatically support an update. Census estimates are still extremely reliable, and 2007 figures are going to give a better estimate for the size of the states today. In other words, the 2000 figures are (slightly) more reliable for 2000 than the 2007 figures are for 2007. But the 2007 figures are more reliable for today, if you follow. The census bureau, at the very least, is moving their estimates in the right direction. They know from heavy sampling whether or not states are growing or shrinking. At the very least we should include both, but omitting the superior 2007 estimates is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic and unhelpful to our readers. --JayHenry (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always somewhat disagreed with the notion that the 2000 numbers are automatically 'more accurate', especially considering states like Nevada, which has grown by over 20% since 2000. I'd be cool with sticking to the 2000 #'s on states like North Dakota, which are essentially unchanged, but for many states the 2000 numbers are just plain outdated, regardless of the methodology used by the census bureau. AlexiusHoratius 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers from 2000 are so old as to be useless and even ludicrous for describing Nevada in 2008. For North Carolina, the 2000 count is likely inaccurate by more than 1,000,000 people now -- for Texas, the eight-year-old count is estimated off by more than 3,000,000! A number that would only be accurate if the entire cities of Houston and San Antonio were vaporized. --JayHenry (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must also agree with the above commenters. The 2000 census is the most accurate estimate of the population in 2000, but even though it has a larger margin of error, the 2007 estimate is still the most accurate estimate of the current population.-Nicktalk 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Census Bureau itself say the yearly estimates are not official? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in a case like Texas, even if the estimates aren't technically official, I don't know how useful the official 2000 count is if it is currently off by 3 million people. AlexiusHoratius 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different issues here: how accurate the estimate is, and how current the estimate is. No doubt, the 2000 count was more accurate and "official" than the yearly estimates. However, the accuracy of the 2000 estimate diminishes over time, and that is why the census makes yearly adjustments and releases annual census estimates. I'd imagine that Wikipedia users are interested in how many people currently live in a particular city/state/county, and so the 2007 census estimate is the most accurate figure at the moment. -Nicktalk 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Jay, Schwnj, and Alexius for agreeing with me. SatyrTN, we can include both 2007 ests. and 2000 figures in the info box if you think that's better. Check New Hampshire and Florida for that format. Many info boxes in other countries, cities, provinces, etc. have multiple population figures in the info box. --cchow2 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain the background of these two statistics. The census is "official" for fairly limited constitutional purposes such as determining the allotment of congressional representatives that each state receives. At some point in the 1990s, the Census Bureau launched the American Community Surveys program to provide data between the decade points. ACS is a massive statistical undertaking, a quarter million homes surveyed every month. Three million a year. It's not "official" for purposes of congressional allotment, but it's definitely more accurate and is used for a lot of other governmental purposes. Presumably our average reader is more interested in the current population of a state and not the figure that was used for "official" purposes in a now 8-year-old redistricting. --JayHenry (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Density ranking and "In the US"

I've noticed that the density ranking is pushing the infobox wider than it normally would be. I've responded by putting the two density statistics (in miles and in kilometers) on the same line and adding the second line just with the ranking. I'm not sure what to put between the statistics, right now it says "100/sq mi (100/km2)". Further I noticed that each ranking is worded "Ranked Xth in the US". Is this necessary? Could it be shorted to "US rank X" or even "Xth in US"? Do we need the indefinite article attached to "US"? Do we need the ordinal ending (the "th")? Why doesn't median income say "Ranked X in the US"? Medium income just has the number. Why isn't that enough for the other rankings?--Patrick Ѻ 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping Template

Hello all, I've revamped the whole template in my sandbox. I doubt it's perfect, so if you find any flaws, please contact me on my talk page instead of instantly reverting them. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks for being understanding! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 08:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version does not use the semi-standard 'infobox geography" formatting which is also used by Template:Infobox Country and Template:Infobox Settlement. Using the same look and feel for these templates means a user browsing from Portland, Maine to Maine to United States sees infoboxes that are visually extremely similar. As opposed to simply changing the look, are there any actual problems this change is meant to address? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one getting some major problems in terms of article layout now that the length of the infobox has been increased? For instance, on the Oklahoma article, there is a mile of space between the title of the geography section and the text of that section. (This seems to be happening on other articles as well, whenever there are right-aligned images near the top of the article). AlexiusHoratius 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Alexius, you are not the only one getting that problem. The new box is conflicting similarly with every state article—not necessarily to the extreme in Oklahoma, but the sheer bulky and awkward size is generating aesthetic and usability conflicts all over the place. Unless, as Rick says, this fixes an actual problem, I suggest reverting to the previous state. It's quite a deviation from the standard geography infoboxes, which, I'm not going to be shy: I like. They provide lots of information in small, easy-to-read, aesthetically-pleasing boxes. Okiefromokla questions? 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the one advantage I can see with the new template is that the infobox looks a bit less "stuffed", if this comes at the price of making the upper parts of articles look messed up, I don't really think it's worth it. I agree with Okiefromokla about the look of the older infoboxes; they did their job without taking up too much space. AlexiusHoratius 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any inconveniences. I worked hard on this last night, and I hope we can reach a compromise. I will try to make it look less humongous. – Obento Musubi <smaSpecial:Contributions/The Obento Musubi|C]] • G • S) 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess being bold wasn't the best thing to do. Darn it, I felt proud of what I did. And I guess it's causing problems for other people. I feel foolish and stupid now. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Oklahoma, the thing that's causing the problem is that the image is placed in the "Geography" section when it should be placed in the "Topography" section. That would make it better. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please answer the question about the rationale for the change? Is it only visual style or is there something else? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main purpose was to make it more visually (aesthetically) appealing. In my humble opinion, before this, the title was small and squished, and some text was too small. I made the mostly universal text to 85% of the 13px default, and I added some parameters (i.e. the MottoEnglish parameter), because I saw some English translations were simply tacked on, and there was no standardized format of translations. Also, I made it so the header color was modifiable (so, say you wanted it to be red because it's a mainly republican state, or make it black or green or yellow even). Likewise, the title font color is also now modifiable. I did a lot more, I just can't remember it right now. Btw, I fixed Oklahoma for you guys. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, I'm also revamping the insignia/symbol template to go along with this format. You can see it at my sandbox (press "S" in my signature). – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize if it's causing problems. If you see problem pages, please contact me, and I'll fix them. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps these major changes should be discussed here before being committed to the template and affecting 50 or so articles. I noticed the changes on Alaska, where it seems like the infobox now takes up almost half the width of the article and stretches the map beyond its maximum size, pixelating it (though vectorizing it would eliminate that problem). It really looks like too much padding to me, so while I understand wanting to reduce crowding, I think it hurts readability by making it less easy to follow lines across. --skew-t (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment. I am able to do that. I'll reduce the padding as well as the width. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the width of the box to 300px, and I have made an imagewidth parameter to adjust the width of the map. I have corrected Alaska's width to 250px. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is it now doesn't use the same styling as the settlement (city) and country infoboxes. I don't see a good reason to change this one in isolation. If you want to improve "infobox geography" that's a different thing, but changing this template away from CSS support that's in MediaWiki:Common.css seems like a step backwards. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last edit to fix Alaska broke the link for the rest of the maps (see Alabama). AlexiusHoratius 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that, and I just fixed it. →Rick Block: That's a great idea. I don't have the permission to modify the common CSS, though. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it takes proposing a change on the talk page which (IMO) is what should have happened here. I'm very close to reverting this template back to the way it was pending consensus here that these styling changes are improvements. "I like this styling better" and "it's too hard to change the common styling" are not good reasons to change this one. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I shall propose it below. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) I agree with Rick's concerns that this is too much of a divergence from other similar template, and for uncertain benefits. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother reverting it; I already did. So, are you guys saying that you'd be okay with it if all templates for Country and City, etc. appeared like this? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. I can't speak for Rick, but IMO, the benefits would need to be clearly articulated and have some semblance of support before implementing. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition that the Geography Infobox design be modified

Please read the above discussion before continuing. I personally believe that the geography infobox is squished and some of the text (i.e. the motto, before statehood, flag/seal of ...) are just too small. The title is plain, and in my humble opinion, it's a little boring. I believe it would look better with some padding and possibly some color added. What I envision can be found at User talk:The Obento Musubi/US State. This does not just apply to the US state infobox, but I think all geography infoboxes would benefit from this. If you have any suggestions or constructive criticism, please notify me about it. I am eager to hear your suggestions, and willing to make modifications, should they be necessary. Thank you, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 02:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the current version at User talk:The Obento Musubi/US State so a side-by-side comparison can be made. The proposed version is more narrow with a smaller font size - although in classic skin (in Firefox not sure what else might be important) many of the lines wrap. In Monobook (in Firefox, on a Mac) the smaller (non-bold) font looks terrible. To me eyes, there's too much space above and below the nearly full width divider lines. The last time I tried this, the nearly full width divider lines cannot be done with CSS styling in a way that works for all browsers (meaning this part of this "look" can't be done with changes to infobox geography). I like some of the reorganization and the increased font size for the flag and seal labels. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions and comments. I made it a bit wider so the text wouldn't wrap. It's fine if the almost full width divider lines are unable to be done with CSS. To me, that's very minor. Anything else you have to recommend? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd actually strongly recommend using "infobox geography" which would tend to separate the concerns into those that are purely stylistic (font size, padding, etc.) from actual functionality like additional parameters and content organization (and would make it possible to diff the new version from the current version to see what the non-style changes are). Stylistic changes should be suggested at MediaWiki talk:Common.css (it would be fine to show the effect in a sandbox - as far as I know there's no good way to do this site-wide using CSS, but you can include CSS in your own private monobook.css file, see Wikipedia:Skin). If we're going to specify a width I think it should be in ex or em, rather than pixels since the size of the default font changes with the user's skin preference and browser settings (for examplle, the wider version still wraps when I view it in classic skin in Firefox on a Mac). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is room for improvement, and that this infobox is ugly, but that it should generally resemble infoboxes for Settlement and Country. The infobox is already substantially wider than those two, and this new version pushes the box even fatter. That's my big complaint. If there's a choice of color, I'll just set it to white. I do like the parameter for MottoEnglish.--Patrick «» 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my thing, and you knew it was coming. If it isn't broken, why fix it? Perhaps the current inofbox can have a little more padding between lines of text, but not much. Lots of information in a small package means it is an efficient and speedy reference for readers, which is the point. The heading may be "boring," but it isn't ugly, and of course, infoboxes aren't about style. Secondarily, because there is far too much unused space inside this new box, it is unnecessarily long and restricts the placement of pictures in the first couple sections. As fewer pictures are possible along the right side of articles, the efficiency at which information is displayed becomes further restricted. Why do that? Okiefromokla questions? 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I'm not so much opposed to the new header as I am the excessive padding. The previous "new" version was also far too wide. There is no need to exceed the width of the current infobox. Okiefromokla questions? 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

area codes?

I would like the infobox to (optionally) display the area codes associated with a state. I see the documentation mentions an "areacodes=" parameter, but when I use it, nothing happens. I thought maybe I did something wrong, but then I looked at the template source and don't see where the parameter is mentioned. How can I get this to work? (If it is not supposed to work, then please remove it from the documentation, and also revert my edit to Maryland. Thank you.)
69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This parameter doesn't seem to have ever been supported. I've deleted it from the documentation. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unit order again

Perhaps the order should be changed because en-wiki is not us-wiki and articles about states are not US-oriented (at least, not US only). I, for example, read articles about US states and I don't have any feeling of US customary units and I use metric only in everyday life. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that this userbox is for U.S. states, it would make sense to follow whatever order is used in the U.S. That's my opinion, anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it doesn't matter about what the article was written but for whom it was. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your opinion, but the WP:Manuel of Style says that on US-related subjects, US units should come first. (I reverted your changes to the template as they were made before a consensus to change the unit order was made on the talk page.) AlexiusHoratius 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former name and flag

Was there a discussion on this? I admit I haven't been doing much editing around here lately, but clicking on the California Republic flag on the main page today I find it displayed in the infobox for California. I think this is rather inappropriate. The U.S. state infobox is to display pertinent information about the current entity, which is the state. Not to mention the fact that the "California Republic" never really existed at all, and proclaiming that that is what the state was formerly referred to as is a bald-faced lie. Lexicon (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Deletion

If you haven't noticed, User:Pigsonthewing is trying to delete this template. I oppose this attempt for legitimate reasons, but also by how its been gone about without first suggesting it here on this talk page, and on other related talk pages, such as those of the 50 article it will affect. I encourage you to express your views, if you have any, over at the TfD page, and maybe on the Village pump as well. Best-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 06:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100%. Standardization is good, but a U.S. State is not a settlement, and merging would be problematic. In either case, these multiple Tfds should have been merge proposals first.DCmacnut<> 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral votes added

But I'm having trouble adding the simple "21" to Illinois and "17" to Michigan. Can someone help me by fixing this? I don't really know what went wrong with it. (Tigerghost (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps it's the tyop in the parameter name? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Block is correct. I've updated the parameter name and it now works. See New Hampshire for a working example. Now we just need the rest of the states' pages updated (good source here). For the record, I'm not terribly excited about the inclusion of this information. My reasons are because it's only somewhat useful during presidential elections (I'd probably go to a page listing all of the states instead), and it's somewhat redundant due to appearing after census figures. That said, this was my first Infobox edit, so thanks for giving me the chance to learn more about editing Wikipedia :) MJKazin (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually hesitant to add new fields. I wonder a few things, one: should the word "votes" be added after the numebr, and two: if this can be automatically generated by adding two to the number of congressional seats, and if, because that's how the number comes about, whether its not self explanatory. The way it appears in the infobox puts it right after congressional seats, so it often looks like this:
Congressional seats: 23 seats
Electoral votes: 25
So I don't know. The Congressional field has never been standardized, so maybe there's a way to use that to add the electoral votes.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick- thanks your opinion and for that interesting anecdote. User:Tigerghost has responded on my talk page saying he was fine with a revert too. I've done just that. MJKazin (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_U.S._state&oldid=324869960"