Template talk:California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Harmonizing Template:California[edit]

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


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)

New California Flag Graphic[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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?[edit]

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)


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)


OK im gonna try here. i think the region/metro/micro should simply be counties. i will consider other changes. see if i have the moxie to do this (although we californians usually dont have moxie, which is more of a NY thing)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So the Metro Regions list is inconsistent. Metro Regions itself links to Metropolitan Statistical Area so I would expect the listings to link to those articles as well. However, San Francisco, Fresno and Sacramento link to their CSA articles, and San Diego links to an area that has no official (governmental) definition. Also, names are inconsistent. Either it's all CSAs (except San Diego which doesn't have one) over a million people (in which case Metro Regions needs to link to the CSA article):
Los Angeles-Long Beach; San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland; San Diego; Sacramento; Fresno
or it's all MSAs (again, over a million people):
Los Angeles; San Francisco; Riverside; San Diego; Sacramento; San Jose
I don't have a preference, but it simply needs to be consistent.
Dtcomposer (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)