Template talk:Texas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Template size 2 Question about recent revision 3 27 Metropolitan Areas and name changes as of November 2004 4 Reverting? 5 Another proposed version 6 Color 7 Unrelated: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Texas 8 Responding to Ed g2s and Shem 9 A different shade of red 10 Polling. 10.1 1. The Texas template's tables should be red, white, and blue, as per UH Collegian. 10.2 2. The Texas template's tables should be made to a "standardized" look, as per the template's early form and Ed g2s. 11 Standardization? There is no rule 12 JW version 13 JCarriker version 14 Midland and Odessa 15 Harmonizing the templates of all 50 states in the United States 16 U.S. state templates

Template size

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There are way too many counties in Texas (200-250) for this to be plastered on so many pages... RADICALBENDER★ 17:03, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you people nuts? At least break off the counties from the rest of them. --Jiang 20:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

JCarriker proposed on my talk page: "Break into two seperate templates. One for regions and cities and another for the counties. I would like to change largest cities to largest metropolitan areas which is used more internationally than largest cities and also gives a better crossection of what the major cities actually are. Many of the cities included in the list are suburbs, and the concept of a suburb being a city is somewhat controvrsial in the U.S. and not widely accepted out side of it. You can find a link to the 25 largest metro areas on my user page."

I second this proposal. --Jiang 04:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jiang and I have agreed to reduce the size of the template by removing counties to a separate template or category tag. I will make the changes immediately. -JCarriker 04:59, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

Question about recent revision

I would like to know why the revision by Dufekin was removed. In my opinion, Dufekin's version was more visually appealing. --DXI 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

27 Metropolitan Areas and name changes as of November 2004

As of November 2004 "definition," there are now 27 (there were 24) metropolitan area in Texas designated by the U.S. Census.

There were some changes and two of the most major changes were from "Houston-Galveston-Brazoria" to Houston—Sugar Land—Baytown. The other major change was from "Dallas-Fort Worth" to Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington.

This template had the old definition of 24 metropolitan areas and old place names used by the U.S. Census prior to the 2003 "definition." I updated it to the current "definition" designated by the U.S. Census with 27 metro areas and some name changes. Believe it and accept the fact that Galveston was dropped from the name after being on there for a very long time. Some Houstonians or people living in this metro area need to accept it and move on.

This is a comfirmation link to the source for those in doubt. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List2.txt

-- UH Collegian

Reverting?

Recently, User:Ed g2s keeps on changing the Texas template to a plain version and won't explain why. I need you guys to support me to keep the Texas template that has been active.

Interesting take on it, I though I was quite liberal in filling out the edit summaries. ed g2s • talk 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the Texas template that has been active, before that user erased it, see below:

Note that this colour scheme was design solely by User:UH Collegian. Its appearance before his contributions was much more like the plain version (see below). ed g2s • talk 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

	State of Texas
Capital	Austin
Regions	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | Deep East Texas | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas
Metropolitan areas	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

This is the template that User:Ed g2s (that he made) and has been reverting to, see below:

You've given me too much credit there, I think you'll find it is remarkably similar to how it appeared before you started editing the page.

	State of Texas
Capital:	Austin
Regions:	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas
Metropolitan areas:	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

I want you guys to have some input and decide which one is best for Texas. Like I said, I support the colorful template, but Ed g2s has been reverting it without explaination and has threatened to block me if I revert again to the colorful one. I think the colorful one is more aesthetic looking. Ed g2s doesn't seem to think so and keeps on erasing it to a plain version. Also, he's not even from Texas, he's from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let's have a vote on this on Template talk:Texas. Thank you for everyone's time. – UH Collegian 19:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What's with the reverting? Just curious. I have no opinion yet, but am curious to hear folks' positions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I kind of like this one better. I never did like that red bar on the old one. Also, shouldn't the counties be on here as well? --JW1805 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed g2s has stated on his talk page that he would like the template to conform to the style set by the other 49 state templates and created this version of the template. I also think that the current template is perhaps a little too colorful and would benefit from a few asthetic alterations, but I think Ed g2s' version goes too far and makes the template entirely uninteresting. I checked out a few of the other state's templates and there does not seem to be any standard to conform to. Perhaps Ed g2s and UH Collegian (creator and proponent of the current version) could work out a compromise design. - Thatdog 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

copied from User talk:UH Collegian:

I apologise if the anonymous reverts were not made by you. I did not threaten to block you, I was merely warning you. I find your assertion that because I don't live in Texas I have no business on the page quite worrying. Having looked through the state templates I can tell you all the state boxes (with one or two exceptions) have a simple coloured header bar, and nothing else (no state-related images tenuously linked to the words "regions" and "metropolitan areas", although this is not a major issue). While you may have spent a lot of time choosing a colour scheme, it is not for users to force their own visual preferences upon others (as much as possible). This is why we have a stylesheet, and try to keep the styling to the stylesheet, so not only does Wikipedia have a consistent look, but users can choose from a number of skins if they don't like the default one, or over-ride things they don't like in it, by editing their special user page. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time thinking up a design, but Wikipedia is not a personal home page for us to experiment with our web-design skills. ed g2s • talk 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually got the idea from the Template:California. There are some other states that have colorful templates and with that style. The Texas template wasn't the only one. The colors I chose for Texas was not a personal preference. The colors of Texas are Red, White, and Blue. Therefore, I used red, white, and blue for the template. – UH Collegian 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the first one because it contains the three colors of Texas and is aligned center. The first one has larger text at 90%. The second one is too plain and he keeps leaving off a region every time he reverts. I don't like the second one because the text is too small, it is left aligned, and is too plain. The first one is colorful and looks like Texas. The first template incorporates the flag, seal, and state flower of Texas. The second one is plain and cookie cutter. – UH Collegian 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with ed's desire to get it to conform, and usability is more important than colors. As for including the counties, I think that's probably not reasonable; there are 254 counties in Texas. :P His argument about not forcing formatting decisions about the user, except where contextually useful (i.e. coloring blocks in a table red for republicans, etc.), is also sound. I'm inclined to agree with him that the standard, "bland" table is the better choice. However, I'm open to argument. --Golbez 20:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if any of my edits removed data from the table as it was completely accidently. ed g2s • talk 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Whichever one is chosen I think we can all agree that the Texas flag needs to be BIGGER! That's just way too small. --JW1805 20:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

I concur that geography has nothing to do with someone's suitability for having an opinion on something, necessarily. I'm still a little on the fence. Generally wikiprojects are given deference in setting standard precedents; has Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. States said anything on template standardization? · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why not make a recommendation there? Standards don't write themselves :) ed g2s • talk 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, first because I have no recommendation to make; however I did ask over there if anybody had discussions of that nature or cared to participate over here. Second because I have no interest in the wikiproject. I only came here because I participate in the Texas article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

copied from User talk:ed g2s:

I actually got the idea from the Template:California. There are some other states that have colorful templates and with that style. The Texas template wasn't the only one. The colors I chose for Texas was not a personal preference. The colors of Texas are Red, White, and Blue. Therefore, I used red, white, and blue for the template. – UH Collegian 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no standardization for templates on Wikiprojects. If you would look at Template:California, it is almost the same as Texas. If you were to go on other templates, they all look different and have their own customized styles. Also, the colors of the first template reflect the Texas flag colors and incorporates the seal, flag, and flower. – UH Collegian 20:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm apt to agree with UH Collegian about his version of the template. Since when did Texas ever conform to the other 49 states? I can't imagine doing it now. I prefer the more colorful one. If we were to conform to the other states, then we should add the counties, even though there are 254 of them. Put to a vote, I'll go with UHC's template. I also like the pictures on the left bar. maltmomma 20:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not make this a political issue... This is about all pages on Wikipedia conforming to a standard. ed g2s • talk 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at all of them, it appears that only California and Oklahoma used more than one colour, now in the interests of consistency it seems to make more sense to change these two than the other forty eight, does it not? Looking at that page there hasn't between much coordination between the states so far, but hopefully as a result of this discussion we can agree on a more standard appearance. ed g2s • talk 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this once again, I chose those colors to reflect the flag of Texas, not to reflect my personal preference. Why is it so important to you, Ed g2s, to go around and changing american state templates so that all would look plain and simple? I did that edit in the interest of Texas colors, not personal preferences. I don't like it that you're also going around trying to standardize (to your personal preference of "standardization") other templates and city infoboxes. – UH Collegian 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, I prefer Ed g2s's version. The red looks gaudy, and Ed g2s' is more aesthetically pleasing, though I do like the images included for "regions" and "metropolitan areas." Shem^(talk) 20:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine in principle with using "red, white, and blue", but in practice this makes the template very awkward. The red is far too bright—almost painfully so—for that large an area. Furthermore, there is too little contrast between the black text and the red background: the text tends to blend into the background, making the template even more eye-straining. The template is colorful enough with the sidebar pictures. Mateo SA | talk 21:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Shem, essentially -- I think the Ed g2s colors, especially, are a little more aesthetic. But I like the little bug photos along the side of UHC's a lot. Maybe there's some compromise to be had here. The only thing that gives me pause is that a lot of these types of things are standardized on Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely sure that this isn't also a logical thing to standardize. I hesitate to endorse a deviation like that just because I think something looks cool. Then again, maybe the thing to do is improve the other templates with some topical bug icons. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. Also, something I should've said above: The Texas flag's colors are red, white, and blue. They're not exactly unique. Shem^(talk) 21:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at all of the templates there is no general conformity. Some flags are big, some little; some on the right, some left. Washington state's top bar is green to match the state flag. Iowa has a map of the state with the counties outlined and the capital in red. Massachusetts lists ALL of the towns on it. I prefer the delineation of the capital, regions and metropolitan areas with the different colors. I also prefer the red bar on the top of the Texas template. Since other states have different colors on the top bar of the template, why is this any different? maltmomma 21:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The red is too garish, and the gray on the left column seems unnecessary. The (for lack of a better term) Ed g2s version seems too plain. And that's my opinion. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The default appearance of Wikipedia is plain, neutral, one might say. It has to appeal to everybody, or at least, offend as few as possible. People who are into their red backgrounds and crazy fonts can go nuts on their personal monobook.css page. As has been noted, there is a lack of conformity amongst the other templates, but rather than taking the attitude of "oh well, it's already a mess", why don't we try and sort it out? I seem to remember a year ago they looked much more similar, but as time passes and users make their own "improvements", things tend to drift apart. ed g2s • talk 00:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that I am not into red backgrounds and crazy fonts. Didn't you read any of my posts? I colored the Texas template to match the Texas flag. Also, your font is too small on your revision. The first template's font size is at 90%. Again, Texas colors are red, white, and navy. I colored the template so it could look like Texas, not personal preference. Also, you always leave out a region on your revision. – UH Collegian 00:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, we're all trying to work together here. Let's try not to be antagonistic. What Ed g2s is proposing is that we start standardizing some of these templates, rather than using the lack of standardization as a reason to do whatever with these things. Personally I think it's not a bad idea, though I doubt I personally have the time or motivation to become deeply involved in such a project. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want to turn this into a vote (which in my opinion are counter-productive), but going through the comments so far and on the issue of colour alone, there are six users in favour of the plain version, two want some form of compromise, and just UH Collegian and maltmomma want the bright red appearance. This seems to represents some form of consensus to tone back the colours. Agree? ed g2s • talk 12:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to use the Texas flag colors on the template. --Zereshk 18:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What if the red bar was left on top, the blue field on the left and the part where the metropolitan areas and regions are left white. That will resemble the flag although upside down. :) Personally I like the red but I'm not crazy about the gray. I do like the icons on the left though. maltmomma 19:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The red is non-negotiable, it is vile with that blue text in it. :P Perhaps if a much more subdued red were used instead. --Golbez 19:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at User:Ed g2s/State boxes and specifically at Maryland's box, it has a bar that doesn't match the color of the flag. Now I think that that is vile. At least the red bar on the Texas box matches the red in the flag. Washington pulled the green color from their state flag and used it as the top color on the box. Personally I like the color red. I think that's the problem we're running in to. People who do and who do not like the color red. If Texas is to be changed, I think they need to make a general conformity of ALL the state boxes. A rather large undertaking, I'm sure. maltmomma 19:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why're people treating the Texas flag's colors as though they're something unique or special? Shem^(talk) 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The red bar does make the text kind of hard to read. The light purple or blue is easier on the eyes. --JW1805 20:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Another proposed version

	State of Texas ( Texas Topics | History | Republic of Texas | Politics | Texans )
Capital	Austin
Regions	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | Deep East Texas | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas See also: Texas Counties
Metropolitan areas	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

• Just an experiment. --JW1805 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

JW1805, I do like the bigger Texas flag and the blue on the left bar but I'm not crazy about the aqua color where the cities and regions are. maltmomma 21:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I think they had El Capitan up there at one time but decided it didn't represent all of Texas and that's why they put the bluebonnet up. maltmomma 21:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Having a picture of Houston doesn't represent all of Texas either. The problem with having the Texas flag bigger than 50px is that "Dallas-Plano-Irving" and "McAllen-Edinburg-Mission" break up. Everything is way too big. What is wrong with the color of Texas anyway. – UH Collegian 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Too big"? This is for Texas, after all! I say put back the counties, and let's have this template twice as big as any other state! Who's with me?!--JW1805 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust this, I just present it as an idea. I was never crazy about the bluebonnet, since it seemed unrelated to the Region topic (same with the seal under Areas). At least, this shows a particularly famous region and city. At one point, I think there was a map of Texas in the Region box, but that was too busy, I thought.--JW1805 21:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I find the counties too offputting. It would take up way too much bandwidth and who knows how much server processing time on WP's end, besides. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty busy with all the counties. There used to be a link to a list of all the counties so people could look at them from this box. I still am not crazy about the blue/aqua color mixed with the other colors. maltmomma 14:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Color

I have changed the template to a lighter red so people can see the "State of Texas" better on certain monitors. It now looks like this, see below... – UH Collegian 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

	State of Texas
Capital	Austin
Regions	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | Deep East Texas | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas
Metropolitan areas	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

I'm sorry UHC. I don't like this. It's not red, it's a salmon pinkish color. This looks like the color they used on the Maryland box. maltmomma 20:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, i am going to remove it right now. – UH Collegian 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully more people from Texas will weigh in on this. I like your original version because it stands out. maltmomma 20:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Noting that this is how the infobox appeared before UHC introduced his controversial colour scheme, surely that (or similar) is the version we should revert to before a new style can be agreed upon?

I think we should just leave the one that has been there until we reach an agreement. maltmomma 15:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the anon editor, here. Since the appearance is disputed, it should be reverted to the "neutral" Wikipedia "standard" 'til a compromise is reached. Consensus is overwhelmingly against the eye-burning-red header, that's for sure. Shem^(talk) 21:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That anon editor was Ed g2s. I checked the edit history. That style has been on there for a while and no one disputed it. JCarriker even thought they were nice looking (you can find that statement on my talk page archive 1). Ed g2s is disputing it because he wants all the templates on wikipedia to look plain. He is also disputing it because he keeps on claming that I am forcing my personal preferences to other people with those colors. He is making this a controversial issue, more than it should be. I did more to that template (like updating the MSAs) than just changing the colors. – UH Collegian 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed g2s, I introduced a "controversial" COLOR scheme? How so? How are they controversial? Those colors were chosen to look like the Texas flag. It is only controversial to you, maybe. Also, you make it controversial by keeping on attacking me saying that it was done to my personal preferences, etc. – UH Collegian 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

UH Collegian, let me be frank. Take this from a graphic designer, with another one sitting right over my shoulder to whom I'm married: Your template doesn't look remotely like the Texas flag, and the Texas flag's colours are so common that they don't make for a distinct identifier. You say "looks plain," we say "professional." Again, I do like the thumbnail images you added, and would personally prefer a compromise with the "standard" color scheme and your image additions. Shem^(talk) 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I toned down the color red on the template and it now looks like this, see below... – UH Collegian 22:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the Texas flag's red stripe at its bottom? Shem^(talk) 22:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

By controversial, I meant that 80% of the people who've commented on it here have said they don't like it. ed g2s • talk 23:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The red looks exactly the same to me, it is still hard on the eyes. This design is just not esthetically pleasing, with the red bar and gray sides. If you must have red, what about the one I've done above (in "Another proposed version" section) where the red is the table border. --JW1805 00:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Texas

Those of you who haven't signed up there (and at our Wikiproject and/or Collaboration) should head over and make yourselves known. (I'll remove this invite from the current Talk if it is deemed too distracting.) Shem^(talk) 20:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the more the merrier. :-) maltmomma 20:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Ed g2s and Shem

I see you, Ed g2s, changed it again. So the only problem is that some people doesn't like the red because it hurts their eyes. This doesn't mean you go and take all the colors off. I have been trying to find a lighter red so it won't hurt people's eyes. I don't know what monitor they are using but I am on a laptop monitor (which is bright) and it doesn't hurt my eyes at all. No consensus was reached and you went on to changing it. I am trying to find a lighter red, but instead you went and removed all colors. – UH Collegian 00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, let me say that the recent changes to the thumbnails do not represent all of Texas. The pic of Dallas and El Capitan is POV. The old thumbnails were were the state flower (bluebonnet) and state seal. Both of these are legitimate and represent all of Texas. – UH Collegian 00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• At least they have something to do with the categories. What does a bluebonnet have to do with Texas Regions? Or the seal have to do with Metropolitan Areas? I don't think its POV to put a picture of a famous region and city in these boxes.--JW1805 01:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For Ed g2s, what is wrong with <br clear="all" />? You keep on removing it. – UH Collegian 00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A different shade of red

	State of Texas
Capital	Austin
Regions	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | Deep East Texas | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas
Metropolitan areas	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

Polling.

Despite consensus clearly being against UH Collegian's versions, he insists that reverting to a "standard" version is moving without consensus. Polling seems to be the only way to get this down firm.

1. The Texas template's tables should be red, white, and blue, as per UH Collegian.

• I say use the version I have proposed above. It is red, white, blue, but doesn't have the problem of putting red under text (which makes it hard to read). Plus, it has a link to the counties, and also some subtopics (History, etc). --JW1805 01:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

2. The Texas template's tables should be made to a "standardized" look, as per the template's early form and Ed g2s.

Standardization? There is no rule

There is no rule that states what a template should look like. Look at Template:California. Is that standardize or not? Then go look at other templates. What is standardization? Standardization is subjective. The Texas template has been like that for a while and no one complained about it until Ed g2s made a big deal about it because he thinks it should look plain and has been trying to "standardize" other templates to his point of view. So far, people don't like the bright red and I have been trying to research for a lighter one. Right now, I have no time for this as I have a final exam tomorrow (Saturday afternoon). I have posted a different shade of red above. – UH Collegian 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

That's why it's in quotation marks, and described as a " 'standardized' look". Also, isn't the Texas state flag's red stripe at its bottom? Shem^(talk) 01:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's at the bottom. It's not at the bottom on the template because that would be too much red. I knew from the beginning that the red might be too bright but I didnt have time to look up other codes for red. I didn't mean I want the template to look like the image of the Texas flag. I meant the template to resemble the colors of the Texas flag. That's all. That is my main concern. I have no problem with the current version of the plain template with the exception of the Dallas and El Capitan pictures. I rather keep the current template as it is than have a version of the Texas flag at 110px which messes up the text for metropolitan areas as they wont be together on a 1024 x 768 resolution. – UH Collegian 01:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about the bigger flag. Mine doesn't do anything funny at that resolution. What is the problem exactly? --JW1805 02:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

JW version

Any image larger than 50px will break off "Dallas-Plano-Irving" and "McAllen-Edinburg-Mission" as most people are on a 1024 x 768 screen size. – UH Collegian 02:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Texas has 25 metropolitan areas designated by the U.S. Census, not cities. Why can't people just leave the template alone like it has been. Also, JCarriker and I agreed that El Capitan doesn't represent all of Texas per my talk (Archive 1). On my first version of the new designed, I put up El Capitan already. Also, putting a Dallas picture doesn't represent Texas either. I prefer leaving the latest version by Ed g2s for the time being. – UH Collegian 02:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You asked: "Why can't people just leave the template alone like it has been?" -- with all due respect, Wikipedia is fungible. It is ever-changing; it's the nature of the beast. Nothing will ever be left alone like it has been, if enough time goes by. As it says at the bottom of every page every time you edit it, If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I say this not to be antagonistic, but to remind you that compromise is endemic here because you seem to be defensive about your work in all the cases I've personally seen it challenged. Trust me, I understand the feeling, but it just isn't terribly helpful generally. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I say JW's version is pretty attractive. But so is UHC's. Templates should not be "standardized". This is America, where individuality reigns supreme. The Red glare isnt that big of a problem either, I reckon. For JW's version, use part of a skyline instead of an entire skyline (to make it unrecognizeable) so that we wont run into problems like whether or not Dallas represents Texas. Same for the El Cap: Use some beautiful but unrecognizable picture of some Texan landscape to resolve the issue. I also agree that the bigger, the better should apply to the template. We're talking about Texas here y'all!--Nightryder84 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

JCarriker version

I am proposing a compromise version:

	State of Texas
Capital	Austin
Regions	Arklatex | Big Bend | Central Texas | Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex | Deep East Texas | East Texas | Edwards Plateau | Greater Houston | North Texas | Northeast Texas | Piney Woods | Rio Grande Valley | Texas Hill Country | Texas Panhandle | Llano Estacado | Southeast Texas | South Texas | West Texas
Metropolitan areas	Abilene | Amarillo | Austin–Round Rock | Beaumont–Port Arthur | Brownsville–Harlingen | College Station–Bryan | Corpus Christi | Dallas–Plano–Irving | El Paso | Fort Worth–Arlington | Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown | Killeen–Temple | Laredo | Longview–Marshall | Lubbock | McAllen–Edinburg–Mission | Midland | Odessa | San Angelo | San Antonio | Sherman–Denison | Texarkana | Tyler | Victoria | Waco | Wichita Falls

The flag is larger, univsersal state symbols are shown. These are symbols that are shared by all Texans, we shouldn't favor one region over another in representing the enitire state, that's why the current state license plate is so reviled in East Texas. All of Texas regions are sensitive to being excluded in some way or another; we should be consicous of that. Blue bonnets are the state flower, and they are planted in every region of Texas- they are not controversial- using El Capitan, Caddo Lake, Palo Duro Canyon, or the Piney Woods is. Houston and Dallas despise each other, using a section of either of their skylines is unrealistic, especially since large pluarlity of the skyscrapers in both cities are highly distinctive and therfore recognizable. For example, Fountain Place and the Bank of America Plaza are clearly visable in the picture. San Antonio's skyline is just as distinctive, and the city itself shows signs, even on wikipedia, or developing heated rivalries with both Dallas and Houston as well. I prefer to keep the state seal, for the metro-area, but if a skyline should be used we should use Austin's, because it is the capital and that fact is not debateable. However in reality there just isn't a skyline in Texas that would not eventually be identified and challenged as being unrepresentive.

I don't think there seems to be much controversy over two issue with the template, but since I'm the person responable for them I'll expalian myself. Metro areas are the international geographic standard, not the city-proper defintion, and that is why they are being used. California may have a largest cities section, but we shouldn't. It opens up a whole slipperry slope we don't want to go down, which can be summed up rather simply; size does not denote importance. I'm not saying we should stick right by the Census's defintions Nacogdoches/Lufkin, Del Rio, and Big Spring are not recoginized, but they are generally considered major state level cities by Texas geographers. As of 2004 there is also a variation on the 2000 metro definitions, so I would be open to changing it to a major cities section, but I ther are obvious problems with doing it as well. Also in terms of putting counties back in, inclusion- no way no how. Jinag and I removed them because the template was larger than many of the articles is was pasted onto, slowed page load, and was difficult to navigate quickly. -JCarriker 13:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm game for this version, if you remove the blue background for Austin and the Metro areas. Shem^(talk) 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. -JCarriker 19:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the gray side bars. Especially the little gray areas to the left and right of the Texas flag. Can we at least make the flag a bit bigger so it is the same width as the sidebar (or put a white background behind the flag)? --JW1805 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The grey is still ugly. What is so wrong with all the other state infoboxes that this one has to be different? ed g2s • talk 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Shem^(talk) 02:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JCarriker's version 100%. If the flag is any bigger than that, "Dallas-Plano-Irving" and "McAllen-Edinburg-Mission" will break apart on a 1024 x 768 screen size (most people have this screen size). When I redesigned the template, I didn't just randomly picked image sizes and colors. Everything was in place for a reason. The template pictures and image sizes were very thought out so none of the metropolitan areas break each other on a 1024 x 768 screen size. Some people, however, fail to understand my reasoning for the template and want a bigger Texas flag. Some won't even hear me out about the colors of Texas on the template either. I tried using a different shade of red so it won't be eye straining to some people on certain monitors. See above for the different shade of red that won't be hurting people's eyes (like they claimed). The grey bars were put there to separate the sections of the template. The light blue were put so people can distinguish sections right away. People failed to understand this in every way possible. There is no standardization of templates any where on Wikipedia. – UH Collegian 09:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're being far more belligerent than the so-called "plain template" editors right now, UH Collegian. No one is "failing to understand" your reasonings, and I think it's fair to say that you have been "heard out," just respectfully disagreed with. Most opinion on this template, including those of three graphic designers (ed, myself, and my wife), find your color scheme aesthetically displeasing. Please, don't take this personally.

Text margins are arbitrary on Wikipedia (and anywhere else, really) due to numerous factors: Screen resolution, monitor make, internet browser, browser window, bookmark/history tables, browser's text settings, etc. Text margins within templates should not be a factor when making them, or so I learned when making the New Zealand political parties template. Shem^(talk) 09:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think maybe there should be some standardization. When there isn't, it looks unprofessional. That's not to say that there shouldn't be ways for individual states to personalize their appearance, say, by including state-specific image bugs along the left rail of the graphic, or messing with colors. But the basic form of the boxes should really be the same. That being said, I generally prefer the "plain" template with the image bugs added along the sides. JCarriker's version isn't far off from that, my only real quibble is that I don't like the light blue background. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I like this version the best of any I've seen so far. The subdued color scheme is easy to read and looks similar to other similar boxes in use for other purposes. At the same time, the images add a little extra interest. They are well chosen to fairly represent the entire state. Johntex 00:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey John! Good to see your virtual face around these parts again. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Midland and Odessa

I am breaking out Midland and Odessa as separate MSAs. Very small impact, since they are next to each other alphabetically anyway. Lbbzman 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Harmonizing the templates of all 50 states in the United States

We needed to harmonize the templates of all 50 states just like you guys harmonize the templates of all 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada. BigBang11 15 March 2006 00:55 PST (utc)

U.S. state templates

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. //MrD9 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)