Template talk:Texas/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Template size

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question about recent revision 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Responding to Ed g2s and Shem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Polling. 

message: *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)
thread_title: '''1.  The Texas template's tables should be red, white, and blue, as per UH Collegian.'''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Standardization? There is no rule

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: JW version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Midland and Odessa 

message: 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)
thread_title: U.S. state templates