Template talk:Washington

message: Major cities must have 100,000+ residents, okay? Minor cities must have more than 10,000, okay? We don't need Finley, Washington in there. And no matter if you think ... Puyallup, Washington is a major city... if we're going to have divisions, they can't just be based on personal opinion. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, but 10,000 might be setting the bar too low for minor cities.  List of cities in Washington (by population) gives the top 30 (which cuts out at just under 30,000).  A more complete list might give a better idea of how "minor" a city we ought to include. — Jeff | (talk) | 06:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about which cities to include

message: Thanks, Matt. If we can all agree to those basic points, here are the options we have on the table. If I'm missing any, please add them here.
*1. Rename the larger cities row to "larger cities and metro areas." Otherwise, the template stays the same.
*2. Move the Tri-Cities from "larger cities" to "regions." Otherwise, the template stays the same. (compare :Template:Minnesota)
*3. Add a "metro areas" row in addition to the "larger cities" row. (compare :Template:Ohio)
**(a) Metro Areas: Seattle Metro, Tri-Cities. Larger Cities: Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, Vancouver, Bellevue, Everett
**(b) Metro Areas: Seattle Metro, Portland/Vancouver, Spokane, Tri-Cities. Larger Cities: Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, Vancouver, Bellevue, Everett
*4. Delete the "larger cities" row and replace it with "metro areas." (compare :Template:Oregon)
**(a) Metro Areas: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue-Everett | Vancouver | Spokane | Tri-Cities 
**(b) Metro Areas: Seattle-Tacoma | Vancouver | Spokane | Tri-Cities. (Bellevue and Everett moved to "smaller cities," which could be renamed "cities" or something else.)
Strong Support 4(a), 4(b), or 1. Willing to Support 3(a), 3(b). Oppose (2). Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break for TOC purposes

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 07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. state templates

message: Watch in the years to come...  Bellingham will be a major city in 3 years.
(Currently 73,000+ population, 3 years, will be 100,000+ :)
----
--Iain 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch for Major City of Bellingham 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just converted this and all state and territory template to use the standard Template:US state navigation box.  Feel free to discuss and edit the master template all you like (I only converted them to that standard, I'll leave it to others to discuss and decide what that standard should be).  The purpose of the standardization was to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic and to make it much easier to add new features to all of the templates at the same time (for example, adding the View/Talk/Edit tag could easily be done to all of them via the master template, I just don't really know how to make it look good).  It is also to reduce maintainence time by having to only maintain the style of 1 master template rather than 56 individual state and territory templates.  --CapitalR 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization of state templates 

message: Okay, I'm thinking 10,000 was definitely too small a limit for cities (and I'M the one who set it!). This template's getting uglified by having just so many cities in there. I never dreamed we had so many cities over 10,000 people... we may have to set it at 30,000 or something. I don't know... does anyone care? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever limit is chosen should also be noted IN the template, otherwise it makes people think that every city is listed; the template should also link to the list of cities, etc.  --Notmyhandle 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Could the limit be tolerant of status such as county seats?  Seeing "Battle Ground" here, but not being able to list "Port Orchard" is a little annoying, since PO is the county seat for Kitsap, but within the city limits has ~8,000 people.  Maybe define "smaller cities" as all cities > 30,000 population OR that are county seats (thus, politically important, if not important by size).  I do think the list looks cluttered as-is, though.   - Snarky Boy 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. I added Port Orchard. County seats certainly deserve a spot. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  10,000 as a minimum? 

message: I added Vancouver, Washington to the Larger cities section. As of 2000 it is the 4th largest city in the state, larger than Bellevue or Everett. And speaking of, do we really want to include more than the 4 or 5 largest cities? Perhaps five is sufficient. VanTucky (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the six cities are ok for the larger cities section as all of the cities have a current population of over 100,000 people. None of them need to be removed and we definitely do not need any more. --Hdt83  Chat 05:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only 4 cities as is, three are metro areas. This doesn't help people find large cities easily. And finding information easily is the whole point in creating categories. ElmerBront (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think five cities is enough. Spokane Valley, Washington is larger than Federal Way, Washington FWIW, so I've swapped them around to make it accurate. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Federal Way is much larger than the current stats show, here are more current ones: http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?id=706 I think it should be included it's pretty large. ElmerBront (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Spokane Valley is still larger by a couple hundred. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's larger but what I'm saying is that there are many large cities, we should include a few (maybe three) more to be complete. How can Federal Way be considered a small city when it's only a couple hundred less than one of the large cities? I feel the large city group isn't complete ElmerBront (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Criterion of 100,000 was enunciated in 2006.  I've added Kent, and retained Yakima, Washington; Yakima passes the 100,000 threshold when you include two unincorporated suburbs as explained at Yakima, Washington#Yakima region. Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise added Wenatchee – East Wenatchee metropolitan area as it is now over pop. 110,000. Brianhe (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larger cities 

message: I've reverted the color change to a less obnoxious shade of green - any opinions on the two versions?  The version that I restored uses color code  (here), while the other version contained color code  (here). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Idk... I think a greener shade of green would fit the state better but that's just my opinion. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the two monitors I've looked at - the 70FF95 color has a slight fluorescent look, and a bit too much blue in it ... although I can see where the earthier original color may appear too brown to some people.  Maybe what's needed is a third alternative? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always seems greener on the other side of the color spectrum haha. But yeah the brighter one is too bright. Maybe a third option would be nice, if not go with the first. ElmerBront (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Many of us like it as green.  Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  template body color 

message: There's been more than one discussion about which cities should be included in this template. Generally the approach has been to set a cutoff on absolute population (i.e., ≥ 10,000 or 30,000 etc.). I suggest instead that the important limitation here is the desired size of the template; thus we should cutoff on relative population to maintain a consistently-sized template even through population changes (i.e., link the top 25 most populous in the state). It would look like this. Also: Keep the metro areas; don't keep certain county seats (the links to every county get close enough). Thoughts? —Mrwojo (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Mrwojo (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, despite the discussion on this talk page, Omak has made it onto this list, despite its population of 8,466 people. Is there any justification for this? — Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted Omak per earlier consensus. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative approach to cities 

message: They have their own templates now,  and , so there's no need to also include them in this (very large) template. As this is widely used, I wanted to ask for objections to the removal here on the talk page for a few days, before going ahead with it. If no-one has objected within a week, I encourage anyone coming across this to execute the removal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal I mostly edit Oregon stuff, but I'll voice my opinion that overly large templates make my brain melt down (i.e. tl;dr), so any pruning would be welcome. Valfontis (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Given that it has now been more than a week, I've made the removal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove legislative and congressional districts