Template talk:Washington

protection

Why is this page protected? --- hike395 03:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When I read your message, it wasn't protected. I just protected then unprotected it. Did you see a message that said it was protected when you tried to edit it? Just wondering... Could be a bug related to the recent software update. It isn't protected now in any case. Tuf-Kat 05:14, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a message that said it was protected. In fact, it still tells me that it is protected! --- hike395 05:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note about which cities to include

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)

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)

Federal Way: Smaller City & Tri-Cities (city vs. region)

Kent has a larger city population than Federal Way, but Kent is listed as a smaller city whereas Federal Way as a major one. The Federal Way article mentions that if the surrounding unincorporated area were included, Federal Way's population would be 110,000. However, Federal Way borders Kent and the even "smaller" city of Auburn. Why would these unincorproated areas be included in Federal Way's total population and not in those of Kent and Auburn elevating their status on this template? Kent is claimed to be the largest city in south King County [1], and furthermore Everett is listed as one of the smaller cities but it is perceived to be much more major than Federal Way. Federal Way's perceived standing, regardless of it's actual numbers, is at the same level as Kent and Renton.

I have moved Federal Way to the list of smaller cities. --Westonmr 17:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You two are wrong, Federal Way is the 7th largest city in Washington. Kent is the 8th. Federal Way SHOULD be put up as a larger city since there are seven slots and Federal Way is the 7th largest city. And "Tri-Cities" isn't actually a city itself, it's a region that consists of several smaller independent cities including Kenniwick, Pasco, and Richland. You really should look up what a twin city is, although it is commonly looked at as a whole they are actually separate but due to being close to each other they "grow into" each other. But the reality is that they can be demographically, economically, and politically independent. This is because they are still separate cities, even if they have been twinned. It's called Tri-Cities because the identity of these cities have been blurred due to the close proximity and intertwined nature. That's why it's called Tri-Cities instead of Tri-City. So Federal Way should be considered a larger city and the Tri-Cities should be taken off as a city because it isn't actually a real city, it's a region, and we already have it listed as a region. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the Tri-Cities is technically a "metropolitan area." But we don't have a line for metro areas on this template. Given the categories we have to work with, the Tri-Cities is more of a "city" than it is a "region." In terms of its economic, social, and cultural importance in Washington, it's considered a city, although legally it is not. It should be on the list of major cities. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Each city (Kenniwick, Pasco, and Richland) in this region/area is already represented as a smaller city already. It wouldn't make sense to represent them all as individual cities and then to also represent them together as a big city esp when they are not an individual city. By letting these individual cities remain as three small cities it gives them representation and a resource for people interested in looking them up, all the while giving the Tri-Cities region representation as a region without contradicting what these three small cities actually are. And being considered a city by common public misconception rather than legal status wouldn't be encyclopedic. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we actually tend to classify things by what they are considered to be by the general public, not by legal status. For an example just off the top of my head, take the artist Elton John. You'll find that that is where the Wikipedia article about him is located. Not at Sir Elton John. Not at Sir Elton Hercules John or even just plain Elton Hercules John. Not even at Reginald Kenneth Dwight, his given name. Why at Elton John? That's the public's conception of his name. Is it accurate? Does it matter? Not when it comes to classification as a way of letting people find things easily.

Let's take that back to the Tri-Cities. Say that someone's thinking, "Gee whiz, I just read this lovely article on Tacoma, Washington. What else is there in the state? That Tri-Cities region, maybe I'll go look it up. Surely it will be located in the template, alongside other major metropolitan areas and cities, like Spokane and Vancouver." It won't suffice to have just Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick down below. The Tri-Cities are a region which isn't even neatly encapsulated by the three cities, as the article itself will tell you.

Put simply, by slightly expanding our definition of "cities", we can make the template a whole lot neater. (We could just as well change the title of that section to "Major cities and metropolitan regions", but why bother? If I'd thought there would be some disagreement over an area like the Tri-Cities fitting in the "cities" section, I'd have rewritten the template years ago.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AGREE I agree with Matt Yeager. The Tri-Cities is culturally defined as the fourth-largest city in Washington, and including it as such provides the greatest service to Wikipedia readers. Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington asking other editors to weigh in here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I looked at a few other state templates to see how comparable regions are recorded. All direct comparables seem to classify them as a region, such as {{Illinois}} has the Quad Cities, {{Minnesota}} has the Twin Cities metropolitan area. However, I also found several state templates that use a "metro area" category which contains regions that would be comparable; some of the states with that additional category are {{Arkansas}}, {{Mississippi}}, {{Ohio}}, {{Pennsylvania}}, and {{Oregon}}.

After looking through those, I would support removing Tri-cities from the "largest city" section, and instead insert it in either the region section, or if enough consensus exists then to create a new metro area section and include it in that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support adding a new metro area section, which would include at least the Tri-Cities and the Seattle metropolitan area. Travisl (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a good solution, but the problem is that we currently don't have good articles to use without duplicating existing city articles in the template. I see three options, none of them ideal.

1. If we simply add a metro area section, then it would probably have to be Seattle metro | Portland (Vancouver) | Spokane | Tri-Cities. But the Portland and Spokane articles are about the cities themselves; there is no metro area article for those two places. We could create articles to fill those holes but unless somebody really invested some work into those articles, they would be meager, and then we would end up having a template that links to stubs. Not good.
2. We could delete the "larger cities" row and replace it with "metro areas." In that case, it would read: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue-Everett | Portland-Vancouver | Spokane | Tri-Cities. That seems pretty clunky to me.
3. We could simplify it to Seattle-Tacoma | Portland-Vancouver | Spokane | Tri-Cities, and move Bellevue and Everett to the smaller cities list. That might be best, I guess, but we may have complaints from Bellevue/Everett fans. Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have a simple solution. Move the Tri-Cities to the region section and add Federal Way to the larger city section. Check the List of regions of the United States and you'll find the Tri-Cities already listed as a region under Washington. We already have a section that it belongs in and already does qualify for, there is no need to start reforming this template. And other users must think the Tri-Cities fit since it was already listed as a region a long time ago. We are making this whole thing too complicated. So, Tri-Cities go in the region section and Federal Way goes into the larger city section. Does this work for everyone? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm opposed to Tri-Cities as a region. As stated above, I think it is culturally considered more a "city" than a "region" and it doesn't match at all with the other "regions" in the Washington template. Second, I don't understand why Federal Way is tied in with the Tri-Cities issue. If we move Tri-Cities, why do we have to add Federal Way to the larger cities list?Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this change, it matches how other states handle compable situations - as I said above, all direct comparables seem to classify them as a region, such as {{Illinois}} has the Quad Cities, {{Minnesota}} has the Twin Cities metropolitan area. I see no real need to treat the Tri-Cities different than how other states handle comparable regions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tri-Cities are a region, I don't think this is debatable. Facts are facts. The individual cities that make up this region are already represented as individual cities, and this region should be represented as a region. I don't see how several cities that are known as being very close and connected is any different from the San Juan Islands or the many other cases of Twin Cities known as regions. Barek and I have both presented factual evidence supporting the changes, and all you've presented is that "it is culturally seen as a city" And that you don't like it. This is a weak argument, and based off of the publics misconception. And you can't even prove that this "cultural preference" of sorts is even strong enough to make this a viable point. I'm from Washington, and I've never considered the Tri-Cities a city because I've always been geographically aware. Your argument supports presenting an article in its popular form based off of a misconception instead of its factual reality as a region, this does not enhance an encyclopedia. I don't mean to be rude, but I do feel like you're wasting time on this issue based on a preference instead of factual evidence, as an editor you're expected to be objective.

1) This area has already been listed as a region by other users in the List of regions of the United States which demonstrates that other users have logically come to the conclusion that this is indeed a region.

2) Other states consider similar areas to be regions.

3) Other states that don't consider similar areas to be regions consider them "metropolitan areas" not cities.

4) This area is not legally considered a city and does not meet the qualifications as a city including but not limited to governmental powers and legal entity.

I DISAGREE with Matt Yeager and support the Tri-Cities being moved to the region section. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Every other article listed in the regions section of the Washington template is a feature of physical geography. The Puget Sound article is not about the Puget Sound metropolitan area but about the arm of the Pacific Ocean known as Puget Sound. The San Juan Islands article is not about the cities of the San Juan Islands but about the rocks they sit on. Meanwhile, Tri-Cities, Washington is an article about the combined political/cultural/economic entity known as the "Tri-Cities." It is an article about industry, infrastructure, population statistics, TV stations, etc. As such, it resembles other articles about cities or metropolitan areas -- not articles about features of physical geography. My goal is to make the template useful for a reader trying to learn about Washington state. Look at the list of articles in regions: Cascade Range, Columbia Gorge, Kitsap Peninsula. Tri-Cities just doesn't fit. I have listened to you and Barek and Travis1, and I support the Tri-Cities being included as a metropolitan area. In fact, I was trying to move us in that direction when you came along trying to shut off conversation. You are being rude, but I'll let that go if you're willing to also be productive. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I don't mean to be rude, I just got frustrated because I just can‘t stand the idea of keeping things as they are. It just doesn’t make sense to me. We could create a metro area and include Seattle metro | Portland (Vancouver) | Spokane | Tri-Cities like you had said. We could probably just put up the metro are names for Portland and Spokane and have them auto-direct to the existing articles for these cities because they already have all the information we need about the metro status, and I don't see any reason to create separate articles esp since the existing ones would already have so much information, no need to cannibalize them. I checked out the articles, they seem perfectly setup for this. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a workable solution to me. Until someone creates a separate metro article, we would have Spokane on the template twice, unfortunately, but that seems okay... Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The awkward thing with the metro section is that there are only the two articles (Tri-Cities, Seattle metro area) that deal with metro areas/regions. I really don't think we should invent a Spokane Metro Area article (it probably could be written, but not easily) or one for Portland (which only barely has to do with WA at all). And putting Seattle's side-by-side with the TC one... with nothing else there... would look pretty weird... I dunno. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick add-on to that... Just to make sure we're all clear on everything, I think we all agree that Tri-Cities, Washington should be in there somewhere, and that they really aren't so much a city as a metropolitan region. (Well, more bluntly, they really aren't a city at all.) We can talk about a compromise if we start from those basic points, so if anyone objects, speak now... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for TOC purposes

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)

Support 1 (perhaps adding Seattle Metro Area, which keeping Seattle itself). I'm waiting to see some arguments in favor of the others before I commit myself to anything else. Good job moving on this, Northwesterner1. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support 1. Oppose 2-4. Washington state really doesn't have the same "type" of regions as other areas in the country - the only place that's really known by its region more than city is Tri-Cities. Most people even in the Seattle Metro area refer to the individual cities far more often than the region, and then you have to define what's included in the "Seattle Metro" area - sure, Kent/Auburn/FW fit this...but does everyone agree that Bellevue is included? How about Issaquah? Marysville? For purposes of clarity and cleanliness, I think that 1 is really the best solution - it lets Tri-Cities be discoverable, but doesn't require significant restructuring just to fit some concept of a "template", rather than for actual, usable reasons. Snarky Boy (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support 1, 2, or 3 Oppose 4 (also oppose option 0=leave it as-is). I find that option 4 has the least "clean" fit for Washington. Either 1, 2, or 3 can work with little to no difficulty in fitting those solutions into the structures that exist for Washington articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done -- for now. I implemented option 1 for now, which seems to have broad support. Not closing the conversation, though, so continue to weigh in... Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support 2, 3, 4 Oppose 1, 4 I feel that option 1 just brings us back to the same place, Tri-Cities being put in with other cities. The name is confusing and might lead people into thinking it's a city instead of a metro area, which is confusing. Option 3(a) is basically this but making a distinction between metro and large cities, one that would be helpful to users without being confusing. I think that might be a good choice. Esp since option 1 doesn't differentiate between city or metro area, which is one of the problems that started everything. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (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 07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch for Major City of Bellingham

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)

---

Standardization of state templates

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)

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)

10,000 as a minimum?

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)

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)

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)

Sounds right. I added Port Orchard. County seats certainly deserve a spot. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Larger cities

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Spokane Valley is still larger by a couple hundred. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Likewise added Wenatchee – East Wenatchee metropolitan area as it is now over pop. 110,000. Brianhe (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

template body color

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  B4DDB4  (here), while the other version contained color code  70FF95  (here). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is there a particular reason why this template is green? I understand the general idea here is to try to match the state flag or something, but we aren't using the same color. Wouldn't it be better to just go with the default used by {{navbox}} to avoid having a rainbow at the bottom of the page when this navbox is next to another one and per WP:ACCESSIBILITY? Please let me know if there is a strong reason to have it a particular color. I noticed this was attempted recently, but was reverted, so I thought I would be proactive and start a thread here to avoid an edit war. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Washington

This template has been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington by me using AWB because it is in category:Washington (U.S. state) templates if you believe this to be an error just revert my addition, or you can ask me at my talk page or the WikiProject Washington Talk Page, and check that this template is not in or remove it from the Washington (U.S. state) templates category --Gold Man60 Talk

Alternative approach to cities

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)

Done. —Mrwojo (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Deleted Omak per earlier consensus. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove legislative and congressional districts

They have their own templates now, {{Washington legislative districts}} and {{USCongDistStateWA}}, 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)

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)

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)