California Template‑class

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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can we choose a colour combination that doesn't burn my eyes as harshly? --Wafulz 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been a WP:CAL template for quite a while. Ronbo76 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does that make it any less bad? ed g2s • talk 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am relatively certain that if members of the WP:CAL had not wanted those colors, they would have been changed long ago. I'd recommend a revert back, please. Ronbo76 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the members of WP:CAL know better than / have more authority than the rest of the community? Please put forward an argument based on the actual matter at hand, namely using a bright turquoise background, when every other infobox on the project uses the default stylesheet-set background (see also WP:ACCESS). ed g2s • talk 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not suggesting that or ownership. Thanks, Ronbo76 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, we don't have to run every common-sense edit through every WikiProject that claims it under their scope. ed g2s • talk 11:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the change, it looks much better now. --Wafulz 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like with the color change too. That harsh blue with extreme saturation was not easy on my eyes, and gave me flashbacks to the 'bad old days' of the original IBM CGA graphics card of the early 1980s, which had a horribly restricted 16-color pallette. Bright colors don't work well as a background. - Itsfullofstars 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why isn't Sacramento on this template? Also, why is this locked? --Indolences 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main page linked, auto-cascading lock down due to high visibility. The links are to "History of.." articles being as it is the history navbox. ed g2s • talk 11:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please limit the city links on this sidebar to the four most populous cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco) and the capital (Sacramento). Others can go in History of California. There isn't room (or need) for all the cities in the sidebar. Ikluft (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well don't you think the anchor of California's 3rd largest metropolitan area and 14th largest in the nation? (BTW:no sarcasm intended) House1090 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently switched template:Texas History to be based on template:Region history. Ideally it would be nice for all the state history infoboxes to be based off the same base template in order to gain some consistency.

Would anybody be opposed to doing something like the following?

Part of a series on the
History of California
Timeline
To 1899
Gold Rush (1848)
US Civil War (1861-1865)
Since 1900
Topics
Missions · Californio · Maritime · California Trail · Gold Rush · Women · Central Pacific · Railroad
Highways · Telegraph
Cities
San Diego · Monterey · San Francisco · San Jose
Los Angeles · Sacramento ·
California portal
v t e

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see a number of cities have been added, several of which are (no offense intended) not that important in the grand scheme of California history. Earlier it was asked to keep the sidebar list to the four largest cities and the state capital, which makes sense from both a population and a historical perspective. While some other smaller cities may have had significant historical impact on California (say, Monterey, Santa Barbara, etc.) if we start to open this up we're going to end up in a pissing contest of cities. I'll wait a couple of days for response and then revert it back if there are no reasonable objections. Dtcomposer (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I should have spoken up. At present the sidebar looks nice and is quite manageable. After all, it has not gone through a lot of changes over the years. But removing these specific city history articles defeats the purpose of the navigation box. (This is not an issue of weighing the importance of one city over another.) If the sidebar does get crowded, then it can be converted to a footer style navbox without the picture. --S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that, at the present moment, the sidebar is manageable. However, in response to "the purpose of the navigation box" I would say it is to provide the most relevant and important articles available for the given topic, and not to be a comprehensive list of articles on that topic. If it were supposed to be comprehensive, then first of all, it's not, since I find that Visalia and Newport Beach have articles but don't have links in the box - there's probably others in a state as large as California - so this box would have to be constantly monitored and updated. Second, it's inaccurate, since the San Fernando Valley is not a city (plus, the page title as listed in the infobox doesn't exist and redirects) - but even if we were to let that go, again, it's not comprehensive, since regions like Orange County are not listed (and figure as prominently if not more so in California's history).

As you said, a footer box can be used for a longer, more comprehensive list, and indeed, this footer box already exists: Template:California history.

So I guess I disagree with the notion that this is not about the importance of one city over another. If I were interested in the history of California, and were turning to Wikipedia as I would a printed encyclopedia or other book, I would expect a box near the top of the article, or in the first few pages, to give me the most important articles within that topic. If Los Angeles, or Sacramento, or Piedmont, or Chico are listed, then I would expect those cities to be significant, both in the history of the state and in the present day. If I wanted a comprehensive list, I would go to the index, or the footer. Not to be disrespectful, but Piedmont, etc. just doesn't figure all that greatly into the grand scheme of California history, but if I didn't know any better, I would think it does based on this box.

Finally, as you said, the box hasn't changed that much over the years, which is a good thing. The way to ensure that continues is to set a criteria for what should or should not be listed and be done with it, rather than wait for the list to get out of hand as more and more articles are added (or not added). I agree with the criteria listed above - largest cities plus state capital. Dtcomposer (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]