Michigan Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 07:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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} 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a December 16, 2006, Wayne County and the State of Michigan announced that the City of Romulus is a Major city now. Soon, Romulus will be added to the Michigan Template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.237.244 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is no official governmental definition of the "Regions" of Michigan. In common usage, there seems to be no consensus of where the regional boundaries are. The definition of "region" is highly subjective and basically amounts to opinion of the author. Perhaps we should do away with the concept of "Regions" in Michigan. The various articles on the regions of Michigan do not include source information. For more on this subject, see the disputed inclusion of Lansing in Talk:Southern Michigan. --TRosenbaum 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to list 50 cities here? It really crowds the template, and even the largest states like Texas don't have such an extensive list. Any thoughts? Telos 01:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No necessity for 50 -- it just seemed a round number to cut-off at. Not that it is such a big deal, but if you cut off at say, 40, you'd leave off cities like Bay City, Jackson, and Holland. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 50 looks just fine. As Bkonrad says, any less and it would leave out some fairly notable cities. --Elliskev 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed everything.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well my lil bro was struggling with the problem of. what reigoms that include Michigan all uhave to do is look up Michigan template . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.119.233 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Geography to the topic section of the template. That's a pretty major topic, so I'm not sure why it wasn't on there in the first place. In addition to that, I added Islands as well. I'm reworking that lackluster article (it's going to take some time), but I think that's a suitable topic for inclusion in the template. Notorious4life (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why this template is white on dark blue? I understand the idea is to try to generally match to color of the flag, but it isn't the easiest to read. 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) 21:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, I will go ahead and make the change to the default. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]