This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wisconsin This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin

The alphabetical listing of major cities in the older version of the template was much easier to navigate through. Listing the cities by population necessitates changing the template after changes in relative population, plus looks haphazard. Other state templates also use alphabetic listings (Template:Washington, Template:California, Template:California).

The deletion of the regions also was unnecessary; a better solution would be to write articles for the regions rather than just imply that the only region in Wisconsin was the Lake Superior Lowland.

The older template also was more compact, and fit better within an article. (Compare with other state templates, again.) If anything, Wisconsin's template should be made more compact, not larger.--BaronLarf 09:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I took you suggestions into consideration and created a compact template for the admittedly much more rural state of West Virginia. I agree that alphabetically listing cities makes the section more navigable; however, I wanted to impose some sort of hierarchy of cities and to feature more isolated, smaller cities rather than suburbs of Milwaukee.

Note the compactness of the template, the alphabetical listing of cities, the highlighting of the state capital, and the efficient data organization.

As for the regions, I'd like to see some with articles already written because they tend to lend themselves more easily to articles, however, I haven't found any for Wisconsin.

Part of the reason that there's nothing to write about these regions is that they're not natural regions that are commonly used by people living in Wisconsin. I'd say better regions would be something along the lines of maybe the Madison area, the Milwaukee area, the Fox River Valley, I'll look into it. But the ones that are in use now are strictly geographical and have no cultural or social meaning.

I would suggest using Southeast Wisconsin (Greater Milwaukee), Southwest Wisconsin, Western Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin and Northeast Wisconsin since they seem to coincide with the Wisconsin Media Markets and therefore have SOME cultural relevance. Maybe keep Chicagoland and add the Twin Ciites metro area (since in theory, both of them have Wisconsin suburbs). --Illwauk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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} 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why this template is light blue? 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) 21:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, I will go ahead and change it to use the default. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the templates sections with regards to the population is misleading stating that the entries are included based on the population when some are statistical areas, others are villages, and still others are cities so i will be consolidating the sections. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "statistical areas" (Major metropolitan areas) and villages and cities in the template are clearly and distinctly delineated. There is no need to "consolidate" the sections by removing them, as you did. You have gotten further feedback on your talk page about your sitewide knee-jerk editing of templates. Please heed those admonitions to discuss making major changes to longstanding templates before drastically changing them. MarconiCheese (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn has explained the purpose of my edits well here and here. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

as listed in the sections on the templates:

• Major metropolitan areas = (pop. over 500,000)

  the legal term of "major metropolitan areas" is "Wisconsin statistical areas". my edit removed any ambiguity related to that.

• Largest cities = (pop. over 50,000)

  links to List of cities in Wisconsin

• Smaller cities = (pop. 15,000 to 50,000)

  links to List of cities in Wisconsin

• Largest villages = (pop. over 15,000)

so yes i believe my edit improved the article because the piped links were misleading. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on whether certain US state navigation boxes should be pruned or otherwise systematically altered is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Pruning navboxes. Please comment there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]