Talk:List of United States cities by population

Successful challenges

Does anyone know of a centralized location where successful challenges to the Census estimates can be found? I've been scouring the Census website but coming up empty handed; all I can find are challenges to old estimates (2007 and previous). This seems to be the time of year that they start showing up and having to randomly discover them via notices from editors is, in a way, catching us with our pants down. The article for the Boston challenge mentioned other Massachusetts cities with challenges but did not elaborate, and a quick web search leads me to believe there are others that are at least in the pipeline. It makes me worry for the integrity of our list here ... Shereth 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Picked up on Independence, Missouri and Worcester, Massachusetts with a pretty causal search, for example. Shereth 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The challenge period goes from mid-November to mid-February. It's possible that the Census Bureau might not post a centralized location online until all the challenges have been resolved. --Polaron | Talk 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a pain in the neck, but seems a reasonable answer. I've submitted a question to the Census Bureau via their website to see if there is any way of getting these revisions on a real-time basis, instead of relying on the press to report them for us or wait until the challenge period is over. Shereth 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I briefly looked for the location on the Census Bureau's website for the 2008 challenges and couldn't find it, I doubt it's up yet. It would be reasonable to simply not update this list with any challenges until the Census Bureau website "officially" has a page for all of them. I don't really care either way though. Last year the same thing happened where a couple random challenges were updated, I eventually updated the full list from the Bureau's website for 2007, but I don't think I did that until around April. But I wasn't actively looking for the list so I don't know when it was actually posted. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anybody missed it, the accepted 2008 challenges are listed here. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nashville

Nashville's rank needs to be updated, as it should be behind baltimore now based on 2008 census updated information, as seen on the Nashville page. I know this page is showing the "balance" population, but why wouldn't consolidated be used since Nashville Government is the Government of all Davidson County, thus being a consolidated County. Limonns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Because the majority of editors here don't care about having accurate population stats, they just want to match whatever is on the default census list. Kaldari (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pasadena Challenge

"As of 2009, the estimated population is 150,185, making it the 160th largest city in the United States." from the Pasadena, California page. There is a reference here to census estimates. Samhuddy (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would make Pasadena #155, between Pomona and Springfield Mass. Samhuddy (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those numbers are unsupported by the reference in the article. I cannot find a reference about a successful census challenge, either, so it should be reverted in the article barring a source to the contrary. Shereth 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky needs updated

Louisville, Kentucky should be at position #17 with a consolidated city-county population of 741,096. My source is: Louisville, Kentucky It states under "Population (2010)" that the cities population is at 741,096. The source from that article (for 2010 population) is http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf The population of Louisville can be found on page 11 of that pdf document. Shades 17:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)19994best

This is the total population of the county including other incorporated cities. The proper count for consolidated city/county entries on this list would be what's called the "balance" which is just the city and all unincorporated territory in the county excluding other incorporated places, so the old figure was correct. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have pointed out below, I disagree. The Census Bureau list the population as the entire consolidated city-county, and not just the "balance" and therefore this list should too. We should not try to supplant our expertise over those in the source in violation of WP:V. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me epicAdam I also think that if the Census Bureau lists the population as the entire consolidated city-county, and not just the "balance", therefore this list should also. Shades 00:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC) shadeslou^(talk)

Evansville, Indiana to be added

Evansville, Indiana should be at position #201 with a city population of 121,582 My source is: The wikipedia Evansville article Jaggroad (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Jack

That number is from the 2000 census. This list is of the 2008 estimates. Evansville is currently #214 on this list, it has lost about 5,000 people according to the estimate. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And the source for that article is this, which states that Evansville is at #213 as of 2008.--Louiedog (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering about the 213/214 discrepancy, it's because Independence, Missouri went from 110,000 to 121,000 due to a successful challenge, so Evansville moved down a spot. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Map Looks Like Absolute Garbage

At least on my system (Windows, IE 8) the map at the right top of this article looks "broken". Suggest replacing it with something more normal an comprehensible. Uber-trendy word size graphics are so last year, anyway, and don't really belong in WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.184.121 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "uber-trendy word size graphics", and I also do not see why the map looks "broken". That said I do see room for improvement. The city dots for New York, Philadelphia and Phoenix are difficult to distinguish from their background colors and I suspect may be impossible to distinguish for some suffering from colorblindness. The state boundaries are almost lost in the yellow section for the southern states. Lastly, I'm not certain there is any real need for a map showing regions when they are rather arbitrary (appears to be based on US Census Regions). I may look in to a better solution later. Shereth 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up the map a bit -- made the state boundaries black (like the original PNG version), and added a black+white border to the city markers to make them more visible. I agree that the usefulness of census regions on the map is minimal -- perhaps they should be reserved for the map at the bottom. Also, I have no idea what "uber-trendy word size graphics" means either, but according to browsershots.org it looks just like it's supposed to in IE 6/7/8. --nandhp (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The map looks good. Thanks nandhp. APK whisper in my ear 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 estimates

When is the article being updated for the 2009 estimates?  Sub!  23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the 2009 estimates are released. They typically come out in the summertime, so that's when we'll be updating it. Shereth 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The county level data can give you details on a quite a few cities... (Philly, Baltimore, DC, NYC) but for consistency's sake we can't update until 2009 estimates come out. gren グレン 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Census Updates

2010 US Census is coming up, we should update all the cities populations when they come out. --Jmumman (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We will, but those numbers won't be out for at least a year. Shereth 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The earliest date in which the 2010 census data for incorporated places and CDPs, according to the census website is around March 2011.[1] --Moreau36 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Never really considered this before but with some folks swapping the images for Las Vegas it has got me thinking. The Las Vegas Strip, with its flashy, iconic hotels, is kind of what people tend to imagine when they think of Las Vegas, but I believe within the context of what we are doing here, these images are misleading. The Strip, and thus the buildings in the images that have been used here, are not a part of the city of Las Vegas. To my knowledge the remainder of the images used here accurately depict the downtown areas or other important areas of the cities in question rather than images of nearby areas that happen to be more interesting. Using an image of the strip here is misleading in this context and the image should be replaced with one that accurately represents the city of Las Vegas. Unless someone else has a satisfactory answer to this dilemma, I intend to replace the image with one that is more accurate, even if it means using something less iconic or more dull. Shereth 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Columbus, Georgia

User:Shark96z, the source states the population (as of July 1, 2008) of Columbus is 186,984. You're inserting the population (as of 2009) of Muscogee County, Georgia. APK whisper in my ear 07:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

HI, I think the article could be expanded on.

In this list there are 273 centers as they have over 100,000, whereas there is a similar list also in Wickipedia that goes down to cities with over 40,000 and lists the top 514 urban centres. However the two cannot be merged as there are many diferences due to one being core city and the other general region, 1 having a density requirement and the other not, plus the 514 list has many combined centres such as New York -Newark even though they are in different states.

I am interested in compliling the population centres by each state as I am facinated by the fact that only 17 or so states have their largest population in their state capital. Therefore would appreciate help where I can find this, Without trawling throught the alphabetical lists of each states population and reordering them by higest popuplation. Richarddddoooo (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 figures out

The census bureau has released its 2009 figures. See [2]. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I updated the 2009 figures, but they could probably use a double-check. APK whisper in my ear 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but where did all our density figures go?! We were content to just list 2000 Census densities on this page and then they all disappeared!--Louiedog (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When were they removed? APK whisper in my ear 02:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

el paso

el paso is a real nice city but no way is it bigger then miami or denver or seattle (which it is listed ahead of), somewhere the population counts must be inacurrate. does anyone know when 2010 census data is supposed to be released? 131.230.224.28 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The list is of municipalities, not urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas. While the cities you mention have much larger metros, the city of El Paso includes a much larger percentage of its metro area than those other cities. john k (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone please change the picture of Albuquerque

The pic for abq is awful it doesnt show anything from abq and the las vegas pic needs 2 be changed too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.162.100 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tampa, Florida and St.pete should be combined to a total of 588,214 to put them in 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.77.163 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

smelly poo poo in the tolet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.153.97 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It really is quite possibly the worst pic that could have been chosen. There is a much better one here: http://blog.martinprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Sandia-Mountains3.gif (Skinny mawkis (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

An image needs to be uploaded here in order to be used. Be sure though you have the proper licensing and permission to use the image. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Portland, Maine ( Popuation: 220,000+ )

I noticed that on your list of US City Populations, you did not include Portland, Maine which has a population of about 230,000 people. 12.110.126.204 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Derrick Gladmon DGladmon@yahoo.com

Your source being? Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for external links

I recently had to do a project using this data, and instead of doing just the cities over 100,000 (which the census supplies), I compiled the data from each state and put to together, so it shows the full listing of every incorporated place by population. I just put the data up in a table at http://www.biggestuscities.com/, and I think it is a very useful external link for people looking at this data.

Also, currently in the external links you link to http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007-4.html, which is the 2000-2007 version of that data. You could revise the link to http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-4.html, which is the 2000-2009 version.

Birkbot (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)birkbot

Image captions

Just noticed that on this article the captions change from for example

1: New York

to

8 - San Diego

Colons are use for the first seven pictures, and from 8 onwards there is the dash. There is a lack of consistency here! What is the preferred option? 81.102.107.102 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from New013, 6 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The population of Raleigh, NC was estimated in 2009 to be 409,721. I'm sure there are a lot more updates to this list that could be made. I would be glad to update it if given permission.

New013 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You will need to find a reliable source for the information. Anyone can give new numbers for the population but without a source the information can't be verified and it is unusable data. Also we would need to update all of them with data from the same time so that they are comparable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

San Jose population

Why does it stand that San Jose only have 964,695 inhabitants when it have 1,023,083 by 2010?--Christian Skipper (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We are using the 2009 estimates, I think. john k (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The source being? Elockid ^(Talk) 03:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, see footnote #1, we're using the 01July09 USCB estimates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Population of Concord, California

In the main table, Concord's position on the list (#203) does not correspond to its population — either the rank 203 is not correct, or the population of 126,752. In fact, it looks like the population should be changed to 122,224 — this is the number that I find in your reference #1 (at www.census.gov). — Adavyd (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody commented on my 3-week old note so far — LOOK AT POSITION #203 IN THE TABLE (CONCORD) — EITHER THE POSITION OR THE POPULATION IS WRONG! — Adavyd (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do it like russians

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5_100_%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%87_%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UbZaR (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Picture

There is a picture of each city on the list except for Phoenix (#5). I know it's not the most attractive city, but there should probably still be one.Originalname37 (Talk?) 12:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. As a Phoenix native I'm frankly a little pissed off at the blatant exclusion. 203.205.125.106 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CSDoty, 13 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Indianapolis population is 829,178 currently.

CSDoty (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you would change it.

Your source? Elockid ^(Talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a reliable source, then please make a new edit request and provide it. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indianapolis

The Indianapolis page now includes the population figure of 829,718, apparently from the 2010 census. There have also been several edits changing its size rank from 14th to 12th, as this number puts it ahead of the 2009 recent figures for Jacksonville and San Francisco. As far as I can tell, the full 2010 list hasn't been updated yet, so we can't just guess for ourselves where each city will be. At any rate, the new figures should be out soon, so we'll need to keep an eye out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census

For consistency's sake, we should not be adding 2010 Census data to article (the 2010 Census data has been added or ask). I'd also like to say that I'm currently working on the 2010 Census data at User:Elockid/List of United States cities by population if anybody is interested. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I contacted one of the people who reverts edits here and this is what I was told, even though I saw that North Carolina results were out. I put it inside the comment on the edit window for the table:

"2010 census results are being released on a state-by-state basis, unlike previous censuses, when the results were released all at once, mainly by geographical hierarchy. For consistency purposes, everyone should wait until all of the results are released for the list to be updated and also to avoid confusion about exactly which city ranks where. Check http://mcdc.missouri.edu/webrepts/pl94trends/ for the states that were released so far."Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to do what Elockid is apparently doing, but if this person is doing it, no need for me to bother. I have plenty of other work to do here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

List is almost done. I stopped at 200,000 as opposed to the 100,000 mark so that the list wouldn't be too long. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone keep it shorter? If this is the case, the only state left needed to be added based on predictions is New York and once that's completed, the list is done. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the top 150 largest cities? It would include some more prominent cities with populations under 200k such as Portland and Salt Lake City, but also free up some space like you suggested. Just a thought. It needs to be done soon though as this article is already outdated.  Sub!  01:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I do have the list for cities over 100,000 done, including population density. I can upload it, or send it to someone who's interested in posting it, or I can edit the article myself. There's 109 cities over 200,000; 163 over 150,000; and 282 over 100,000. Dtcomposer (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia

Philadelphia is now officially the 5th most populous U.S. city.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20110311_We_re_No__5_____and_Phoenix_can_pound_sand.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravidesai84 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but as the text above our list states, it is drawn from the 2009 data. Even though some of the positions are a given for 2010 (such as this one), the list as a whole can't be updated until all the 2010 data has been released.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As an example, as of today (March 11), Indianapolis has jumped San Francisco. However, we don't have data on Florida yet, so we don't know where Jacksonville sits. Based on the 2009 numbers it's probable that Jacksonville has jumped San Francisco as well, but Indianapolis may have jumped Jacksonville.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

good morning.

I'm hearing on the npr this morning that phila is (back?) @ #5. or "held onto #5 spot" from the 2000 census data. can we confirm & git er updated? 96.245.96.95 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix is the 6th populous city in the United States. Phoenix is located in Arizona.

Edit request from 216.178.86.170, 25 March 2011

The list has been updated with the 2010 Census data showing Philadelphia at 5 and Phoenix at 6, yet the map at the top of the article shows the numbers reversed.

216.178.86.170 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Table updated

I have updated the complete table with 2010 Census Bureau figures (including density). I have also reordered the pictures of the top 50.

I did NOT adjust the Puerto Rico figures as yet. I think I removed all the references to "please update" and such. I welcome someone to check my work. Dtcomposer (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good at first glance. One question: where did you get the figures? That's not clear in the references, and we need to have the actual source you used cited. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I downloaded tables from the American FactFinder section of the Census Bureau site...that's the first reference listed. My apologies if I have not cited correctly. Dtcomposer (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. We are going to need better citations, though. It is currently very difficult to see where the information came from, making it hard to double check or add the information to other pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So here's what I did: I went to http://factfinder2.census.gov, set up filters for cities and towns, selected a group of states (selection was too large to do all states at once), then pulled table G001 - Geographic Identifiers. I transposed the rows and columns, then exported the table to csv, opened it in Excel, cut out everything except the area and population columns, then sorted on population to get cities over 100,000. I was then able to divide to obtain the density. Does that help? Dtcomposer (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

CDPs

I see that Metairie, Louisiana was added to the table. For consistencey purposes, ALL CDPs over 100,000 should be included. Any thoughts? --Moreau36--Discuss 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - I thought I had removed all the CDPs when pulling this list from the Census Bureau. This page is about incorporated cities only. I will remove Metairie. Dtcomposer (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I now see that another user added it in. Anyhow, I have still removed it. Dtcomposer (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one that added Metairie. I believe CDPs should be added, as they are still significantly populated, well-recognized populations that can be measured from census to census. Also, Arlington, VA and Honolulu are already on the list, and if they are on there, why not Metairie or East Los Angeles?

The CDPs that would make this list would be Paradise, Nevada (223,167), Sunrise Manor, Nevada (189,372), Spring Valley, Nevada (178,395), Metairie, Louisiana (138,481), East Los Angeles, California (126,496), Enterprise, Nevada (108,481), and Brandon, Florida (103,483).

Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This list is specifically about the cities, not all populated areas. We shouldn't include CDP's.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what about Honolulu and Arlington? Exceptions to the rule? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If Honolulu is added, so should the rest of the few mentioned CDP's. After all, it's not as if they are unheard of. And to the general populous, these large "CDP's" are cities. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but here are my thoughts:

-Honolulu CDP has traditionally been included as the "city" definition as opposed to the City-County of Honolulu (all of Oahu). I have always seen it included on this list (with a footnote), I would guess because Honolulu is a major urban center. It should be noted that all of the other CDPs mentioned above are suburbs.

-Arlington is not a CDP, but rather a county that is comparable statistically to the independent cities of Virginia.

It's also important to note that CDPs are not easily measured from census to census, as mentioned above. Because their definitions are set only by the Census Bureau (and not by any local government), they can change at each census, depending on what the Bureau's criteria are. This is a problem especially when CDPs do incorporate: Citrus Heights, CA, for example, was over 100,000 people as a CDP (with boundaries set by the bureau), but the incorporated city (with boundaries set by LAFCO and voters) is around 85,000. Thus, to someone who doesn't know what a CDP vs. an incorporated city is, it looks like Citrus Heights lost 15% of its population.

Also look at a CDP like Lexington Hills, CA. A local wouldn't know what this is in common usage, but they know the communities of Redwood Estates, Chemeketa Park, etc. The Bureau felt like those communities were statistically one place for their purposes and combined them into one CDP with a name that no one uses. The Bureau also renames CDPs from census to census as well.

Having said all of this, I could be persuaded each way: keep the list as it has traditionally been (includes Honolulu and Arlington but not other CDPs), include all CDPs, or include only incorporated cities. Dtcomposer (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arlington is technically classified as a CDP by the census solely because there's no other local government(s) (incorporated areas) below the county level (Arlington County) and due to the fact that it's easily comparable to cities of similar size due to it's land area and population density. Due to the CDP and the county being co-extensive, the census was able to calculate annual estimates for this entity.

• As far as the other CDPs are concerned, the boundaries are set by the census (via the input of local governmental & planning agencies) and can change greatly from one census to the next (depending on the behavior of the are's settlement pattern) and the boundaries of the CDP does not necessarily correspond the boundaries set by local agencies. Consequently, due to guidelines required for a CDP to exist, a single named-CDP could contain two or more fluent communities within it's boundaries, while on the other hand, A community could be divided into two or more communities (the community of Woodbridge, California in 2000 was divided into North Woodbridge and South Woodbridge).
• As far as Lexington Hills is concerned, there are instances where the community(ies) fail to meet the census guidelines to become it's own CDP and thus, are lumped with nearby communities to create one CDP and the naming of the CDP either after the most-common used community name, a topographical region (Moapa Valley, Nevada or South San Jose Hills, California), or a cardinal-direction in relation to the nearby incorporated place (Vero Beach South, Florida or West Vero Corridor, Florida).
• Also, as Dtcomposer explained, the CDP incorporates with the same name would likely posses different boundaries or on rare occasions, several CDPs could combine to incorporate into a single municipality (Shoreline, Washington). --Moreau36--Discuss 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

People, this list is modeled after how the Census Bureau ranks of the largest cities in the country over 100,000 population (which, for example, is why we list the cities of Puerto Rico separately, even though they are in the United States). The Census Bureau has consistently limited its list to incorporated municipalities - with the exceptions of Honolulu and Arlington, because of their unique situations as explained in the footnotes. Please note that the word incorporated appears no less than nine (9) times in the text of the article - CDPs are by definition not incorporated and thus do not belong in the table, period. Trorov (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a list of cities, nor is it based on how the Census Bureau ranks them. We already include 5 balances in the list, and these are definitely not cities by any definition of the term, and are not incorporated as such. Nor does the census bureau use balances when ranking cities by population.[3][4][5] I think we should either make it consistent and limit the list to actual incorporated cities (5 of which are excluded from the list), or add the CDPs to the list. Kaldari (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see U.S. City Population.de and Infomation Please Almanac, which are crediable publications that uses "balances". Besides, this section is about the inclusion of unincorporated CDPs to the list, which is totally separate from consolidated cities in definition and scope. --Moreau36--Discuss 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The infoplease list is crap. Half of their consolidated populations are balances and half of them aren't. They aren't even consistent. The other list isn't a ranking and wants to sell me cheeseburgers. If you look at any book that ranks the cities, you'll see the non-balance figures. Look at The New York Times Almanac or The New book of American rankings, for example. Both use the non-balance figures. Show me a single book anywhere that uses the balances. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the World Almanac, which uses the "balance" figures with footnotes included. -Moreau36--Discuss 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Numbers missing in the list

The numbers 125 & 133 are missing from the list of US cities--what's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.223.58 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Indianapolis 2

It seems that the official population count for Indianapolis IS higher than Jacksonville, so Indianapolis should be bumped up to the 11th spot instead of 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhkwvnseuigfv (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the numbers are correct per source provided (2010 census). --Moreau36--Discuss 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. See Indianapolis (balance), Indiana. This is the long-standing definition which is also used for cities like Nashville which also have a balance definition. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If we included the entire county, Jacksonville's population would also go up, as it is also consolidated with the county. I don't know what the figure would be. The only difference here is that there are no other incorporated places within Jacksonville's consolidated government.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be useful to have a footnote indicating the entire population of Jacksonville/Duval County and explaining why it isn't included in the main list, as is already done for Indianapolis, Athens, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, this list prefers to use the definition of 'city' that is only used by one reliable source, the U.S. Census Bureau, rather than the definition of 'city' that every other reliable source in the world uses, i.e. the area administered by a municipal government. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the statistical usage that is generally used everywhere, not just by the Census. Beyond that, in Indianapolis my understanding is that the various parts of Marion County that are not in "Indianapolis (balance)" are their own municipalities with their own municipal government. john k (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sort of... in Marion County, there are both "included towns" and "excluded towns". The "included towns" keep some of their own services and identity, but are part of the consolidated Indianapolis government. The "excluded towns" have kept their own municipal governments, and only receive county-level services from the Indianapolis government. The "balance" is all the area not part of either an included town or an excluded town (ie, the old city of Indianapolis, plus the formerly unincorporated land). All residents of Marion County are represented in the city council and vote for the mayor, but for Census purposes, only the area officially part of the Indianapolis government (the balance plus the included towns) are included in the population figures.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"This is the statistical usage that is generally used everywhere, not just by the Census." Not true, most sources use the actual populations of the cities (apart from the ones that simply copy Wikipedia's list). Even the Census Bureau itself doesn't use the balances when ranking cities.[6][7][8] Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Suemcd624, 3 April 2011

Please change #12 Jacksonville, Flordia to Jacksonville, Florida, because Florida is the correct spelling. Suemcd624 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

2009 populations in Notes

All of the Notes still use 2009 population estimates. Shouldn't these be updated to 2010 figures? Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Indianapolis > Jacksonville

According to the 2010 census data the population of the city of Indianapolis is 829,718 and the county is 903,393. Based off these government statistics, Indianapolis should be number 11 and Jacksonville number 12. [9]

Indianapolis' population is 829,718, as defined by the 2010 census, which is greater than Jacksonville's. The two should be switched on the list. 71.65.37.221 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one user doesn't get to claim ownership of an article. Please see [10]. Thanks. 71.65.37.221 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

IP, I think the point is that the whole article should be updated if you're going to use 2010 figures, not just reorder Jacksonville and Indianapolis. Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If it says '2010' in the table, then it should use 2010 figures. Detroit was moved, so people need to make progress on editing this article instead of complaining about which figures to use. Use the most recent ones. Simple. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It already does. No further updates to the article are necessary because they ALL use the 2010 census data. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 820,445 figure for Indianapolis includes only Indianapolis (balance), not the included towns (or the excluded towns). Unless I'm mistaken, didn't the figure originally include the included towns? At any rate, the footnote needs to be more clear, whichever number we use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The methodology of this list has been wrong for years. Even the census bureau doesn't agree with our methodology. When the census bureau ranks city populations they use the real city populations, not the balances (as seen in the links above). This was also true in 2000 and previous decades.[11][12] We seem to be the only entity in the world that prefers to base our ranking on a made-up technical definition that is only for the use of calculating appropriations. This list is utterly misleading and I would love to see it fixed one day. I also love the absurdity of how we insist that only actual cities can be included in the list (not CDPs), yet in the case of consolidated cities, we actually insist that we use the made-up Census entity instead of the actual incorporated city. How does this make any sense? Kaldari (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to do whatever the census itself does when it lists cities by population. If it excludes all other incorporated entities in the cities, so should we. If it includes "included cities" or whatever, so should we. I can't find anywhere on their website where they've published such a list, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The census bureau hasn't put out the 2010 ranking yet, but the 2000 ranking is here. As you can see, they are using the actual city populations, not the balances. They also include Honolulu CDP and Puerto Rican cities. The reason our list is messed up is because it's based on what the Census Bureau publishes for non-census years. In non-census years the Bureau only publishes a limited set of estimates and the only purpose of the estimates is for doing state and federal budget appropriations. This is why they only use balances in the non-census years (so no one gets allocated per-capita funds twice) and don't bother publishing the actual city populations or doing rankings. They only do that stuff once every decade. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, if you take the time and search through historical census data (and also here), the census used "balance" figures and their corresponding rankings for consolidated cities since the 1980 census. For definitions, please see this page. --Moreau36--Discuss 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranking methodology - a modest proposal

Ever since the inception of this list there has been endless debate about the ranking methodology. The consensus seems to be that we should stick to whatever methodology the U.S. Census Bureau uses in their rankings. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau doesn't seem to have a consistent methodology. Sometimes they use balance figures,[13][14] sometimes they use consolidated figures.[15][16][17] Sometimes they include Puerto Rican cities,[18] sometimes they don't.[19]

Within the next few months, the Census Bureau will finish their work on the 2010 Census and will likely publish a ranking of the largest cities in the United States by population. I propose that if such a list is published, we all agree to follow whatever methodology is used in that list (until such time as the Census Bureau publishes another such ranking).

• Support as proposal creator. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. While there are obviously different methodologies, we shouldn't just be doing this ourselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support except with consolidated city-counties...only the balance should be counted (county population minus the other incorporated places that may be in that county). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should this be an exception? And why do we not apply this exception to New York City (which includes 5 incorporated municipalities)? Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Three Towns in Nassau County

Hempstead (town), New York has a population of 759,757. Acc to sentences 1&2, (The following is a list of the most populous incorporated places in the United States. As defined by the United States Census Bureau, an "incorporated place" includes a variety of designations, including a city, town, village, borough, and municipality) it should be listed - as 16th. The Town of Oyster Bay has a 2010 pop of 293,214, making it 65th. The Town of North Hempstead, New York has a 2010 pop of 226,322 - making it 91st. None, btw, are part of NYC--JimWae (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason why these aren't included is because they include separate incorporated cities/municipalities inside of them. States on the East Coast often have different kinds of civil divisions compared to the rest of states dating back to their colonialism. The Towns of Hempstead, Oyster Bay, etc. have incorporated places within them so this, in a sense, makes these towns almost like a secondary kind of "county" if you will. I guess the best I can think of it would be compared to townships in the Midwest. I live in Sioux Falls which is in two counties: Minnehaha and Lincoln. But each county is divided into townships so Sioux Falls is actually spread out over like 6 or 7 townships...but they don't serve any governmental function. I know towns in New York are different because they are functional, but simply because they contain other incorporated cities/towns/villages inside them, then they wouldn't be included on this list. It's about going down to the smallest incorporated civil division. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are just 2 cities in Nassau County (Long Beach & Glen Cove) - they are NOT part of the town they are in, but have very small pop (33,000 & 27,000 respectively - each in a diff Town) anyway. It is true there are incorporated villages within the towns. There are also plenty of people living within unincorporated places ("hamlets") within the towns - probably enough even if the village populations were subtracted for the towns to STILL be on the list. Nevertheless, the FULL towns qualify acc to the wording in the lede. Either the lede wording needs changing or the towns ought to be included. Personally I do not care which change is made, but SOME change ought to be made. Towns are incorporated subdivisions of counties - not secondary counties. Towns cannot cross county boundaries. Towns govern and administer all "hamlets" (unincorporated places) within them AND villages do SOME of their own administration plus get to make up local traffic & parking laws. Many villages have very low population levels. See Administrative divisions of New York & List of places in Nassau County, New York

Right, but if the village populations were to be subtracted from the town population, that would be the population of the unincorporated areas and unincorporated areas aren't included on this list (except for Honolulu and Arlington, Virginia which the US Census treats like incorporated territory for purely statistical reasons). I guess it's like what I said with how these are like the smallest level of incorporated places in the US. New York towns may be incorporated towns of counties in New York, but since they have unincorporated hamlets or other CDPs within the incorporated town, then the town isn't the lowest level of civil division. I don't know...I mean, I guess my opinion on it is a combination of possible ignorance not FULLY knowing how civil divisions work in eastern states, but also I have worked for the US Census Bureau for the last three years so I know precisely what this list is looking for in criteria and I'm just not too sure how to pinpoint a better definition. Hopefully someone else will join in the discussion and be able to clear it up better. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hamlets have zero legal status - they are merely customary names for areas within the town that were never incorporated; they have no boundaries - they are NOT civil divisions. --JimWae (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Subtracting Village populations from Towns would be like "Some consolidated city-counties, however, include multiple incorporated places. This list presents only that portion (or "balance") of such consolidated city-counties that are not a part of another incorporated place." -- except that the villages ARE still fully part of the towns, whereas consolidated city-counties clearly do NOT include the other incorporated places within the *COUNTY* -- those "other" incorporated places ARE in the county, but not in the city-county --JimWae (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hamlets would be considered as minor civil divisions of a county because they are also CDPs. The following excerpts are from this link:

A census-designated place (CDP) is defined by the United States Census Bureau as "a statistical entity defined for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines, comprising a densely settled concentration of population...that is not part of a city or a village...but is locally identified by a name.

Though the term "hamlet" is not defined under New York law, many people in the state use the term hamlet to refer to a community within a town that is not incorporated as a village but is identified by a name.

This would make a hamlet of similar or equal governmental value of a CDP (because CDPs often do not have any kind of governmental function, either other than referring to a concentrated population in an unincorporated area). Since there's the incorporated place of Hempstead (village) within the incorporated place of Hempstead (town), the village is the smallest division and the population of the town minus the incorporated areas would be the population of the unincorporated areas (i.e. CDPs, hamlets, etc.) which wouldn't be on this list. If so, then so should Metairie, Louisiana; Paradise, Nevada; East Los Angeles, California; and others. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

CDP's have only temporary boundaries -- of which their residents rarely are even aware. These boundaries do sometimes change from one census to the next. CDPs are used for setting up electoral districts. "Hamlets" have no boundaries (except they do not include bounded villages), though the names of "hamlets" are sometimes used for CDP names. Pop of Town - pop of villages in town = population of incorporated town not including other incorporated areas within the town --- just like the city-county situation. That other places might also get ranked is not a valid argument. The qualifications mentioned in the lede for listing need to be better specified. I see no way East LA would qualify and more then Hicksville, New York - which I am not suggesting to include (even if it had more people) SINCE NEITHER is an incorporated place. Neither CDPs nor "hamlets" are incorporated. "Civil" division is a totally vague term as far as incorporation goes in the first place -- but there's no justification for calling hamlets "civil divisions" either. Hamlets are just names people have chosen for their local surroundings. --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede needs some change - perhaps just the removal of "town" from it, or perhaps the addition of a specific meaning for "town".--JimWae (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Population Boxes

Hello all, I'm Jon and I'm a geographer/statistician from Sioux Falls (I am part of WikiProject:NBA and make most of my statistical contributions there) but I also share a strong interest in city population figures and changes. What I've really been wanting to do is making sure that the major cities of the United States (those with at least 100,000) have population boxes detailing their Census populations throughout history for each Census since they've been incorporated. I know that on the Census Bureau's website you can find PDF versions of historical Census results for free where you can find population figures for most every city/town in American history. I myself have been working on trying to get a population box in each of South Dakota's incorporated places, but unfortunately the 1980 Census results for South Dakota aren't on the Census Bureau's website (I'm unsure as to why...New Mexico, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are also not included). I would love to be a part of whatever WikiProject deals with American Census figures (if one exists) and would like to start a discussion on beginning a task of sorts to include one of these historical population boxes in each city of 100,000+ and making sure that they're accurate as to the 2010 Census and that the annual estimates in between censuses are from the Census Bureau itself instead of alternative state projections. Yes, I know the Census estimates sometimes are quite a bit off, but I think consistency is key when using a source. I'm going to put this page on my watchlist so I can get updates and see what everyone thinks. You're all welcome to chime in and would love to collaborate on this. In the meantime, if anyone knows of somewhere I can find complete 1980 Census data for South Dakota online for free, that'd be awesome :-) Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding Capitals

In many of the other lists of countries' largest cities on Wikipedia (Russia, India, Brazil) they have bolded the capital cities of the first-level subdivisions (okrugs, states, etc). On those ones, it looks kind of cluttered since the capital cities are all the largest cities, but I think it might look nice and a bit more organized if we bolded the state capital cities on this list. I'm going to go through and do so and would like to hear opinions on here...especially if someone decides to revert my edits. Just something experimental... Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's why some of those are in bold, you should add a comment above the table to that effect; I couldn't figure out why they were bolded until I came here. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix picture? And new idea.

I just noticed that there is no skyline picture up for Phoenix...could somebody please upload one? And I had an idea to add a bit more to this page. What if we made a separate list on a separate section of this page to include all cities who at once had 100,000+ people, but have since fallen beneath that threshold? I don't know, just a thought.... Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix ranking numbers differ from map and #6 and picture missing from pictures in right columnMlr2011 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The following paragraph about Phoenix does not seem to line up with it's #6 on the map - article here states it's "fifth most populated city" and then "12th largest metro area by population"

Also - the #6 with the picture of Phoenix is completely missing in the list of pictures on the right column. Can someone please add the #6 and Phoenix picture to the list where it goes in sequence?

The following paragraph has been copied and pasted from the Wikipedia site. I am new to this, so I hope this is ok.Mlr2011 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix ( /ˈfiːnɪks/ fee-niks; Yavapai: Waka te'heh; O'odham: Ski:kigk; Western Apache: Fiinigis; Navajo: Hoozdoh; Mojave: Hachpa 'Anya Nyava[1]) is the capital and largest city of the American state of Arizona, as well as the fifth most populated city in the United States. Phoenix is home to 1,445,632 people according to the official 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data,[2] and is the anchor of the Phoenix metropolitan area (also known as the Valley of the Sun), the 12th largest metro area by population in the United States with more than 4.1 million people. In addition, Phoenix is the county seat of Maricopa County, and is one of the largest cities in the United States by land area.[3] Phoenix is the largest capital city in the United States and the only state capital with over 1,000,000 people.

The Phoenix article just hasn't been updated yet. According to the 2010 census data, Phoenix is the sixth largest city, behind Philadelphia.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Soonergrad, 5 July 2011

Please change the picture of Oklahoma City to http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6053/5902608928_27063538c8_b_d.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Downtown_oklahoma_city_skyline.JPG

Thanks!

Soonergrad (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Is there a reason to change the picture from what it currently is? Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Code?

When I copied the New York's row and pasted it, I got: 1 New York New York &00000000081751330000008,175,133 &000000000002682129999926,821.3. However, when I look the source, there is only | align=center | 1
| New York
| New York
| align=right | 8,175,133
| align=right | 26,821.3
This "Nts" probably does it. But the problem is, when I copy something I expect it to be WYSIWYG, and I get "&00000000000" in front of every number. That is not very good, New York's population is &00000000081751330000008,175,133. 85.217.39.33 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

An Edit Request and Suggestion by I Wiki Edit, 22 July 2011

As a new user to Wikipedia, I am unable to edit semi-protected pages at the moment. So I'd like to make a request. In the population density column, the header says "based on 2000 data". However, of the several cities I have checked, their population densities that are listed are based upon the 2010 data. It may just be the cities I have checked, but since at least a portion of the cities are going by the 2010 data, there are two options: A. We change any city that goes by 2010 data back to 2000 data, or B. We change any city that goes by 2000 data into 2010 data and change the column header to "based on 2010 data." I hope that wasn't confusing but that's my request.

Now for my suggestion. I noticed that the table looks a little thin. There's a large white space to the right of it and to the left of the photos. This may sound bold, but why not add an extra column of data for each city, preferably land area size? I figured that adding such a column will give a new way to sort out the cities in a certain order and will also help when trying to calculate any population densities that are incorrect. This is just a suggestion and doesn't have to be taken too seriously. We could very well not do anything at all or add a column with some other form of data, but I feel that land area is the most relevant due to population density. Exact land area calculations based on the 2010 Census Bureau can be found here: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt

I Wiki Edit (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've had a look at your contributions and have given you the "confirmed" userright, so you can edit semi-protected pages yourself from now on :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I just made the minor edit and I'll "possibly" add the new column when I get a chance. I Wiki Edit (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you are going to add a column showing the land area of the city, then in sticking with the statsitcal standard of significant figures, you should keep the land area rounded to the nearest tenth of a square mile instead of to the nearest thousandth of a square mile. Otherwise, the density would need to be rounded to the nearest thousandth as per sig-fig rules and also keeping the area rounded to a tenth makes the data seem less cluttered. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking! I'll make that change when I get the chance! I Wiki Edit (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Dallas

the picture for dallas shows a panorama and is not good at all. Can you please put a picture of the Downtown Dallas Skyline on there please...like this one preferred Dallas skyline photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathens (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture for New York City

Not to be nitpicky, but can't we give New York City a better picture? The current one shows a bland snippet of Lower Manhattan focused on the World Trade Center construction site and has haze in the background. Perhaps one of these images would be better—1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5—or maybe some New Yorkers know of other images. --Apollo1758 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the one that was just added is not nearly as good as the old one or one looking down the whole of Manhattan showing NYC in all its high-rise urban splendor. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous photo had the World Trade Center as its focal point, and since the World Trade Center is under construction, it probably shouldn't be a focal point of any New York City representation photo yet. I changed the photo back to the original night-life photo. I Wiki Edit (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.195.188.253, 27 July 2011

If the entire population of the City and County were included, Honolulu would place 12th on the list above with a 2009 estimated population of 907,574.[3]

The 907,574 number is out of date. The 2010 census puts the population of the City and County of Honolulu as 953,207. This would change the sentence to read:

If the entire population of the City and County were included, Honolulu would place 10th on the list above with a 2010 population of 953,207.[3]

206.195.188.253 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Minneapolis Picture

The Minneapolis Picture is not showing up. The line of code has an error it reads: [[ile:MinneapolisSkyline.jpg|thumb|48 – Minneapolis, Minnesota]] but should read:[[file:MinneapolisSkyline.jpg|thumb|48 – [[Minneapolis]], Minnesota]] I would have fixed it but the article is protected. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.216.158 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Milwaukee Picture

I would like to suggest the use of the following pictures for Milwaukee:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mkesky.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sa_McKinley_Milwaukee_city_view_and_glassy_water_soul-amp.JPG

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfkenney (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Layout

This is a featured list and semi-protected, so I'm not going to edit it right off, but first of all, why is the gallery a long stack on only the right edge of the page, and second of all, I'd think the pictures should come below the list... it's "List of..." and not "Images of..." as its primary purpose, and this gallery-at-the-top scheme is non-standard I think. Is there any reason why the images shouldn't be in normal gallery form (3 or 4 per line) and below the text list? Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing any objection, I've done this. Herostratus (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Past Census & growth rate

I think we should add (at least) two more columns showing the Census figures for 2000 and the percent change (green for positive, red for negative). Maybe even a third column for 1990 Census figures. I'm not entirely sure of the necessity of the area and density columns since this list is just about the population of the cities and area falls more in the lines of physical geography and density is a mixture of the two. If we're going by pure population statistics, I think only the 2010 Census figures should be shown with the 2000 figures and percent change since that most accurately reflects that shifting demographics of population distribution. If you all feel okay with this then I'll go through and edit it as such...discussion? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no protest to this, I will add a 2000 Census and population growth column. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New Census Data - Revisions Needed

Hi. The the Census Bureau just released its official list of incorporated places and the rankings differ somewhat than what is provided here. This list should be made to conform to the official release from the Census Bureau. See: [20] Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We should wait to change this until they give us the full population figure...this is only rounding it to the nearest thousand is only for those cities greater than 175,000...we would need final counts for all cities greater than 100,000. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Coulraphobic123. The Excel spreadsheet [21] has the complete data for all cities of 100,000 or more. This data release is the final and official release from the Census Bureau of the 2010 data. The changes do not to appear to be the result of rounding but from that way that the Census Bureau calculates incorporated places that have consolidated since the 2000 Census. As per the consensus on this page, we should always use the most recent Census data and conform to their methods of calculation. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There must be another release coming...this is rounding all populations only to the thousands. For example, the first three on the list (Abilene, Akron, and Albuquerque) would only be listed as 117,000; 199,000; and 546,000 respectively. The Census Bureau should be releasing exact counts to the ones instead of just to the thousands. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Complete list, sans rounding. [22] Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks...I'll get to changing a little later this afternoon! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. No problem. Perhaps this can also sort out the issue with the citations (below). Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Could somebody please fix the references on this page? They have been tagged for deletion (for some reason) and are messing up the alignment of the rows as well. It's very displeasing aesthetically and looks unprofessional. I only know how to go about writing references in-line with the html text...I'm not sure how to create a reference template along the lines of Cref. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the Cref2 template that's been tagged for discussion for possible deletion, not the references themselves. Indyguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Well what template should we use then? Or do we need to use a template? It'd be nice to get it fixed up. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Matching populations

There are three sets of cities that have the exact same population count on this list. Aurora, Illinois and Oxnard, California both have counts of 197,899; Arvada, Colorado and Ventura, California both have counts of 106,433; and Fargo, North Dakota and Norwalk, California both have counts of 105,549. My gut instinct is to put these in order alphabetically by place name...but how should we signify these as ties? Aurora and Oxnard are the 112th and 113th largest cities...so should they both just be listed as '112=' as I have done already or should they be listed as '112/113'? Does anyone know the 'rule' for this? Also, with Ventura and Boise, Idaho...shall we list them as the Census does? The Census lists Boise as Boise City and Ventura as San Buenaventura (both must be official names and I feel they should be included as such). I put down Ventura's as 'San Buenaventura (Ventura)' and was thinking of something along the lines of 'Boise [City]' for Boise indicating that 'city' is usually omitted. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the way you have it is fine. However, we have to come to some consensus on how to treat these newly consolidated city-counties. In my mind, they should be listed with their populations as provided by the Census Bureau. We can leave a note to say that they're consolidated, just as the Census does, but currently the list runs counter to the ranking in the source. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With the consolidated city/county ones, you always go with what's called the "balance." The balance is the county's population minus all other incorporated areas in the county. So with Louisville/Jefferson, for example, the 741,096 figure is for all of Jefferson county...Louisville plus all other incorporated places. Basically, with a consolidated city/county...the "city boundaries" becomes those of the county, thus absorbing all unincorporated land in the county...but all formerly incorporated places remain incorporated and separate. So the balance of Louisville is 741,096 (Jefferson County as a whole) minus the total population of all incorporated places still within Jefferson County besides Louisville, and that's how you arrive at 597,337. Same for Nashville/Davidson, Augusta/Richmond, etc. This is why with consolidated city/counties, the balance is always used. Also, if you look at the list as is...we already have a footnote for each of the consolidated city/county cities explaining this (footnote g). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the terminology and the reasoning behind it; however, the Census Bureau has obviously chosen to include the population of the consolidated government in the list while leaving the balance figures to the footnotes. By making a contrary decision to use the balance figures in the list, Wikipedia displays a list that is contrary to the ranking provided by the Census Bureau, which I believe is contrary to WP:V and may be more confusing to readers. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should find another list, then, that displays the balance of the cities. Hypothetically, if Phoenix were to consolidate with Maricopa County and we would NOT use the balance and put the full consolidated city/county population on the chart, we would then have to exclude cities like Mesa, Glendale, Chandler, Scottsdale, Gilbert, Tempe, Peoria, and Surprise. Since it's a list of all incorporated cities, we should avoid the full consolidated city/county counts because those exclude other incorporated places (although, as of yet, none of the consolidated city/county entities include incorporated places over 100,000). I hope other people will put their two cents in haha! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's not much to be gained by throwing out hypothetical questions like that. I assume that if such a situation were to occur (doubtful) that the Census Bureau would know how to deal with it. If there's another Census source that shows the ranking by the balance figures, then great, but I doubt there is one. Until then we must go by the ranking as provided. Right now, hundreds of city articles that include the Census Bureau ranking as presented here fail verification by anybody who looks up a Census source that shows an alternate ranking. That's not a good situation and it should be rectified. And yes, I would like other editors' thoughts on the matter. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)