Talk:List of United States urban areas

Article reduced to conform with size standards

A Mess

This is a mess. It shows LA as being more dense than Chicago or NYC or SF? The area is in KM but the density in miles? 99.53.171.95 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)eric[reply]

I reduced the article to Urban Areas over 100,000 not only to conform with other list pages (see List of United States cities by population), but also so that the page will easiler to access in case a user has a slower PC. The list was entirely too long. --Moreau36; 2313, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly outrageous. The list of U.S. cities page is limited to those over 100,000 because this is the only thing that we have 2005 estimates for, as far as I'm aware. Since UA definitions are based on the 2000 census, we have full listings, and there's no reason not to give them somewhere. If you wanted to remove them, you should have created a new page for them. I have, for now, restored the list for all UAs (i.e., those with population >50,000.) But, really, there's no good reason not to have a full list. I'd be happy to divide such a list among several pages, but it certainly shouldn't be removed entirely. john k 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area in Sq KM, but Density in Sq Miles?!

Hillsboro 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah

I knew there was a reason I left the thing in my user space after putting all that work in. Merging seems appropriate, although I don't particularly want to actually do the manual merging... john k 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Update!

I love looking at this page and think it's underrated compared to city populations. However, the numbers have changed quite a bit, for my metro 70%! I'll start the donations at $15 for a new one. Message me at http://myspace.com/iloveziva

69.230.102.210 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Aron[reply]

The page is based on the 2000 census. Most of the urban areas will have grown since then, some of them considerably. john k 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations World Urbanization Prospects report has 2005 estimates and 2010/2015 projections for U.S. urban areas with over 750,000 population. --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that would mean limiting ourselves to those over 750,000. I'd rather just stick to the 2000 numbers. john k 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the 2007 estimates are up to date, as these are now 8 years old.Polis4rule (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanized Clusters

Ought we add them? The largest are bigger than the smallest urban areas. john k (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They either ought to be added, or the "Type" column ought to be removed. jSarek (talk)

Populations don't match with city articles

Why do city articles that have an urban area population listed have different numbers than on this list? For example, New York City has 18,498,000 listed for urban area in its article, and 17,799,861 here. The Richmond, Virginia article has an urban area population of 1,045,250, while this article puts it at 818,836. In fact, every article I've checked has this problem. What is the source for this discrepancy? Was different data used for this list than the city articles, and if so, what is the source for the urban area populations in the city articles? Thanks. 12.218.153.85 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UN World Urbanization Prospects report utilizes Census-defined urbanized areas for tabulating populations of U.S. cities. They have estimates for five year intervals only. That report is what has been used for some of these cities. Also, the report has had several revisions, which retroactively update some estimates so some of the figures you see in city articles might not reflect the latest revision. --Polaron | Talk 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up dates needed and pronto(fast)!

The list is all wrong the population dosent match of each urban area we really need to up date it! Salcan (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison, Wisconsin is too high

Madison is not 56th, please remove the numbers and rankings and verify the area (I have found the population: around 330,000), the metropolitan area and the urban area are not the same thing! Pogo-Pogo-Pogo (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended source for updates

If anyone feels for it, there's actually an official source that can be used to update this list. The American Factfinder section at the U.S. Census Bureau has some updated data about the population of urban areas here (select 'urban area' in the 'geographic type' menu). My own appraisal is that the population estimates are generally underestimated, but still, it's an authoritarian source and can of course be used for updates. I don't have the time to go through all areas, one by one, to update this list myself. But, perhaps anyone else has some time to spend?--Pjred (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Places Clutter

I want to know what you all think of the addition of the "central places" category to the chart. My opinion is that it makes the chart excessively cluttered. I don't like it one bit, and I hope we can bring it back to a more simplier form like we originally have. Too much scrolling is involved with including every last damned "central place". --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYC

When comparing any place to Nyc (specifically manhattan) isnt everything SUBURBAN in these terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.78.47 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly by "suburban"? Urban areas, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are defined using population density as the primary criterion. Whether or not the resulting areas are primarily residential or not does not affect this. --Polaron | Talk 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sq km and Sq mi

Guys, we really need to keep this consistent. There is absolutely no reason why we should have the land area listed in sq km, but the density listed as people per sq mi. There has to be consistency, and we need to decide to put it all in one measurement or the other. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the units used by the U.S. Census Bureau. --Polaron | Talk 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an excuse. This article needs a standardized measurement. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton, Oh

Why isnt Dayton, Ohio on the list? The population of Dayton, oh is 166,179. It needs to be added.Texas141 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Dayton, Ohio is on the US Census Urbanized areas list, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt so it should be on this one too.[reply]

Dayton is very much on the list. It's number 52. Please do understand that this is the population for urban areas no municipal boundaries for cities. I think you're confused, or don't understand what a UA is. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]