Talk:List of United States cities by population

Boston Population Update

Boston's population has been officially updated by the US census according to Boston.com. The new population is set at 608,352 which would replace El Paso as the 21st largest US city. This info comes from http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/05/revision_puts_population_estimate_for_hub_over_600000/ and should be updated to the US census website shortly.

Good catch, I've updated the population and rank.--Loodog (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco

According to the SF Chorincle, the US Census bureau has corrected the 2007 estimated population of San Francisco to 799,183. Someone please update. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/13/BAUD14N3S7.DTL --67.101.45.184 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.--Loodog (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Density/sq mile should also be updated on both pages. Since that's affected by the census revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.12.229 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Density is per 2000 Census.--Loodog (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I edit a protected page when I'm a user?

I've tried plenty of times to edit this page and it never works. Please tell me how you edit the page if you are a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPQzy (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be an established user. You can read about that here: WP:Established users. --Local hero 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Arlington

Is the only picture available of Arlington, Texas inside a baseball stadium? Could a picture of the main business district or a neighborhood street be shown? It would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There would be no picture of a downtown Arlington because the city is basically a residential area. People who live in Arlington commute to Dallas and Fort Worth for work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.197.215 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Does The List Stop at 100,000 people?

Just wondering. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the list is already too long and this was the best consensus we could come up with. Usually, lists like this are "Top 100" or "Top 200" or some definitive "Top" number; however, people felt their town was left out and it became more of a popularity contest than an actual factual list, so it was decided to make it population-based so people don't think "Top #" means the ones that don't make it "aren't as important". Not sure when it was decided, though. Hope that helps! EaglesFanInTampa 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also true that the main reference for the article is the Census Bureau list of cities with over 100,000 population (reference #1 in the article). To some extent this article is a wikilinked and illustrated version of that list. --Uncia (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people should merge with this article

Per duplicate in context. Please see article's talk page for further discussion. --Moreau36 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange counting fx Jacksonville

The population density for the US cities varies too much on list of US cities. And for example Jacksonville with 805 000 population have a density of 971 per sq.mile which is eqvivalent to 377 per sq.km - a value that is lower than for the entire Holland or Belgium and close to the pop.dens. of United Kingdom !!!

What do you mean it "varies too much"? It is what it is. In the last census, Jacksonville had a population of 805,605. Jacksonville covers 885 square miles, 767 square miles of it land (in fact, it is one of the largest cities in the United States in area). That works out to 1,050 per square mile (so the figure of 971 might be a bit low, but not by much). On the other hand, San Francisco had a population of 799,183 following the last census. San Francicso covers just 231 square miles, and only 47 square miles of that is land. That works out to 17,004 per square mile. So, Jacksonville and San Francisco are approximately the same size in population, but Jacksonville is over 16 times larger in land area. Again, it is what it is. Phizzy (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City, MO Population Change

Due to a US Census misunderestimation, on Feburary 6, 2009 the US Census approved an appeal from the city to change the official population of Kansas City, Missouri from 450,375 to 475,830, thus adding about 25,000 residents to the city. I have changed the city's population to reflect that. [[1]] that web page is where you can find the information, which is on Kansas City's official municipal web site and was a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When you add information to an article, please also add the references (sources) there rather than on the talk page. I've added a note to the article with your reference information. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk page with four tildes. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where should the photos stop? Top 50?

I believe the intention was to show city photos of just the top 50 cities, but Dpm12 added several more. As I write this, it is up to 54 (Tampa), but Dpm12 seems to be adding even more. Where should this stop? Phizzy (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, it is up to 60. Phizzy (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and deleted them, inc. San Juan, since it makes the article WAY too long. While it's a nice touch, it's really gotten to a point of taking value from the article, esp. #50 - really, a stadium for Arlington? C'mon. Personally, I think they should all go, but I'm just one guy, and I'll let others figure out the limits. All I know is more than 50 makes the article too damn long. Thanks for the heads-up, Phizzy! :-) EaglesFanInTampa 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be the top 50 and stop there because that is completely neutral and logical and prevents editors from trying to extend it just for the sake of extending it to include their own favorite city. I don't see why you would want to take the images out altogether, they add an enormous amount to the article in my opinion; without them there would simply be white space next to the list. Obviously the stadium for Arlington is not a good image but eventually we will get a free image of the skyline, there's not a huge rush. And why take out the San Juan image, it's simply next to the Puerto Rico section where there is white space without it, and if it was ranked it would be in the top 50, I don't see how that image detracts from the article at all. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you took out the San Juan image because it was in an odd place on your browser I fixed that problem, a bunching error was causing it to interfere with the right-aligned images. It's now left of the Puerto Rico table where it was intended. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

50 has been established as an acceptable number for some time and there it should stay. Personally I believe even that is pushing it a little; on wide-format monitors it causes the images to extend downward well beyond the list and into the see-also section. Any more than 50 will create a lot of undesirable dead whitespace at the bottom. Shereth 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On 1280x1024 resolution the images extend right about to the see also section, depending a little on which browser you are using. I don't see a problem with it extending beyond the list table because it just helps fill white space on the right. So right now the top 50 is a perfect amount, and like you said, any more than that would cause problems on higher resolutions. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Photo

I changed the Los Angeles photo as the original used the San Gabriel mountains as a backdrop for the photo, which is not a correct representation of the skyline of Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristiansr (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your assertion but one photo is just as good as the other and I have no problem with the change. Shereth 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated population numbers appear to be a year behind

I noticed that references for the consolidated city/county populations are for 2006 numbers, but the cities in the main list have population figures from 2007. Are there 2007 numbers for the consolidated city/county populations somewhere that can be pulled in? Or are there 2008 numbers available for everything? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I assume you mean the figures in the footnotes (the figures in the table are accurate and up to date) - not only where they outdated, but the references listed were totally irrelevant to the footnotes. I have fixed this as well. 2008 figures for counties have been released, however to me it makes sense to use the 2007 figures for now so as to be in-line with the rest of the data; feel free to bump these up to 2008 if others disagree with me. 2008 figures for municipalities will probably be released in July. Additionally, I removed Denver from that list as, while it is a consolidated city-county, it is the only municipality in the City and County of Denver and thus does not suffer from the discrepancy mentioned in the footnote. Shereth 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Looks great! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Accepted challenges

I just updated some population figures for the accepted challenges listed on the census bureau's website: see here. We had 4 of them already but there are 14 total. Here is the list of accepted challenges for those curious, note that Miami Gardens went from 97k to 108k so it's a new entry on the list.

• New York City, NY 8,310,212
• Dallas, TX 1,266,372
• San Francisco, CA 799,185
• Baltimore, MD 640,150
• Boston, MA 608,352
• Kansas City, MO 475,830
• Miami, FL 424,662
• St. Louis, MO 355,663
• Toledo, OH 316,851
• New Orleans, LA 288,113
• Winston-Salem, NC 223,532
• Worcester, MA 175,521
• Springfield, MA 151,342
• Miami Gardens, FL 108,862

— LonelyMarble (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Peoria??

Peoria IL is listed as #6 most populous state, obviously not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.75.158 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple errors

All the top cities are wrong today (4/28/09) after New York, thru Phoenix at least. Could someone fix it?

The data is currently level-set to July 1, 2007. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info for New York City

Since this article is locked fom anyone updating it, can someone fix the population total on New York City? It is incorrect. It states 3.8 million people in the city, but the official 2000 census (the last real census taken) states 8.0 million people; and an estimate (which basically means a guess) in 2007 states 8.2 million people. Neither one states 3.8 million at all. This needs to be corrected as all the other cities on the list do not have their population totals increased over the census statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, read it again. The article says NYC's population is 8,310,212. APK straight up now tell me 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvas: Should non-Census sources be allowed on individual city articles?

Because there's a discussion about it here you may want to contribute to if you have feelings about it.--Loodog (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Hempstead (town), New York

Hempstead (town), New York says that it has population 755,000 and would be the 14th most populous city, were it a city. Does it belong on this list? Is the population inaccurate? This population is also mentioned in City#United States. Sligocki (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's infobox and the Town's website call it a township. This article says the list should include cities, towns, villages, boroughs, and municipalities. I assume civil townships are not supposed to be included. APK coffee talk 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This question has come up numerous times. It is not included as an "incorporated place" by the US Census Bureau. Please feel free to review the talk archives of this page as well as the note on the list itself that explains this issue. Shereth 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 update

I'll have the new table with the 2008 numbers up shortly. If anyone else is putting together a table, let me know so I don't waste my effort doing something that's already going to be done :) Shereth 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the new table. Hopefully my hometown will be movin on up like George and Weezy. APK coffee talk 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The update is complete! The column for density is missing for the time being; as the density data comes from a different source and there has been significant movement among the list (as well as several additions), there was no immediate way for me to ensure that the densities remained with the correct city. Densities will require a little more work to restore to the table.

Here are a few highlights for demographic wonks like myself. There was a change among the top 10, with Dallas overtaking San Diego for the #8 spot - by a razor-thin margin of less than 600. There were several other changes among the top 50 cities:

• San Francisco moves past Jacksonville for the #12 spot
• Austin takes the #15 spot from Columbus
• Charlotte moves in to #18 past Memphis
• El Paso is the 3rd Texas city to move up, pushing Boston out of its #21 spot
• Denver moves up 2 spots to #24, past both Seattle and Nashville
• Portland takes the #29 spot from Louisville
• Kansas City sinks 5 spots to #39 beneath Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach and Mesa
• Omaha jumps 2 spots to #40 over both Cleveland and Virginia Beach
• Raleigh moves past Tulsa and Minneapolis to #45

Finally, the 100,000 plus club gets 10 new members with Round Rock City, Texas; Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Lewisville, Texas; Richardson, Texas; Gresham, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa; Columbia, Missouri; Rochester, Minnesota; Antioch, California; and Wilmington, North Carolina. Shereth 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the consolidated populations in Note e. Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Updated those as well. Shereth 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated since Dallas and San Diego have switched places. Does that have to be done on Commons? APK coffee talk 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but thanks for catching that as well. Got it fixed. Anything else missing? :) Shereth 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think every thing is correct/updated. I'm glad North Cackalacky has another city on the list (during my college years, I spent most of my summer weekends in Wilmington). APK coffee talk 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission Viejo, California

mission viejo, california has a population of 100,242 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.67.123 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the US Census 2008 population estimates. The source used in the Mission Viejo article is from the state government, and it's a January 1, 2009 estimate. APK coffee talk 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

The photo for Omaha lists it as size #41, the list puts it at #40. Paltivar (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Got it fixed. Shereth 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Update

The new pop. figure for Seattle just came out putting the it a 602,000, or one spot up at 24 place, so should the table changed to reflect that? --76.121.4.143 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This table is based on US Census estimates, not city or state estimates. The most recent data are for July 1, 2008. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anon, unless this new figure you speak of was approved of by the US Census Bureau as a challenge, we can't use it for this article.--Loodog (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, well it was worth a try. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Providence and Worcester tied for 2007

I'm sorry the page looks weird but Providence and Worcester have a population that it 2007 were almost identical. So the number for them is both. But on ri.gov Providence's population in summer of 2009 is 175,211 to 176,000s. Toonami (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This page only uses one source: the July 1, 2008, U.S. Census Bureau estimate that can be seen here: [2]. This list is simply a copy of that list. The government of Rhode Island's estimate for Providence therefore does not matter for this particular list. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry Toonami (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)