Talk:Kansas statistical areas
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Population updates
[edit]Population data from the United States Census Bureau may be updated either:
- (1) Every ten years with data from the decennial United States Census, or
- (2) Annually with data from the decennial United States Census and annual population estimates from the United States Census Bureau.
The following table shows when population data is available:
| Source: | Decennial Census | Population Estimates |
| Date: | April 1 of years divisible by ten | July 1 of years not divisible by ten |
| Region: | date population data available | |
| nation | December | December 1 |
| state | ||
| statistical area | February-March of next year | April 1 of next year |
| county | ||
| places | June 1 of next year | |
Please contact me if you have any questions. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Table numbers and colors
[edit]@Buaidh: What do the different colors in the table mean? Why do some cells (e.g. on the rows for Kansas City and Joplin) have more than one number? -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Note 3. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! I missed that because numbered footnotes are supposed to be citations to sources. This colorization doesn't comply with MOS:COLOR, because there's no way for color-blind readers to get the intended information. I'll tweak the table so the information is clear to everyone. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Buaidh: That's done, but I notice that other state articles on the same topic have the same problems. Are these tables generated automatically from a template, or would it be useful to fix them all manually? -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- These tables are currently generated manually. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there - appreciate you flagging that the color combination I've been using when I've updated the tables isn't colorblind safe. I looked into what would be a safer combination - I have no attachment to the green/teal, this was a holdover from whoever created these tables to begin with, I just try to keep them updated - and have implemented a green/purple color scheme instead. If you see this, let me know what you think and if so I can apply it to the other pages. I've corrected the reference pointing to this color scheme explanation now so that it's a note rather than a citation. Rhonetalsma (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, but I'm afraid the latest version doesn't work for people using screen readers, who don't have any indication of color at all. That's why the uncolorized version uses text like "(Kansas part)" - which will be read out loud - to distinguish the different population counts. -- Beland (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense - are you opposed at all to me editing the note about the table formatting to indicate the order that the population numbers would be read by a screen reader and what they would indicate (i.e. entire population listed first, then in-state population)? Not trying to be annoying about this and want to make sure the pages I work on are accessible but I'm just wondering if there might be a more elegant solution than including the parenthetical statements in every cell that needs them. Or maybe, would adding a note to them individually perhaps work? Is that something a screen reader would pick up on? Rhonetalsma (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, often the explanatory notes are read aloud at the end of the page, out of context. The clarification is needed in very few cells, so putting it in the cell (where there is plenty of room) rather than far away makes things easy to understand without cluttering up much. -- Beland (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- For sure, thank you - I've made a further amendment to make the differentiation between the totals explicit in the cells themselves and added this detail to the note as well. I'm just concerned with disrupting the visual experience of the table too much as it's already dense with data and I'd like to keep the approach to this consistent across the state list pages, and for higher population states with more interstate statistical areas to delineate (Illinois' is a great example), space is indeed at a big of a premium. Can you let me know what you think here? Open to feedback and appreciate your attention to this. Rhonetalsma (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Full state names are preferred by MOS:STATEABBR. There's plenty of vertical space in the cells in question to write full words like "X, Kansas part: Y". -- Beland (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- For sure, thank you - I've made a further amendment to make the differentiation between the totals explicit in the cells themselves and added this detail to the note as well. I'm just concerned with disrupting the visual experience of the table too much as it's already dense with data and I'd like to keep the approach to this consistent across the state list pages, and for higher population states with more interstate statistical areas to delineate (Illinois' is a great example), space is indeed at a big of a premium. Can you let me know what you think here? Open to feedback and appreciate your attention to this. Rhonetalsma (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, often the explanatory notes are read aloud at the end of the page, out of context. The clarification is needed in very few cells, so putting it in the cell (where there is plenty of room) rather than far away makes things easy to understand without cluttering up much. -- Beland (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense - are you opposed at all to me editing the note about the table formatting to indicate the order that the population numbers would be read by a screen reader and what they would indicate (i.e. entire population listed first, then in-state population)? Not trying to be annoying about this and want to make sure the pages I work on are accessible but I'm just wondering if there might be a more elegant solution than including the parenthetical statements in every cell that needs them. Or maybe, would adding a note to them individually perhaps work? Is that something a screen reader would pick up on? Rhonetalsma (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, but I'm afraid the latest version doesn't work for people using screen readers, who don't have any indication of color at all. That's why the uncolorized version uses text like "(Kansas part)" - which will be read out loud - to distinguish the different population counts. -- Beland (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Buaidh: That's done, but I notice that other state articles on the same topic have the same problems. Are these tables generated automatically from a template, or would it be useful to fix them all manually? -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! I missed that because numbered footnotes are supposed to be citations to sources. This colorization doesn't comply with MOS:COLOR, because there's no way for color-blind readers to get the intended information. I'll tweak the table so the information is clear to everyone. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)