Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by population

Huh?

What happened? The most recent Census should definitely be what anything is measured against; that's a non-negotiable. The negotiation was over whether the 2010 Census should have be included in addition to the other data. Fix this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? Who made the change to show population from the 2010 Census and then the 2021 estimate? That makes absolutely no sense. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Don’t know, but the page’s version history should give you the answer. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to change the 2010 and its associated data in the "Census Population" columns to match the actual source - the 2020 data - but can't get it to work. Can someone correct this? The initial comparison, as is consistent with how this table has always been done, is to compare the latest estimate (in this case, 2021) with the most recent census base (2020). I'd revert it back many months, but it'd change a lot of other good corrections and changes made since. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor Outlying Islands population

The US Census typically does not cover UM (the minor outlying islands) due to no indigenous population; however, according to sources cited by Territories of the United States they have a total population of between 144 and 160, made up of researchers, military, etc. Any thoughts on whether this should be included? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've looked for this, but haven't found anything that feels reliable enough (or comparable to the Census data) to add. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fair - I hadn't actually looked at the cited sources yet. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just realized that since there is a column for 2000, that year's enumeration of the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands could be included. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding! (I wondered what one might use for the flag.) My only suggestion would be a note on the post-2000 columns to the effect that census was not taken, rather than a dash which may incorrectly be interpreted as a population of zero. Thanks for your work on this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Montana and rhode are backwards the list is going 43 to 45 to 44

Above concern stated 72.211.162.18 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The official 1st April 2020 Census (rightly or wrongly) counted more Rhode Islanders than Montanans. And that Census count was used for the reapportionment and redistricting of Congress and the Electoral College. But in the April 2021 estimate, Montana outranks Rhode Island.

It all depends on what you want to show and how you want to show it. See the very extensive discussions by other editors in (what are now) the first two talk page items #Proposed simplification and #Using 2021 estimates or not.

However, there are two ways for those who wish to rank the states by the July 2021 estimates to do so. There are little arrows next to the headings of both the 1st column (rank in 2021) and in the 4th (numerical estimates of July 2021). Press either of those and the table will sort by July 2021 rankings. [If you get a reverse order with California last, just press the arrow again.]

[¶ I'm a Rhode Islander who remembers the great local fear that the 2020 Census would deprive the Ocean State of both a Congressional seat and an Electoral College vote, and the great local relief that that did not happen (this year had a very vigorous election campaign for our Second District). So I can sympathize with the million+ Montanans who only have one U.S. Representative.]

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate math for New Hampshire population "Change,2010–2020"

In the "State and territory rankings" table, New Hampshire's value for "Change,2010–2020" is 61,378, however the value of its 2020 population (1,377,529) minus its 2010 population (1,316,470) is reported as (61,378)

which is not what it should be (61,059) based on the population numbers in the table. This may explain why the total of the "House Reps.2022 %" column is 100.04% instead of 100%!

I would have fixed it, but I could not confirm the population numbers. JerryDNYC (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed The 2020 and 2010 pops check out, so the difference was incorrect. Thanks for finding that! --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Florida population now 2nd largest, exceeds California. Table is 3 years old!

Update population chart 107.119.69.54 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

One year's data is enough - and other column bloat

Big, wide tables are hard to read. Sometimes, when two ideas seem equally good, they both end up getting included, which can be a worse solution to just flipping a coin.

The table includes columns for multiple years: for ranks, population, house seat proportions, % of total... one is enough for all of these, the most recent year where data is available. I'd also argue "absolute change" can go - population growth is a different topic just like population density and one column is enough for this list.

There are also six (!) columns devoted to counting how population interacts with elections. That's a whole separate table right there. Ideally there would be just one column for that topic in this list, and a link to another list with all those other columns. Wizmut (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the 2010 columns and made the ranking automatic based on the sorting chosen. Perhaps the table could still be split but I'll wait a while for comments on how the table is looking so far.

Some things I've noticed with the new table:

• percentages could have just one digit after the decimal
• comparing "% US" and "% EC" is nice, but would also be nice to have "% US" further to the left, right next to the 2023 population figures
• 2023 figures for the US territories could be sourced from the UN.

Wizmut (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Guam's population

According to this page, Guam has decreased in population between 2010 and 2020. However, the the Guam wiki page says it increased by 5.5% percent over that time period. The CIA.gov webpage also estimates a population of 169,330. What's with the discrepancy? Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they undercounted.

The number of housing units, which doesn't require any interviews or replies, went up 2%.[1]

And these people all seem convinced of an undercount (not serious data, though): [2]

There have been data on under/over-counts in the states, as well as Puerto Rico: [3] Wizmut (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition the Demographic and Housing Characteristics Summary for Guam notes "Detailed characteristics of military households and housing units in Guam were not collected in 2020. As a result, data tables for these characteristics do not include the population living on military installations." It also cautions against comparing 2020 data with 2010 data. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

While I sympathize with all of your thoughts about undercounts, it's true of any state or territory. This is an interesting academic discussion, but has no bearing on what should or shouldn't appear on this article. Wiki uses official Census Bureau counts and estimates to keep things consistent and compare apples-to-apples.--Criticalthinker (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the list. Some use only one source, like the UN country population list. The main population list tries to use only official sources, but includes some UN estimates (sometimes extra ones if you check the footnotes). And the big area list rarely uses official sources and instead splits between the World Factbook and the UN Statistics division.

If there's a column labelled "2020 census", then that's easy. But "2023 estimate?" Could be census.gov, CIA or UN statistics, or actually all 3 if we use footnotes. But one number will have to be more prominent than the others and a little discussion about what's more plausible is fine. Wizmut (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, now you're just being cute. A source is given for the numbers; it is not some mystery. And I was clearly talking about U.S. state and territory articles. If this is something you find interesting to discuss, more power to you. However, it has no bearing on how these articles are written. Criticalthinker (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Not being cute, beg your pardon.

Didn't say the numbers were a mystery. I said some sources may be of lower quality than others. The Census itself has published a list of error rates for the 50 states[4] and eventually for Puerto Rico[5] but not for any other territory (to my knowledge). If the Census itself says some of its numbers are worse than others, is it OR to use that information to decide how to write the article?

And betcha dollars to donuts their skipping out on those post-enumeration surveys comes from the same set of priorities as their not publishing post-2020 estimates for the little territories.

But the CIA and UN have posted such estimates, and there's no rule against including them. Indeed, there's loads of lists that get templated for only using one source. There's nothing special about US-related articles. Wizmut (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There are only 50 states. Serialing is wrong. it starts from 2 i.e. California. But California should be 1.

There are only 50 states. Serialing is wrong. it starts from 2 i.e. California. But California should be 1. Anishssgj (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

…what? Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)