Talk:List of cities in Maine

Untitled[edit]

If anybody out there can help me:

I was frustrated to see that the list of cities was missing some very very important cities in Maine, and I've added many as I think of them, by no means is this list yet complete. Then I realized that some of these weren't CITIES they were actually towns or villages. Under Maine law, a municipality is incoroporated with whatever "title" it wants (city, village, town, etc.) Should there be a seperate category for "List of Villages," "List of Towns" etc? Or should this be renamed "List of Muncipalities?"

This list of Maine's 22 cities seems to be complete now. Though there are some population centers which have the designation of village, those are only localities within an actual town, and have no governmental, or organization status. It's a courtesy title to reflect some localized identity within another town. The town of Sanford contains the Village of Springvale which has no separate legal status. The town of Rangeley contains the Village of Oquossoc which also has no separate legal status. The town of Mount Desert contains several population centers designated as villages, such as Northeast Harbor, none of which has any separate legal status distinct from the actual town of Mount Desert. I do think this page should have a direct link, and vice versa, to the page listing of Towns in Maine. Would somebody who knows how, please do that. JackME 05:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biddeford[edit]

I removed Biddeford. The link says it is a town, not a city. It shouldn't be added back unless it is shown to be a city Dkriegls (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No References!!![edit]

There aren’t any refs on this page. Will someone please reference it? There is some data missing, too. --I love the interweb! (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 estimate and 2013 Census?. We should eith[edit]

There wasn't a Census in 2013, so no idea what's going on here. Using old estimates is bad, anyway. The columns should be the 2010 census and the 2016 estimates.

Since this is an encyclopedia, we really should just stick with official US census figures and not use estimates. The columns should be 2010 and 2000, and in a few years changed to 2020 and 2010. Mattximus (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The estimates are official estimates put out by the Census Bureau. What does this being an encyclopedia have to do with whether we should use them? Including them is perfectly reasonable. Just no reason to use old ones. john k (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is encyclopedic convention to only use the most recent available census data, and not estimates as it runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Estimates can be included in addition to census data, but census data is always considered the encyclopedic value. In this case 2010/2000 would be the best 2 columns and in a few years 2020/2010. Mattximus (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Census estimates are not a crystal ball. They are the best guess by the relevant federal agency as to what the population is. They shouldn't replace census figures (as they do here), but they are perfectly appropriate to use to supplement them. I'd be happy with three columns - 2016 estimate, 2010 census, and 2000 census. john k (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but that is *a lot* of work. I have bots that pull from the US census website, but they only pull from official censuses. I've used the bot on 6 states so far, and got them all up to featured status. The bot also will eliminate the 2000 column and makes a 2020 column when the new census arrives. Mattximus (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]