Talk:List of United States cities by population
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archives
Archive 1: Page Creation - October 2007
[edit] Tucson photo
Alright, children, this is getting tedious. The fact is both photos have pros and cons, but I have to agree, the one currently up there (Image:Downtown Tucson Night.jpg) looks better because the subject of the photograph (Tucson, not the mountains) is in the center of the picture, whereas the other one, while good in its own right, does not focus on the city, just the mountains around it; the key to a good picture is to make sure what you are photographing is centered. That being said, this is quickly turning into an editing war, so let it go, because, quite frankly, this is stupid to be arguing over a photo. Rule #1 of Wikipedia: no one owns Wikipedia, so don't be offended if someone changes something. EaglesFanInTampa 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the back-and-forth between the two photos is silly. Ideally I would prefer a daytime shot of the city, but as stated above, the daytime photo we have now doesn't really focus on the city itself. I like the current nighttime picture more for the content but wish it was a daytime photo. I'd be half tempted to drive down there and snap one myself if I were less lazy :) Perhaps the uploader oculd be persuaded to take another in the daytime. For now I'm okay with it staying. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Table additions
Why was the table modified to include MSA populations without any discussion here on the talk page? A major alteration like that really ought to be discussed beforehand. I am removing it until some discussion here can show a good reason for keeping it.
Reasons for not keeping it include the fact that the information is incomplete, resulting in a poorly formatted table. The size of the table is also now causing a conflict with the city images on the right side in browsers running at lower resolutions (even a screen resolution of 1028px suffers from some overlap of the right hand side of the table with the pictures).
Finally we already have a table with that information in its own article, there is no need to reduplicate the information here. It only serves to clog up this article and muddle the display. I see no reason to keep it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Add additional footnote for successful challenges?
Because many cities challenge the census results, might it be a good idea to add a footnote that indicates the challenge and reports the corrected total? The rank can remain the same in the table, and the table can still report the original 2006 numbers, but I thought that in cases like this, it might be worth a FN. -Nicktalk 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, successful challenges are official Census numbers once they are accepted and the table should be updated. Personally I'd prefer to wait until challenges show up on the Census' challenges page [1] before making the changes, though the above source seems credible to me. The only thing I don't like about it is they keep referring to it as a "revision" to appear in next year's estimates, which doesn't make sense. In any case, yeah, I prefer to wait until I hear it from the Census bureau, but that's just my opinion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The list needs to be updated. The U.S. Census Bureau corrected Milwaukee's population and it is over 600,000. It should now be at 22 of 25. Larger than Boston, Seattle, and Washington D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.20 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Counties
Does anyone else think there should be a column for counties? Obviously, some cities either are in multiple counties or not in counties at all, but this can be remedied either by listing the primary county (ie county where most of the city lies) or with a footnote.--Nkrosse (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Adding a column for counties would be unnecessary information. Readers interested can easily click on the city and find out what county it resides in, but as the information is not especially helpful to the table there is no reason to add a new column for counties. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Minneapolis out of place?
The page lists the population as 372,000, when as of 2006 the population was 387,000. Can someone please fix the ranking where needed, I believe that places it at #45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.181.124 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] All incorporated places, or only cities?
I was just reading the article on Hempstead, a town in Nassau county, New York. With a poulation of roughly 750,000 it would be in the top 20 in this list. Is there a reason why it is not in the list? I know that most of the places here are cities and Hempstead is a town, if that is the reason it seems a bit arbitrary to me. On the other hand, not being from the US, I'm not entirely familiar with the exact differences between cities and towns. Knijert (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure where you got 750,000 from because it's actually about 53,000. The Viper (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- From the Wikipedia article on the town of Hempstead, now i see there is also a village of Hemptead, located in the town. That actually illustrates my question, or shows how little I know about US municipalities. Knijert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.105.129 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, in New York State, a town is a county subdivision rather than a coherent community. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, towns aren't incorporated municipalities in New York. I'm not sure that any entities which are clearly municipalities, but not cities, have more than 100,000 people. If we were to expand the list, I think that villages, boroughs, and towns in most states would probably qualify. That being said, townships would be problematic (Upper Darby Township, Pennsylvania, for instance), as would New England towns - some of them are essentially functionally identical to cities (Brookline, Massachusetts, for example); others less so (e.g. South Kingstown, Rhode Island). john k (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest, though, that the simplest thing would be for any sub-county division to qualify, other than New York towns. john k (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, in New York State, a town is a county subdivision rather than a coherent community. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- From the Wikipedia article on the town of Hempstead, now i see there is also a village of Hemptead, located in the town. That actually illustrates my question, or shows how little I know about US municipalities. Knijert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.105.129 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I thought I understood why Hempstead wasn't included after your first answer, and I actually agree with that argument not to include it. Your later post however, seems to contradict the earlier reply, at least partially. Are you saying that all kinds of subdivisions should be added, or am I reading you wrong? Knijert (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Charlotte, NC out of place
Charlotte has a 2008 population of 695,995. it should be 17 instead of twenty. Just now noticed. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.180.89 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know there are several cities that should be on here bu aren't. Some of the rankings area also out of place. Would someone with the correct knowledge please fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.26.109 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, all rankings are correct as per US Census figures. If you have a different number for a particular population, it is a local estimate not recognized by the US Census Bureau, which is the only consistent basis for comparison. Charlotte's local Chamber of Commerce, for example, somehow adds 66,000 people to the city's population, which would bump its rank up to 17th. We do not use local estimates, especially one with such a conflict of interest in reporting population as the local Chamber of Commerce.--Loodog (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Should Rochester,MN be in there?
No. -- Phoenix2 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] San Jose Photo
I just wanted to say that the picture in the wiki for San Jose is absolutely terrible. I have better pictures of San Jose taken from my cell phone. I think the main thing is that the picture is taken from a vantage point which is too far away from San Jose's downtown area. The photo depicted in the wiki looks like a city similar to thousands of other cities with a population of around 50,000. Please do San Jose some justice and upload a higher quality photo...it should be EXTREMELY easy to find one that is better than what's already on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.34.74 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Be bold and upload one of your pictures. It should be EXTREMELY easy to do so. Post a link here and we'll see if your picture quality is as good as the current photo. If it is, I'll be happy to replace the picture. APK yada yada 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about the LA photo that just got put up? Are we trying to convey the smog-laden quality of LA as its defining feature in this article?--Loodog (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then replace it with the photo found at the top of the Los Angeles, California article. APK yada yada 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about the LA photo that just got put up? Are we trying to convey the smog-laden quality of LA as its defining feature in this article?--Loodog (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok here's some good ones: [2] or [3]207.47.34.74 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 135 and 145 are Flip-Flopped
135 is currently Rockford,IL with a population of 155,138 and 145 is Chattanooga, TN with a population of 168,293. Either their populations are mis-matched or they need to swap places. Wewantutopia (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)wewantutopia