Talk:List of United States cities by population/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Nashville Census revision

The U.S. Census has revised the 2005 count for Nashville, raising the population to 607,493, making it bigger than El Paso and slightly smaller than Charlotte.

San Juan, PR

Why is San Juan on this list? Puerto Rico is NOT officially part of the U.S. and is NOT included in the U.S. population of 296 million in 2004.66.64.156.146 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I recalled reading that San Jose finally eclipsed Detroit in population - knocking Detroit out of the top 10 list? This list needs to be updated. Rmisiak 07:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Since when is San Jose and San Juan the same thing? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete my addition!

"Miami, Fl, which is ranked at #45 for city population, is ranked #6 for metro area, and #5 for urban area. Miami has only 35.68 mi² of land, as compared to Phoenix, Az which ranks #6 in city population, but #14 in metro area, and #13 in urban area. This shows the innacurate nature of these numbers as compared to actual urban area size (Phoenix has 474.9 mi² of land.)"

I added this to try to point out the way that this system works, and highlight the flaws of this system. You can edit it if you want. but do not delete it. I only make small factual contributions, on things I know inside and out.

Miami is #5 for urban areas, but #45 for cities. This is a gap of 40. San Francisco and Washington DC also suffer from this. Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Columbus are the opposite. It should be highlighted. Miami and San Francisco are of just 3 cities on EARTH that are at their peak population currently without ever annexing land. (the other is Vancouver, B.C.

If you don't like my comments, let the community decide, or I'll go around and delete your posts.

The information presented currently is random and stupid.

ReignMan 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever claimed this to be a list of 'metro areas' but a list of 'cities.' If Miami doesn't like it, they can expand the city limits.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhh New Orleans?

Is it right to keep the census information from 04 when the population of NO is now way less than 50,000?

Wikichange 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Probably. The figure will generally change anyway as more people return.

Please see article. --Moreau36 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans should be moved up several spots again (probably to #69). The latest reliable population figures put the city at over 260,000 right now.24.250.76.155 12:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. These numbers are for July 1 2006. If we change one city, we'd have to change them all to be fair. But wait, isn't that the Census Bureau's job? Wait until next year.Ryoung122 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagrees with other information on Wikipedia.

According to the United States Article, there are quite a few differences in the listings. Both Numbers and Order are way off.

I'm not sure which one is more accurate.--WAHooker July 8, 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Is there a listing of largest cities based on the GMA (greater metropolitan area)?

Yes, see List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population.

Corrected Information

The list on the page was revamped to the top 100 cities according to the U.S. Census Bureau with the population estimates for 2004....--Moreau36 3 August 2005, 13:54 (EDT)

I changed the population number and order on the list for raleigh, north carolina. the latest 2007 census shown on raleigh's wiki entry is what i replaced the original amount with.

Arbitrary list

You only have to look at this list to see that whatever measurement it is using it is completely meaningless: the only way Jacksonville FL is bigger than Boston is if the state government has drawn a bigger line around it. Why bother having the list at all? The Metropolitan Areas page is a much, much more meaningful indication of the size of different cities, given that its isn't based on self-definition.

This list is based on incorporated areas (excluding suburbs). Every incorporated city differs depending on the needs of the people of the area. As far as Jacksonville, Florida is concerned, it's consolidated with Duval County, Florida in 1968 due to specific needs of people in the unincorporated areas. Compare Jacksonville, Florida with 757 square miles of land (the biggest land-sized city in the lower 48 of the United States) with Boston, with only 47 square miles of land. I also have to challenge you about the "state government" issue; Tha consolidation of Jacksonville had NOTHING to do with the state of Florida. It was the decision of the voters in Duval County. So, I don't call this list meaningless at all. Moreau36; 2320, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page so hard to find?

I just spent half an hour looking for this list. Largest US cities in the search engine doesn't give it to us. And why is Wikipedia so slow?

Louisville's position is 16th, not 26th

See Talk:Louisville,_Kentucky#16th_vs._26th_largest for details. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The following list should be consistent with The U.S. Census Bureau's release that occurred in June. Augusta, Georgia, Columbus, Georgia, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacksonville, Florida, Louisville, Kentucky, and Nashville, Tennessee are consolidated city-counties, but all they also have in common is that the U.S. Census Bureau excludes populations for other incorporated places in their respective counties to avoid confusion, because although they joined the consolidated governments. Their incorporation status hasn't dissolved or in other words, they still have a mayor and city council. (see: Jeffersontown, Kentucky, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, and Bibb City, Georgia). Unless the census changes the way on how they count consolidated city-counties, then the list should not change. -- Moreau36; 1359, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Louisville is a special case in that the incorporated places in the county were supposed to be included as that was the legal agreement made with the merger. If you would read the discussion I pointed to earlier, you would see that this is really a case of poor reporting by Louisville authorities to the Census Bureau. It's a case of legality (16th) vs. what the Census Bureau reports (26th). I understand that people want to automatically trust federal government numbers, but they are incorrect in this matter. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The very basis of this ranking table is U.S. Census data and the methodologies that are used to produce it. While it may be the case that the Census' 2004 estimate for Louisville is "incorrect", until it acts to correct it, the estimate must stand along with all of the others determined for 2004 in order to provide an "apples with apples" comparison. --Denvoran 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

From that U.S. Census perspective, you may be correct. But the Louisville, Kentucky is going to continue to report the fact that it's the 16th largest city. You need to read the talk there to uncover the facts surrounding this. I may be willing to compromise and add content to both articles describing the inaccuracy, but in legal terms, Louisville is #16. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Louisville can have its Sweet Sixteen if that ranking is based on Census data. There may be quite a story around the city's dramatic leap in population, but this table is based on the latest Census estimates, and if we mix in "corrections" or third-party estimates or projections or what have you with those numbers, the table loses its integrity. Some Wikipedians may be itching to move New Orleans down in the rankings and Baton Rouge up, and while it may be true that the former has lost quite a bit of population and the latter increased, this has not yet been documented or established. The two Louisiana cities maintain their present rankings until the next round of Census estimates are released. Denvoran 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the U.S. Census Bureau is the main source for population data and has set definitions. On that issue, for the census to ignore other incorporated places in consolidated city-counties is like a "slap to the face" for those muncipalities, who in part need those numbers for funding needed for those cities/towns/villages. If look carefully. many consolidated city-counties with other independent municipalities within them will have the word (balance) in the title, which means the population of the respective city's boundaries prior to the merger and the population of former unincorporated communities (or in some cases, Census Designated Places). Consquently for Louisville, you have many other small incorporated towns and villages other than Jeffersontown and Shively, that the census did not ignore. In the upcoming census (2010) the place's title heading will likely be Louisville-Jefferson County (balance), Kentucky, just like Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee. If Louisville was the only incorporated city in Jefferson County, then the entire county would be counted by the census due to the fact that no other muncipalities would be ïn the way". --Moreau36; 538, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the Census Bureau doesn't use the real population figure for consolidated cities in thier population tables and statistics as it would cause people to be counted twice who live in incorporated cities within consolidated cities. Instead they use the "balance" figure instead. The balance is the population of the consolidated city minus the populations of other cities within the consolidated city. It has nothing to do with the city's boundaries prior to consolidation or anything like that. For the purpose of this and similar lists, Wikipedia should always use the consolidated city-county's actual population (usually published as the county population), never the "balance" population. The only time the balance population should be used is if you are listing every single inhabited area of a state or county and you need the population total to add up to the actual total of the state or county (something I doubt we would ever do, but the Census people have to do all the time). In summary, ignore the "balance" population and use the real population. Kaldari 00:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, Nashville's 2004 estimated population is 572,475 according to the census bureau, not 546,719 as listed here. These figures need to be corrected. Kaldari 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To Kaldari, I cannot dissagree with you more. If you look at the definitions carefully on the Census pages, you will explore that other municipalities within consolidated city-counties are NOT ignored. Unless the U.S. Census changes it's definition on how the bureau count consolidated city-counties, then it should stand as is. Your city of Nashville is NOT alone in this subject like I mentioned before. If you look back to the 1970 and 1980 censuses, compare Nashville (balance) population with thoes of Davidson County. Like I said before, to those municipalites within the Nashville-Davidson Gov't need the numbers for funding and to ignore them is a SLAP IN THE FACE to those communities, who still have a mayor and council. The "balance" population should stand to avoid confusion. --Moreau36; 0223, 20 February 2006

I never said that the Census Bureau ignores the other municipalities within a consolidated city. You are quite right in that respect. I have no intention of ignoring them or "slapping them in the face" as you are fond of saying. The people who live in those incorporated satelite cities are legally the residents of two different cities simultaneously. For the purpose of a strict population list, they should be counted for both cities. If you are compiling a list to allocate funding or government representation (which we are not, but the census bureau is), you should only count them for one or the other (otherwise it unfairly skews the funding or government representation or whatever). I hope that makes sense. For our purposes, there is no reason to use the Census Bureau's special "balance" figures. Kaldari 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice for example, here, where the Census Bureau uses the actual city populations, not the "balance" figures. For our purposes, we should have a list similar to that one, but updated for 2004 estimates. Since we are not actually allocating anything based on these figures, there is no reason for us to use the less-accurate balance totals. Kaldari 00:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari suggests that there is only an obscure, "bureaucratic" reason not to include other incorporated cities with the populations of Nashville, Louisville, and other consolidated city-counties. But consider this - what is the purpose of this list? It is to rank the populations of cities. We are ranking "apples with oranges" if we include single incorporated cities as well as combinations of incorporated cities (i.e. entire consolidated city-counties with all of the incorporated places in them).
The ranking of cities should not count people twice. For example, either a person is counted toward the population of Nashville, or toward the population of Oak Hill, Tennessee but s/he should not be counted for both!
Look at it this way: as a city, Oak Hill has to fall somewhere in the rankings of the largest cities of the United States. Let's say that its 4,493 residents place the city as the 876th largest city in the country. Those 4,493 people cannot contribute to making Oak Hill the 876th largest city at the same time they are contributing to make Nashville the 28th largest city!
For this reason, the "Nashville-Davidson (balance)" population must be used to rank the city, not the entire population of the county, which includes Oak Hill and a handful of other cities. Yes, one can consider the entire population of Davidson County as residents of Nashville, since the two governments have merged, BUT for the purposes of this list, we are ranking "apples with apples" - each entry on this list can only be a single incorporated place that does not include any other incorporated places. To do otherwise would no longer allow true comparisons and would defeat the purpose of having a ranking list in the first place.
Denvoran 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy this argument. What constitutes the city of Nashville is not ambiguous. The city of Nashville encompasses all of Davidson County and has been that way since 1963. If you ask someone that lives in Oak Hill what city they live in, they will say Nashville, as Oak Hill is basically just a neighborhood with extra bureaucracy (for most practical purposes). In fact I doubt most people who live in Oak Hill know that it is still separately incorporated. For most of the satellite cities in Nashville, the Metro government provides all the services: police, fire, trash, sewage, etc. The City of Oak Hill might have a special recycling program or something, but for the most part it acts as a part of Nashville. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare cities to cities, not cities to "balances". We don't disqualify New York City because it includes separately incorporated boroughs (that in many ways act as their own cities). I have never seen any other ranking of cities that uses the balance figures. On virtually every listing of city populations, Nashville comes in between 20 and 25th place depending on the year. Only this list and the Census estimate list put it at 28th. I understand the inclination to default to the Census list as given, but the fact is the census figures have a different purpose than our list. It is the Census list that fails to compare apples to apples. Kaldari 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes the City of Nashville is somewhat ambiguous, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. It doesn't matter what people "say", but what the facts are. There are people in Long Beach, California (pop. 400,000+) that would "say" they live in "L.A.", but they should not be counted toward the population of Los Angeles. Oak Hill isn't "just a neighborhood" because it is an incorporated municipality - whether people are aware of it or not, that's beside the point. Regarding comparing "apples to apples" - we are ranking individual incorporated municipalities on this list. What is a "balance"? It is the equivalent of a single incorporated municipality, since some consolidated city-counties consist of multiple incorporated cities. If we aren't going to rank "apples with apples" (or "balances", their Census equivalents) then why not add a few urban counties to this list, like Arlington, Virginia? A lot of people consider Arlington a "city". Or let's add some census-designated places - how about Metairie, Louisiana or Sunrise Manor, Nevada or Highlands Ranch, Colorado? These are significant, large communities that a lot of people consider "cities". But they are not incorporated municipalities, so for the purposes of this list, they are "oranges" and should not be ranked with "apples". New York City is a single incorporated municipality that happens to have "boroughs" as subdivisions that have a highly developed governmental structure. Just because there are "borough presidents" and services provided on a "borough" level does not make them separate, independent municipalities. Brooklyn is never ranked or listed as the fourth largest city in the U.S. - because it is not an incorporated municipality! The example of Oak Hill, however, is an incorporated municipality - and as such, would have a place on a list or ranking of the largest cities of the U.S. And the people who contribute to Oak Hill's population figure and ranking cannot also be counted toward Nashville's population figure and ranking. This isn't about an "inclination" to blindly copy the Census list - it's about plain logic - you can't count people twice in a ranking table!
Denvoran 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes the city of Nashville is absolutely not ambiguous. The City of Nashville includes 100.00% of Davidson County. There are dozens of suburbs outside of Davidson County, but the actual city limits of the City of Nashville are the exact same as the county limits of Davidson County and it's been that way since the 60s. There is no argument about that. It just happens to have other cities incorporated within it, just as New York City happens to have buroughs incorporated within it. Your argument is absolutely rediculous. You argue that we must compare apples to apples, but then you insist this means comparing cities to balances instead of cities to cities. You are right that we don't list urban counties, boroughs, CDP, or other things that are not cities. That is exactly why we should not be listing balances! Yes, we should compare apples to apples! So let's compare cities to cities! Kaldari 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't accused anyone's arguments here as being "rediculous" (sp). The basic problem is that Nashville and other consolidated city-counties are hybrids - they're a different kind of animal, they are not exactly "apples". Yes, they are "cities", but they are also "counties". In this table, we are not ranking counties, so we don't include them - just like we don't include CDPs or other entities that are not cities. Accordingly, we shouldn't include Davidson County, Tennessee on this list - however, Nashville is a city, and so it should be included. In order to make an "apple" out of the "orange" consolidated city-county, it is only logical to take out the populations of other municipalities that remain in the county. I do not insist on comparing cities to balances; but I am insisting that we do not compare cities with consolidated city-counties that contain multiple cities within them. Nashville-Davidson is not a city - it is a consolidated city-county. It is different than the others. In order to make it comparable to the others, the "balance" population figure should be used. Denvoran 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference, and you just wrote it: the Nashville-Davidson consolidation has other "CITIES incorporated" within it, while New York City has "buroughs" (sp). Boroughs are NOT incorporated cities! Brooklyn ceased to be a city when it consolidated with New York City. However, Oak Hill and other incorporated cities HAVE NOT ceased to exist, but continue to be entities for which the Census produces population figures. Denvoran 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This list uses the wrong source

The cited Census Bureau list is a list of figures compiled to help government bureaucrats figure out how to allocate money and congressional representation, it is not a list compiled to reflect the accurate populations of each city. The discrepancy here has to do with consolidated city-counties and incorporated cities within them. We should be using a list that has the actual population figures, not the "balance" figures. Here is an example of such a list supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau: [1]. Kaldari 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated cities excluded, the other city populations are pretty accurate. --Moreau36; 105, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If so, the list should be partially revamped

Then Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Louisville populations should be changed and the consolidated city-county note should be dropped or re-worded in order to maintain consistencey. --Moreau36, 101, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise the list should say "Indianapolis (balance)", "Nashville (balance)", etc. just as the cited Census list does, as the figures listed are not the actual city populations. Personally, I would favor listing the actual city populations and revising the list, as I imagine most people viewing this list are not interested in the rather obscure "balance" figures. Kaldari 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are "interested" or not, they should be provided information that allows them to make true comparions. True comparisons are only possible when ranking "apples with apples" - individual incorporated cities or "balances", their equivalents. Denvoran 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nashville is an individual incorporated city, it's "balance" is not. The "balance" has no legal existance. it's only an artificially created statistic. it does not correspond to reality. It is not an apple. It isn't even a fruit. Kaldari 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Does your "individual incorporated city" of Nashville include Oak Hill? I imagine your answer is yes. Is Oak Hill itself an individual incorporated city? The answer to that question must also be yes - if it's not an incorporated municipality, than what is it? As I've suggested, consolidated city-counties like Nashville represent combinations of municipalities, which should not be ranked with individual municipalities. Though it can be seen as "artificial", the "balance" provides an equivalent to a single incorporated municipality so that Nashville can be ranked on a list of individual incorporated municipalities.
Bear in mind that some people are of the opinion that this list is "artificial", because it defines cities as individual municipalities instead of as metropolitan areas. Some people would say that it's meaningless to have a table that lists Jacksonville as being larger than Boston, because "reality" says the reverse is true - city limits are "artificially created". This list is adhering to a strict "artificially-created" definition of "city" by nature. Denvoran 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There are different types of consolidated cities

The different ways in which cities are consolidated are important to understand if we are to compile an accurate list. For example, in the case of Jacksonville, the communities of Baldwin, Neptune Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Jacksonville Beach, while existing within Duval County, lie outside of the city limits of Jacksonville. In the case of Nashville, however, the city limits and the county limits are the same, and communities such as Oak Hill, Belle Meade, etc. are actually within the city limits and considered part of the city of Nashville, both legally and practically (and thus should be included in the population figures). New York City is a third type of consolidation where the city itself is made up of seperately incorporated buroughs. Kaldari 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But Oak Hill, Belle Meade have boundaries of their own, do they not? And people either reside within the limits of Oak Hill or they do not, and people either reside within the city limits of Nashville, or they do not. Kaldari will probably argue that one can reside within the limits of both Nashville and Oak Hill - and this is one way of looking at it. But again, if you take such a person who is a so-called "resident of both" and include them in the population figures for both, you are double counting this person! For the purposes of a ranking table, this is not "fair" and the integrity of the rankings is lost. Denvoran 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How is that not fair??? We're not ranking people, we're ranking cities. And if it's not fair, why is it that virtually every city population ranking on earth uses those figures rather than the balance figures? The "integrity" of the data is exactly what I'm trying to rectify. Right now this list conflicts with the data presented in each of those city's individual articles. And if this data isn't fair and has no integrity, why does the census use it for their own official census rankings (not the estimates)? Kaldari 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Another evil poll

There has been lengthy debate about which population figures are appropriate for us to use in this list when we are referring to consolidated city-counties. Please vote on which option you agree with:

Use "balance" figures

A "balance" figure is the number of residents of a consolidated city-county that are not also residents of another incorporated city.

1. Denvoran 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) People shouldn't be double-counted. Note that the list already includes a qualifier explaining that the populations listed for consolidated city-counties represent the county population minus any other incorporated places.
2. bob rulz 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Agree with Denvoran. People cannot be double-counted. If you counted, say, Oak Hill and the consolidated city-county Nashville both in the census towards the total population, then the total population of the United Stated would go up, and it would be an innacurate figure. bob rulz 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Yes that is obvious, but we are not calculating the population of the United States. We are listing the populations of the biggest cities in the U.S. We don't say the population of Tennessee is the population of the state minus all other things counted by the census, so why should we do that for cities? People are being counted three times already: Once for the state, once for the county, and once for the city. This is not a problem. Nor is it a problem to count people a fourth time if they live in more than one city. Kaldari 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you just said that. A STATE is a different level than MUNICIPALITY. Just as the population of the state equals the population of all the counties, added up, so the population of the county equals the sum of all the municipalities. How hard is that to comprehend? Note Jacksonville, FL ALSO includes a 'remainder' in that it doesn't include, for example, Jacksonville Beach. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is a problem. We don't have states within states. We don't have counties within counties. We don't have cities within cities. But we do have cities within consolidated city-counties. We're not ranking states with cities, or cities with counties. So in order to rank consolidated city-counties with cities, the Census equivalent - the "balance" figure - should be used. One person = one contribution to a city's population ranking. Denvoran 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

   You seem to misunderstand that a consolidated city-county is a city (and also a county). Nashville, Tennessee is the city. Davidson County, Tennessee is the county. They share one administrative government body, but as legal entities, Nashville still exists as an incorporated city, and Davidson County still exists as a county. Just because a city and county are consolidated to share one government does not mean that the city and county cease existing. And yes, we do have "cities within cities". In the state of Tennessee, the incorporated city of Belle Meade exists within the incorporated city of Nashville. Residents of Belle Meade have two mayors and get to vote for both of them. Nashville is a city by every definition of the word, both legally and practically. The Nashville-Davidson balance is not. Kaldari 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari seems to misunderstand a lot. Let's start with: just as you might be a US resident AND a Tennessee resident (but it's not the same entity), so you might be a Nashville resident AND a Davidson County resident (but it's not the same entity). Other cities within Davidson County, for example, can hold elections for mayor, and those residents do NOT vote for the mayor of Nashville...comprende? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong on that. Those residents do vote for the mayor of Nashville, as well as the mayor of their own city. Please research this before you start making false assertions. Kaldari 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

According to THIS, Goodlettsville, TN remains anonymous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodlettsville%2C_Tennessee

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Kaldari seems to misunderstand that Nashville-Davidson is different than other cities, for the very reasons s/he mentions above. "Legally and practically", it is different than, say, Memphis, because Memphis does not share its government with Shelby County, and because it doesn't have other cities, like Belle Meade, contained within it. Because it is "legally and practically" different, it is an "orange" in an apples-to-apples ranking list of cities. This list, logically expanded to include every city in the U.S., would list Belle Meade. Kaldari would have the citizens of Belle Meade count to that city's ranking as well as to Nashville's ranking. Such double-counting would defeat the purpose of a ranking table in the first place, which is to compare items of the same type or kind. Denvoran 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

   Can you please show me where it is written that a city containing other cities is not a city. If (hypothetically) everything you said were true, why does the Census Bureau use Nashville's full population in their official census ranking for the actual census? Kaldari 19:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

   The Census issues the information it collects in many different formats and for different contexts. I suggest that Kaldari contact the Bureau to find out why it has presented Nashville-Davidson's population in different ways, both with the county population including multiple incorporated cities, and as a "balance" figure. How the Census released information half a decade ago may no longer match their current methodologies - and is in any case rather irrelevant, because this list has been and is based on the latest annual Census estimates, not on the last decennial figures that appear in the five-year-old table linked to above. Denvoran 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Use 'balance' figures, because: 1. to avoid double-counting; 2. by definition the 'city' does NOT include the other municipality; 3. the US census bureau uses 'balance' figures. Those that do not are simply guilty of boosterism and/or poor understanding.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afriad you are incorrect. The definition of the city DOES include the other municipalities. I'm afraid you may not have an understanding of what a consolidated city-county is. The legal definitions of Indianpolis, Louisville, and Nashville (but not Jacksonville) include the other municipalities. The census bureau does not contradict this, they simply offer an extra statistic for the "balance", which is not the same thing as the city. Kaldari 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Use population of the entire city-county

This means use the full city-county population, even when this includes the populations of several incorporated cities.

1. Kaldari 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this seems to be a testy debate...I am unsure what is the precise legal status of Nashville-Davidson. However, I can speak quite comfortably about Indianapolis. First, Indianapolis is NOT a combined city/county. Marion County continues to exist as a separate legal entity, although most of the functions of government have been consolidated with the City of Indianapolis and there is a common City-County Council and Mayor of Indianapolis is also the Chief Executive of all of Marion County. Second, the consolidation "Unigov" law specifically states that everything in Marion County, EXCEPT for four specifically excluded municipalities is legally part of Indianapolis--the excluded municipalities are Speedway, Beech Grove, Southport, and Lawrence. Where the confusion arises is that there were about 14 additional towns in Marion County at the time of Unigov's passage (some later officially dissolved, such as Castleton) which were NOT excluded municipalities and are legally considered part of the City of Indianapolis. These so-called "included towns" are legally part of Indianapolis and completely subject to the laws of Indianapolis--these are called "included towns." A few of these "included towns" have retained a town council, but any actions taken by the town council's must comport to the laws of Indianapolis, and such action must be approved by the elected officials of Indianapolis--e.g. Meridian Hills, an "included town" recently had to have the Metropolitan Development Commission and ultimately the City-County Council (which is the elected body of Indianapolis and also Marion County) correct a zoning law regulating residential lawn setback requirements in Meridian Hills based on an ordinance previously enacted by the town before the passage of Unigov. Also, some of the "included towns" contract with other local government agencies (usually the Sheriff, etc.) to provide additional services (such as police protection). In essence, these included towns which retain a town council act much like homeowners associations. In contrast, the four excluded towns are NOT subject to the laws of Indianapolis, unless an ordinance is passed on a county-wide basis with the City-County Council acting in its capacity as the elected body of Marion County. For example, when Indianapolis recently passed an ordinance restricting smoking it covered all of Indianapolis AND all "included towns;" however, it did NOT cover the four excluded municipalities. Also, the four excluded municipalities can pass laws without the approval of the City-County Council, except they may not pass laws conflicting with a county-wide ordinance. (There is a little bit more confusion in that there is a hybrid "included town" called Cumberland which is partially within another county--the part within Marion County is fully subject to the laws of Indianapolis and Cumberland must get the City-County Council to ultimately approve zoning rules, etc.; however, the part outside of Marion County is an independent town which can enact its own laws. Note: The U.S. Census ONLY counts the portion inside Marion County when determining the population of the entity called the Consolidated City of Indianapolis). All this is confusing, and it apparently confuses the U.S. Census because Indianapolis/Marion County has THREE population statistics: (1) There is the population of Marion County which includes the Consolidated City of Indianapolis (including the "included towns") AND ALSO includes the four excluded municipalities; (2) there is the population figure for the Consolidated City of Indianapolis which is all of Marion County EXCEPT the four excluded municipalities, and then (3) there is the population figure for "Indianapolis, Balance" which is a made up entity which does NOT exist and includes all of the former city of Indianapolis (pre-consolidation) and all of what formerly were unincorporated areas of Marion County. The U.S. Census usually reports the Consolidated City figure for the dicennial census (again, this is NOT the figure for all of Marion County because it properly excludes the "excluded municipalties"), but the U.S. Census typically reports the "Balance" figure when doing population estimates.

What is my opinion of all of the above? If the list is reporting cities and NOT counties, then it should report the Consolidated City of Indianapolis population figure--this is NOT the population figure for all Marion County, it still properly excludes the "excluded municipalities" which are NOT part of Indianapolis. Moreover, the Consolidated City is not the same legal entity as Marion County. The so-called "Balance" figure is meaningless and should be put to bed--there is NO such entity as "Indianapolis, Balance." You either have the Consolidated City of Indianapolis or you have all of Marion County--this is not double-counting--they are two separate entities and cover different areas. Now, I repeat that I do not know what the leagal situation is with Nashville-Davidson, and it may be entirely proper not to report the population on the consolidated basis for Nashville and to use the "Balance" figure instead. But for Indianapolis, I would follow what the U.S. Census does every 10 years, and report the Consolidated City figure.

Kangaroo1 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Link formats

Hello, I've noticed two different types of formats people have used for links.

If you look at;

San Jose, California Detroit, Michigan

San Jose has a link to the "San Jose, California" article and a separate link to the California article. While Detroit is linked only to "Detroit, Michigan", without the individual link to the state.

If this intentional? If not, I'll put my hand up to clean it up.

Cheers. Sclozza 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

This information is old and outdated. This page should be updated, and new populations should be listed (Denver has exceeded Seattle and Boston by nearly 10,000 since 2004). The title of the page is "List of United States cities by population", meaning it should be updated with the publishing of the census. Editor19841 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The information on this list comes from one source: the United States Census Bureau. If we add the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Rand McNally Corporation or the United Nations Statistics Division, the figures become an inconsistent mess and reliable "apples to apples" comparisons can no longer be drawn. What if the City of Seattle estimates that it has grown larger than Denver? or Boston says it's now bigger than both? Here, we don't care. We're using only the Census estimates - the latest of which are given here. New Census estimates will be released early this summer. Denvoran 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gellerson, why are you picking a fight with me on everything related to Denver or Aurora? Why would the Denver Regional Council of Governments contradict the federal govenment, a government which they are incorporated under?! Editor19841 00:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: I don't really like your tone, Denvoran. Editor19841 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't really like Editor19841's reactionary accusations. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is not a government, but an "MPO" (metropolitan planning organization) which is an association of governments that decides, among themselves and independently of the federal government, to conduct various planning and research activities. DRCOG collects information and makes projections and estimates about statistics like population independently of the Census Bureau. It may or may not use the same methodologies that the Census Bureau does. Boston has its own MPO, and so does Seattle. Using its own methods and ways of collecting information, the Boston MPO may estimate that Boston's population is bigger than Denver's. So who is right? They are not necessarily contradicting one another - or the federal government - they are just going about answering a question using different means. The Census Bureau applies a standard methodology of estimating population across the country - including Denver and Boston. Thus the only way for this list to present accurate "apples to apples" comparisons is for the estimates to come from one source, and one source only. That is why the DRCOG figures, though more recent, should not be mixed with Census figures here. Denvoran 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The last census was published in 2000, therefore I believe this list should use the 2000 census statistics. Anything else is going to be mere conjecture (or "statistical estimation" if you must). If we're going to use estimates instead of the actual census we should change the name of the article to "List of United States cities by estimated population". Kaldari 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The decennial Census statistics are "estimates" themselves, population is a moving target. The decennial figures may be more "solid", but the annual estimates are more "up to date". Both have their pluses and minuses. Especially as we near the end of the decade, the latest estimate becomes a better reflection of the actual and true population, which will never be known exactly for any certain timepoint. Personally, I think the estimates are fine and can stand alone. This list doesn't have to be either/or, though. A second column could be added with the Census 2000 figures. Denvoran 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The decennial Census statistics are not estimates. Well, actually it depends on which figures you are talking about. The Census bureau publishes two figures for the actual census. First they publish the raw census numbers. These are definitely not an estimate. Every number corresponds to an actual person who was listed on a census form. These are the numbers that are used for most purposes: apportionment, federal redistricting, etc. These are generally considered the "official" census figures (and are the ones referred to in the U.S. constitution). They also publish an estimate shortly thereafter based on follow-up surveys, statistical analysis, and growth rates (similar to how the other annual estimates are created). This estimate is typically used for local redistricting in some areas and apportionment for services that are reapportioned annually. This is called the "adjusted" figure. Personally, I think we should use the official decennial census figures, since they are not estimates, but an actual tally of the population. Kaldari 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In case others besides Kaldari didn't notice, I put quotations around the word "estimates" in my entry above. The Census does not reach every person, and is not 100% accurate, as much of an effort is made to do so. Thus the figures released are a "best estimate", but do correspond to "an actual tally", as Kaldari puts it, unlike Census estimates that are released after the decennial Census. Denvoran 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PR cities -- missing footnotes

After the cities in Puerto Rico, there's a triple star, but no corresponding footnote. What is this note supposed to be? --Jfruh 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a note (someone removed it) to explain that the latest estimates for San Juan and Bayamón were dated July 1, 2003 (for all other cities, the date is July 1, 2004). The Census Bureau has now released new estimates for cities in Puerto Rico dated July 1, 2004 (which are now shown) and the asterisks have been removed. Denvoran 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are Puerto Rican cities included, when Puerto Rico's 3.8 million population is NOT included as part of the U.S.' 299 million people? And, Puerto Ricans don't vote for president, either...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss prior to making radical changes

It seems like someone placed old 2000 census data in place of the recent 2004 estimates (which were released by the U.S. Census) numbers before it was correctly reverted. If you wish to revamp data to the previous set of numbers, please discuss it on this particular board so that everyone can chime in please. Thank You --Moreau36; 1205, 18 Aptil 2006

I support using the figures from the official census, for the following reasons:

1. Most Wikipedia articles on geographic locations in the U.S. use the 2000 figures. We should be consistant.
2. The estimate figures do not offer accurate population figures for consolidated cities; the official censuses do.

Kaldari 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be either/or. There are arguments for presenting the most recent estimates and the nearly six-year-old "official" figures. Both can be listed side-by-side, which is how the Census does it anyway. Denvoran 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I would support it except for the small problem of consolidated cities, which the census bureau unhelpfully lists differently depending on whether it's an estimate or an official census. Here's a radical idea: what if we listed both the consolidated cities and the balances as separate entries and ordered them all by population, but dropped the numeric rankings (since many of them are disputed anyway)? Maybe it's crazy, but I thought I would throw it out there as long as we're rethinking the list. Kaldari 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest using the 2000 figures for the largest cities list. The reason I like the census figures so much and not the 2004 figures is precision: the census count was a careful, door-to-door enumeration of the United States. The 2004 estimates are just that: estimates. Also, for smaller towns, there are no 2004 estimates. This is an encyclopedia, so I think we should use the more encyclopedic numbers. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

The 2004 estimates are taken from the same source as 2000: the U.S. Census Bureau. The latest numbers are use in more places for more reasons than you think. (see [http://www.city-data.com}. As a result, these numbers shall stay. Besides the figures for six years ago are not enough for municipalities, who need the latest numbers for funding purposes. --Moreau36; 2049, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We are closer to 2010 now than we are to 2000, and the 2000 Census is becoming less and less a reflection of today's reality. While the 2000 Census was more "precise", that isn't to say that the Census Bureau does not use accurate methodologies to make the estimates - the numbers aren't exactly being pulled out of a hat. The Census produces yearly estimates because they serve a useful purpose, and an up-to-date encyclopedia should include this latest information. An encyclopedia that includes up-to-the-minute information on current events should not limit itself to six-year-old data. Denvoran 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To Dralwik, For example, If you say that Louisville's population is at 256,000 (2000 census) today, you're wrong due to the fact that Louisville and Jefferson County consolidated in 2003, thus the old Louisville's numbers are null and void, in other words, you can't discount geographical changes since 2000. If you look at the Metropolitan Area's population article, it's also based on 2004 census' estimates numbers. It's an encylopedia, but unlike the past, the articles need to be filled with up-to-date information in order to be crediable. --Moreau36; 2115, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Denvoran. --Moreau36; 2118, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution / compromise might be to list both numbers....in the first column use the "official" 2000 census data, use this as the ranking. The next column may be the 2004/5 estimates. I feel this provides the best of both worlds. It provides consistency...all cities utilize same data set, while it also provides info as to estimated trends.

The problem with relying on the "mid-term" estimates is that they have repeatedly been found to be siginificantly inaccurate in the past. Case in point, Chicago was estimated to have lost population according to estimates prior to the 2000 census, however this was shown to be quite the opposite when the numbers for 2000 were released and Chicago showed an increase of over 112,000, not as was predicted a loss. There are other examples of this as well.

Sounds like it might be a good solution. What do others think? Kaldari 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, we are now closer to 2010 than we are to 2000 - if it was 2001 or 2002 (not 2006) I'd probably have to agree. But while the latest estimates (from 2004) may be inaccurate compared to a what a 2004 "enumerate-every-person" Census (had one been conducted) would have been, posting 2000 data, I think, is even more distant from what the actual population of cities are today, April 19, 2006, than the 2004 estimates are. If someone wants to add the 2000 figures, fine, but the rankings should stay based on the estimates. It seems incongruous with something as up-to-the-minute and constantly changing as Wikipedia is, to have a table ranking quantities (that are in reality constantly changing themselves!) to stay set in stone and unchanged for an entire decade. The 2000 rankings can still be noted in a separate column, even if they don't control the ranking of the table. Denvoran 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

City names and Notes

My changes were reverted so I'll place them here for discussion. I think that names like Indianapolis (balance) are ugly and meaningless to the ordinary reader and should be replaced by Indianapolis, Indiana even though the latter is less correct. The note and the link should be enough to explain the difference to the curious. N.B. I am only suggesting altering the shown name not the link which properly goes to the actual entity listed.

The problem with listing the cities as "Indianapolis" or "Nashville" is that the populations listed here are not the populations for Indianapolis and Nashville. For example, the population of Nashville in 2004 was 572,475, but here we list the population of the balance, which was 546,719 (a figure that no one cares about except for a few government number-crunchers). This has already lead to numerous errors in other media which have started stating that the population of Nashville is 546,719 or that Nashville is the 28th largest city in the country (since everyone gets their stats from Wikipedia now). The change you are suggesting would make this problem worse. Really the whole problem stems from the Census Bureau's bizarre practice of not listing consolidated city populations in their estimate rankings (since agencies who use the estimate stats really only need the balance figures). So we are left with an anamalous ranking that is not really accurate or even comparable to the census's decennial rankings (which do list consolidated city populations). Once 2010 rolls around, this list will get significantly rearranged, but only for 1 year, and then it will go back to how it was before. Sounds rediculous huh? Kaldari 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, Since you seem to be from Nashville, you are in fact a partial observer and should be removed. As a third-party person, I find your comments teleological (i.e. you start from the assumption that that's the way it is and then try to explain it in those terms) and ridiculous. The most trusted sources, such as the World Almanac and Information Please, use census (remainder) numbers. Also, I disagree with your very understanding of what a 'city' is...if I live in Jacksonville Beach, FL I would vote for the mayor of Jacksonville Beach (even though it's in Duval County). What is really bizarre is your misunderstanding of math. If I have $100 and spend $13, how much do I have left? $87 (remainder) NOT '$100 because that's what I started with and what was spent should be part of the total'. Likewise, consolidated city-county governments in effect are 'remainders' in that they incorporate anyone within the county not already within a municipality. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Jacksonville is a different type of consolidated city than Nashville, Louisville, or Indianapolis. Jacksonville fits your definition of a consolidated city, i.e. it excludes residents of other cities. That is why Jacksonville doesn't have a "balance". The city of Nashville encompasses ALL of Davidson County and has been that way since the sixties. Kaldari 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also tried to make the notes clickable by turing them into references. I still think that they should be linked but am happy to keep them out of the references section (that was just a hack based on my lack of skill with wikiformatting). C.f. Pericles. Eluchil404 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments about the notes. I just didn't think it made sense for them to be "references". Kaldari 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixing list to include incorporated cities rather than balances

After exchanging emails with a staff member of the Census Bureau, I have a much better understanding of how things work. First point: This is a list of "incorporated cities", however, the Census Bureau does not produce population estimates for "incorporated cities" per se. The Census Bureau produces population estimates for 11 different geographic levels, none of which are "cities" or "incorporated cities".[2] They define "incorporated places" (geographic level "162") as including both cities and "balances", but not consolidated cities. The census ranking that was previously used as the source for this article was a ranking of "incorporated places", i.e. any geographic areas that had level code 162. It was not a ranking of "incorporated cities". The Census Bureau then goes on to define consolidated cities as "an incorporated place that has combined its governmental functions with a county or subcounty..." Even though the Census Bureau defines consolidated cities as "incorporated places" they are not included in the incorporated places geographic level. Consolidated cities are given their own unique geographic level code - "170". Entities belonging to 170 are not included in the "incorporated places" ranking, because although they are by definition incorporated places, the incorporated places ranking is using the term "incorporated places" to mean geographic level code 162. If we are going to go by their specialized technical ranking, the article should be renamed List of United States incorporated places (geographic level 162) by population instead of List of United States cities by population.

So according to the Census Bureau (and Denvoran), non-consolidated cities and consolidated cities are not the same thing, i.e. they are not the same "geographic level". However, this article is not concerned with geographic levels, it is concerned with "incorporated cities", which consolidated cities are and balances are not. The Census Bureau does not produce a ranking of incorporated cities. It does however publish population estimates for all types of incorporated cities including consolidated cities. Those estimates can be found here. Thus it is possible to use the Census Bureau figures to produce what is accurately described as a list of incorporated cities by population (which is what I have done). As a final note, I also learned that the Census Bureau does not classify Jacksonville as a consolidated city (170) since their technical definition of consolidated city requires that it "contains one or more incorporated places", which Consolidated Jacksonville does not. I guess that's just one more example of how specialized the Census Bureau's definitions are and how they do not necessarily line up with the definitions we use in the real world or within Wikipedia. Kaldari 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In reality, this just shows you are 'splitting hairs' to the point of arriving at a contrived answer. In fact, Duval County, FL includes Baldwin, Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach, and Atlantic Beach. Maybe something in Jacksonville's charter specifically excludes the other incorporations within Duval County. In either case, you merely proved the point that 'consolidated' cities are 'oranges' and we want 'apples.' So why not use the 'remainder' to avoid double-counting. Let's not forget that these 'remainder' totals are already bloated with comparison to reality (do you really think Louisville, KY is bigger than Nashville?). → R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, in case you don't want to dig through the full list. Here are the 2005 population estimates for the 4 consolidated cities (the first number is the geographic level code and the last number is the 2005 population estimate):

170,18,000,00000,00000,Indianapolis city,Indiana,791926,791926,791853,793982,792770,793895,792552,793968
162,12,000,35000,00000,Jacksonville city,Florida,735617,735606,736462,747013,758256,767909,776104,782623
170,21,000,00000,00000,Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky,A,693604,693872,694757,695843,698059,698903,699827
170,47,000,00000,00000,Nashville-Davidson,Tennessee,569891,569892,569950,571178,569016,569731,571948,575261

Kaldari 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacksonville is no longer consolidated according to the Census Bureau

Source came from [3] about the consolidation being dropped. --Moreau36; 2339, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be oversimplifying it a bit. Jacksonville does have a consolidated city-county government, however they no longer meet the Census Bureau's specific definition of "consolidated city" for the purpose of setting geographic levels, i.e. because there are no separately incorporated places contained within Jacksonville, it does not need to be considered at a higher geographic level than other incorporated places. Kaldari 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The numbers above does not include the other cities of Baldwin, Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach, and Atlantic Beach; all in Duval County. The city's numbers differ from Duval County. --Moreau36; 0004, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As another example, if all the separately incorporated places in Nashville-Davidson County decided to dissolve their governments, I don't believe Nashville would still meet the Bureau's definition of "consolidated city" either, although obviously it would still be a consolidated city-county since the government of Nashville would still be consolidated with the government of Davidson County. Basically the Census Bureau's definitions are pretty useless for anyone except the Census Bureau. They are very specialized and do not always reflect what you would intuitively think they mean. For example, the Census Bureau's definition of Incorporated Place does not require that a place be incorporated (balances), nor does it include all incorporated places (consolidated cities). It's basically just a very complicated scheme to come up with 11 different levels of geographic division such that within a level, no divisions can overlap. They don't really care that much about what form of government a certain place actually has, they're just interested in making it easy to count and categorize people. Kaldari 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's very complicated subject. It's worse when you look at the topic of unincorporated Census Designated Places, in which I live in one.. I live in a CDP of University, Florida, yet, no one has ever heard of the community name before plus our mailing address is Tampa, Florida. The only reason the census name the area is due to the proximity of the nearby college. --Moreau36; 0025, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I think it's silly for us try to base everything in Wikipedia on the Census definitions. The Census certainly provides us with useful data, but it doesn't really define all of these places that we live. For example, you don't really live in "University, Florida" and I don't really live in "Nashville-Davidson (balance)". It's fine to have Wikipedia articles about these terms used by the Census Bureau, but their practical value in an encyclopedia is limited, IMO. Kaldari 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, if you don't like 'official' numbers, then go to the 'metro' populations...oh wait, then Nashville would be less than 2 million, my bad. Also, ignorance of a name is no excuse. We see University, FL on maps probably since before you both were born (and it was there in 1970). Also, your mailing address may say 'Tampa,' but you don't vote for Tampa mayor, you don't pay Tampa taxes, and you're not counted in the Tampa population. Is that too hard to understand? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do like official numbers. I wouldn't settle for anything less than the most official numbers possible. What I don't like are the census bureau's geographic level code definitions since they are not always in line with the legal or commonly used definitions. For example the census bureau's definition of "consolidated city" is not quite the same as Wikipedia's definition of consolidated city-county, the legal definition of consolidated city-county, or the general public's understanding of what a consolidated city is. Same for the census buruea's definition of "incorporated place". Their definition of "incorporated place" is quite specialized and does not match the legal or common definitions. In order to be able to properly interpret the census bureau's official numbers, you have to have an understanding of what these region code definitions entail and how they may differ from the definitions we use in Wikipedia. And to clarify, I do not believe that people in University, Florida should be counted towards the population of Tampa. I was just suggesting that perhaps Wikipedia doesn't even need an article for University, Florida, since according to Moreau36, it is not a commonly recognized geographic entity. Kaldari 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Census Bureau still considers Jacksonville a "consolidated government" but not a "consolidated city":
"The U.S. Census Bureau refers to a governmental unit for which the functions of an incorporated place and its county or minor civil division have merged as a consolidated government. If one or more other incorporated places continue to function as separate governmental units even though they are part of a consolidated government, the Census Bureau refers to the primary incorporated place as a consolidated city."
Go figure. Kaldari 01:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A city Lied about it's population?

After comparing this page with the census page: [Website] i found that Louisville should be 26th, not 16th. I know that someone already brought this up, but it bumps all the other 84 cities off one. I think this list should go by 2005 estimates, and not a city hall's estimate which is usually inflated.

The population cited for Louisville comes directly from the 2005 Census Bureau population estimates (not "city hall"). Please refer to line 25202 of this table provided by the Census Bureau:

170,21,000,00000,00000,Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky,A,693604,693872,694757,695843,698059,698903,699827

The last number in the line above is the 2005 population estimate. Kaldari 06:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Population count was too low in D.C.

Read the following article:

• [Revision 'Big Deal' For D.C.] - The Washington Post

The article states that the population estimate from 2005 was adjusted a couple weeks ago, adding over 30,000 people to the city. Thomasmallen

Don't forget St. Louis, which was also sucessfully challenged. A more reliable link for the challanges is from the U.S. Census website at http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/2005/05s_challenges.html. --Moreau36 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Washington DC adjusted count reverted back to 550,000?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Explaining revert

I have two problems with Ryoung's edits:

1. He is listing "balance" populations, but not labeling them as such. If you are going to list the balance population, which is not the official census estimate for the city, it should at least say so, for example we should link to Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee rather than Nashville, Tennessee. Otherwise, it is misleading and confusing since the official census estimate population given in the Nashville article is not the same as what Ryoung has listed here (which is the official census estimate population for the balance, which is properly listed in the balance article). Even the Census Bureau's confusing ranking gets this right at least.
2. I strongly believe that we should use the census population estimates given for the actual cities. For Indianapolis, Louisville, and Nashville, the census bureau gives us two sets of numbers, one estimate that matches the legal city limits of the consolidated city-county (i.e. how many people are eligible to vote for the mayor of that city), and then a 2nd estimate for the "balance" population, a statistical entity created solely by the Census Bureau which does not correspond to the legal definitions of the cities, Wikipedia's own definitions, or the commonly understood definitions of the cities.

Kaldari 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: the Census provides estimates of all the human beings that reside within a certain city's limits - whether or not they are eligible to vote for the city's mayor. Thus, babies, children and teenagers up to the age of 18 are also included, as well as resident aliens and others who are not eligible to participate in a mayoral election - which, for any of these cities, constitute many tens of thousands of persons.

Request for Comment

For consolidated cities such as Louisville and Nashville the Census Bureau publishes 2 population estimates - one for the city as legally defined by the city limits, and one for the "balance" - the consolidated city/county minus any separately incorporated places within it. The reasons given for using the full city populations are as follows:

1. This is the population of the city as it is legally defined by incorporation, i.e. it is the number of people who live within the city.
2. Most sources, such as official city websites, chambers of commerce, etc, use this figure.
3. The Wikipedia articles about these cities typically use these figures (although there has been dispute).
4. The Census Bureau uses these figures in their own decennial rankings of incorporated places.

The reasons given for using the balance figures are as follows:

1. The Census Bureau uses these figures in their own annual rankings of incorporated places.
2. If the full populations are used, some individuals are counted towards the populations of two cities.
3. Consolidated cities are not the same thing as regular cities and thus should not be ranked in the same way.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Obviously, this is a tricky issue that is not easy to solve (given that the Census Bureau itself can't seem to decide which figures to use consistantly in their published rankings). However, I personally beleive that the argument in favor of listing the full consolidated city populations is more compelling. Kaldari 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I favor using the full city populations if there is no overlap with other top 100 cities within the consolidated cities. I don't believe there would be such an overlap with respect to Indianapolis, Nashville or Louisville. Living in Louisville myself, I realize it's hard to people to understand, but is indeed true that in particular areas in Louisville, people are governed by both their preexisting city and Louisville Metro, and vote for mayors of both. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, as a Louisville resident, you could be seen as being a partial observer (Louisville booster). Also, I disagree with the term 'full city.' Indeed, what you have isn't really a city at all, it's a county...to compare city to county populations is way off. Suppose we decide to count DeKalb County, GA pop 700,000 as the 'city' of DeKalb? (This has actually been proposed by the county chairman). Such disingenuous plans threaten to destroy any remaining credibility USA city numbers may still have (would Atlanta become a 'suburb' of DeKalb City, GA?). As such, it is fairer to use the 'balance' figure...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I could be seen as a Louisville booster, yes. But that is a double-edged sword, as being a resident, I also am more likely to know more about the subject. Further, I consider myself a booster of factuality well above being a booster for my city. Here are some facts: 1) Jefferson County, Kentucky continues to have a county judge/executive; the county remains a separate entity from Louisville Metro. 2) Louisville Metro is a consolidated municipal government, not a county government, and legally includes its interior cities, even if they have their own redundant governments. 3) The people who live in the interior cities vote for two mayors, one for their city and one for Louisville Metro. 4) If Louisville Metro were a county government, its leader wouldn't be called a mayor. We call leaders of county governments in Kentucky "county judges".

I think we ought to rank by legal municipal entities, and the Dekalb County example, if it did legally become the 'city' of DeKalb, then it should be considered for these purposes, but since it isn't, it's currently irrelevant. Further, "Louisville-Jefferson County (balance)" is not the legal city outline--it is instead a U.S. Census designation that excludes residents of the legal city just because they have their own redundant city governments. It is unfortunate that multitudes of legal citizens of the three consolidated municipal governments are left out of consideration in this ranking. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts presented by Stevietheman are not in dispute - it's how, given the facts, what is the most appropriate way to rank the consolidated city-counties, which are different than other municipalities because they contain multiple incorporated cities. The City and County of Honolulu is a legal municipal entity, and thus according to Stevietheman it would be the 11th largest "city" of the United States. One can certainly make an argument for that, but since there are no sub-county governments in Hawaii, it simply does not make sense to rank the population of an entire island with multiple, distinct towns separated by rural areas, mountains and wilderness as if it is the same thing as a cohesive, continuously developed city. Nor does it make sense to include the populations of cities that did not disincorporate when the Louisville Metro government was created - obviously the residents of these cities wanted to retain some local control and "independence". It would appear that they were either "sitting on the fence" on whether to become part of Louisville or remain independent, and/or they want to have it both ways. Balanciert 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Legally, they have it both ways. That's what was decided. Citizens of the incorporated inner cities of Louisville Metro (and other consolidated municipal governments) are citizens of those consolidated entities, and therefore deserve to be counted as such. I'm not sure how to treat Honolulu, but I don't discount the need to consider its situation. Perhaps we should have two ranking lists -- one for Census ranking and one for legal municipal entity ranking? That would seem to be a fair conclusion. And note, for anyone who still thinks I'm a "Louisville booster", we who have been working on the Louisville article compromised on a solution that says Louisville is the 16th or 27th largest city in the United States, depending on how it's looked at. I obviously wouldn't have compromised on that if facts didn't back that up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments by outside parties

I could go with either one as long as there is no overlap in the definitions. Incorporated places within a consolidated city should not be listed if the entire consolidated city figure is used. If people want to list these places contained in a consolidated city, then only the balance figure should be used. --Polaron | Talk 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean no overlap within this particular list, or no overlap within a theoretical list of all U.S. cities? This particular list would not have any overlap regardless of which method was used, however, a theoretical list ranking all U.S. cities would have "overlap" unless the balance figures were used exclusively. Kaldari 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I would actually prefer listing the figure (and using that for the ranking) for the entire consolidated city as that is what the legal city definition is. However, there should be a note indicating which cities are consolidated cities. Perhaps, you can even include the balance figure in said note for completeness. --Polaron | Talk 00:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at another example: Hollywood, CA; Los Angeles, CA; West Hollywood, CA. Hollywood, CA, once a separate entity with a population of some 260,000 residents, was annexed by Los Angeles and ceased to exist. On the other hand, West Hollywood, CA, though mostly surrounded by LA, continues to exist as a separate entity.

Another problem is that what might be 'right' for Louisville might not be the same for others. Do residents of Speedway, Indiana vote for the mayor of Indianapolis? We don't know. At least, Jacksonville, FL's consolidation is different, with the four other towns not voting for mayor or 'overlapping.'

Also, the concept of 'overlapping' is a mess. Legally, the state of Georgia tried 'multi-member districting' where people could vote for more than one state congressional representative. This was ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court. It's possible these 'multi-city' conglomerations could also be illegal (it violates 'one man, one vote'...instead you have 'one man, two votes' for those in the extra city, but 'one man, one vote' for those not in the extra city...). Of course it won't be ruled on unless someone files an appeal...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is rediculous. The two mayoral elections are not related, i.e. it cannot be argued that one person has more influence in either election simply because they can vote in both. I can vote in both local and state elections, but that doesn't mean I'm violating the "one man, one vote" concept. Metropolitan elections are a smaller version of the same concept. There is no legal uncertainty here. Nashville has existed in this arrangement for 45 years without any lawsuits or legal challenges. So no, I'm afriad there is no "mess" as you say. Kaldari 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I put some comments up above, but it seems the discussion about the "consolidated city" issue continues below. As I said earlier, I don't know the specifics about Nashville-Davidson. However, for Indianapolis, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis does NOT include all of Marion County. Speedway, Beech Grove, Lawrence, and Southport are legally excluded from the Consolidated City, they maintain their own police forces, utilities, etc. Also, they can pass their own separate municipal laws. However, they do vote for the Mayor of Indianapolis because he also acts as the Chief Executive of Marion County and they elect members to the City-County Council because it acts as the County legislative body when enacting certain legislation. However, not all laws passed by the City-County Council cover the "excluded cities"; also, they do not need approval of the City-County council to pass their own laws.

In any event, the Consolidated City Census figure does NOT include the population of these 4 excluded cities. Confusion arises because the Consolidated City does include about 11 (there were originally about 16 at the time of consolidation but 5 later dissolved) "included towns"--these entities are legally part of the Consolidated City and cannot pass laws of their own. Most of the 11 "included towns" have town councils which basically have the same authority of a neighborhood association and can impose a small levy. Some of these entities contract with the Sheriff to provide additional police protection. The "Balance" figure does not include these "included towns". I think for Indianapolis the Balance makes no sense because the included towns cannot act independently of Indianapolis.

It seems that in the case of a consolidated city such as Nashville-Davidson, places such as Belle Meade, TN maintain a high degree of autonomy and still function as separate cities which can pass their own laws; for Indianapolis this would only be true of the four "excluded" municipalities--Speedway, Beech Grove, Southport, and Lawrence--and they are already NOT counted in the Consolidated City population.

For Indianapolis you actually have three separate population figures: (1) The population of Marion County which includes the Consolidated City AND the four "excluded" municipalities, (2) the population for the Consolidated City which is a real legal entity and legally includes the so-called "included towns" (and note, some of these included towns do NOT even have an active town council), and (3) the "Balance" figure which is a made up area covering the old pre-consolidation limits of Indianapolis and what were formerly unincorporated areas before the City-County consolidation (which means it excludes the "included towns"). My vote is that for Indianapolis--only the Consolidated City population should be used.

Kangaroo1 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Top 200 on page?

What do you think about increasing the list on this page to 200 or more cities? For a country with as many large and varied cities as the United States, 100 sems to me to be a small number to list the biggest cities. As long as we keep the list text-based, I don't think the page will become too long. Thanks, --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

I think 100 is hard enough to manage. You would think that a list like this wouldn't see much editing, but you'd be surprised. Kaldari 09:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply use the Census Bureau's list. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

I would have to agree with Kalidari on this. Besides, I think the top 100 should be enough. Some publications only use the top 50. Increasing the number will increase the chances of numbers being errorously changed or vandalized. The page was previously consists of all cities over 100,000 but if you check the edit history, you'll see that I reduced it to the top 100 because the list was entirely too long in addition to numbers being incorrect. I think we should have a vote on this in my opinion. --Moreau36 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you use just the top 100, you leave off many regional centers (Des Moines, Syracuse, Richmond, Eugene, etc.) If you simply use the the Census Bureau's list, then any vandalism can simply be reversed. And also, this page is short compared to many city population lists (i.e., the U.S. metropolitan area list, the Brazilian list, lists of states like New Jersey, etc.). --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Title of this article

Perhaps there wouldn't be any disagreement about how cities were ranked in this article if the article's title and opening content made it more clear that actual legal cities aren't being ranked, but rather what the U.S. Census Bureau designates as cities for its ranking process. The U.S. Census Bureau openly shortchanges consolidated city/county governments, removing thousands of citizens of those municipalities from this ranking. Since that's what they do, we should use a more precise naming for this article, something like "List of U.S. Census Bureau-designated United States cities by population" -- it's long, but it's factual. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to "be bold" in the near future on this. The article's title is misleading and needs to specify that these are U.S. Census Bureau-designated places being ranked. Any suggestions to how the title should read? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I see much of a problem with calling this a list of cities by population, so long as it is clearly explained that the list and ranking are prepared by the Census Bureau using the Census definition of incorporated place. The several consolidated cities with semi-independent incoporated cities within them should be appropriately noted, which I believe there in fact already are. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a lie. I have to be blunt here... the title is a downright lie. It needs to become more precise and use the phrase "U.S. Census Bureau-designated" as the bureau's definition doesn't match the actual incorporated cities. I'm making changing this an imperative. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is a "lie"? The bureau's definition certainly does match the actual incorporated cities -- it is only that consolidated cities are a different type of entity -- there are other incorporated cities within a consolidated city. I will firmly resist your unilateral change of this. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's either changing or going to AfD. I have had it with this lie of an article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, have at it if you must. I imagine that will be a rather entertaining AFD. Although I have tried to revise the introduction to explain what incorporated place means and how all the top entries in the list are cities and how consolidated cities are a different type of entity, and thus somewhat exceptional from the perspective of compiling a list. I suppose I'd be OK with renaming this as List of United States incorporated places by population, but that isn't exactly a common name, is it? older ≠ wiser 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rework of the opener is welcomed, and at least from a content perspective, it's as close to accurate as we can get. But the title still is illegitimate by its imprecision. At any rate, I figured the past discussion went nowhere, so I forced the issue today and at least the content now reads better and doesn't malign Louisville or Nashville any longer. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

New York City Density

I disagree with the density of New York City. It is less than half the size of Los Angeles, and over twice the population. However, the population density of Los Angeles is around 4,000-5,000 per square mile, which means New York City's population density is around 10,000 per square mile, not 26,402.9. That is close to the population density of Manhattan, not the over all city.

Actually, the math checks out. Let's assume NY and LA were the same size. NY's twice-as-large population would give NY twice the density. But, NY is only half the size of LA. That doubles the density as well, working out to four times the density. 2x2=4. Since the numbers are not a 1:2 ratio, the numbers are well within the estimated range, with NY's density just over five times LA's density. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Dallas Population Update

Recently, a survey was completed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments Research and Information Services. I believe that the data is more accurate that it is compiled by a local government. The link is here: [[4]]. This figure allows for Dallas to jump in the population standings. Also, this change also affects the Metroplex population list. If i recall correctly, I remember seeing on CNN that the Dallas metroplex recently surpassed the Philadelphia Metroplex in population. If anyone could verify this for my sake, that would be great. Thanks.

Figures from multiple sources and potentially using different methodologies cannot be ranked. This is one of the reasons why the Census Bureau figures are used even if they are not the latest available numbers. --Polaron | Talk 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More city images

Looks like we have space for more top city images on the righthand side, beyond just the top 10. Agree or object to adding more? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

San Diego vs. San Antonio

San Diego (1,311,162)has more people than San Antonio (1,256,509)... How is it smaller?

Belle 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Belle787, December 16, 2006 1:49PM

5 +3 = .... 9?

The charts indicate 59 cities with a population over 300k and 98 cities (total) with a population over 200k. The "other cities" section indicates 58 over 300k and an additional 30 over 200k. Now, it's been a while since calculus, but it seems to me that, even forgiving the margin of error of 1 city, 58 plus 30 is 88, which is more than a few fewer than 98. What gives? - Che Nuevara 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Layout issue

On my browser, I cannot see the regions listed in the final column because the pictures of the top cities lie over it.CoreyK 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix is #5. It is generally accpeted that Phoenix advanced from #5 to #6 sometime in 2006.

Census-Designated Places

Why no mention of CDP's with populations over 100,000? Such as East Los Angeles, CA?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, unlike Arlington, Virginia and Honolulu, Hawaii, which are co-extensive with legal boundaries (thus easier to deliniate), most CDPs are unincorporated, which makes things complicated to determined the boundaries of these unincorporated places. CDPs are also subject to partial or full annexation by a nearby incorporated place between the censuses. Unlike incorporated places, CDP boundaries are not "grandfathered" in as they can change dramatically from one census to another. see: Spring Valley, California, which the 1990 census boundaries split into a new CDP, La Presa, California in 2000. --Moreau36 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Honolulu CDP is not co-extensive with legal boundaries. Honolulu County is the next largest legal definition, which encompasses the whole of Oahu. Beyond that, while of course CDP boundaries are variable, there is no reason not to use the 2000 Census definitions of CDPs until the data for the next census is released. I agree with Ryoung that this list ought to include CDPs. Perhaps a compromise could be found by listing the CDPs in their place, but not giving them an ordinal ranking? john k 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Honolulu Judicial District is a semi-legal boundary (subdivision) within the City & County of Honolulu., which is co-extensive is Honolulu CDP, thus the Census is able to count annual estimates for the CDP, unlike others, which the boundaries are set by the census and are subject to change. --Moreau36 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you think of the idea of listing CDPs, but not giving them ranks? john k 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if listed, give the place names asterisk marks snd rank them according with the population, without putting the rank numbers. In 2000, there were at least 7 CDPs over 100,000 --Moreau36 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To add, if you read my statement above, unlike incorporated places, CDPs vary widely in behavior and sometimes the boundaries extend well beyond the "community proper". (e.g. Towson, Maryland; 1970 census: 77,768; 1980 census: 51,083.) Separate CDPs the previous census could merge during the next census. (see: Egypt Lake, Florida and Egypt Lake-Leto, Florida). Others no longer met the criteria to be a CDP (see: Del Rio, Florida). Some CDPs aince 2000 were partially annexed by neighboring incorporated places (possibly leaving the less-dense part) Bottom line is that, for the exclusion of a very few communities that are CDPs, tallying annual estimates for CDPs would be difficult at best. --Moreau36 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreau, you're wrong about the first point. First of all, city boundaries can change at any time, any day the city annexes new land and population. Thus to say that census-designated places cannot be included because of boundary changes is irrelevant.

On the second point, an issue may be whether there are census estimates available for the census-designated places over 100,000 (such as Paradise, Nevada; East Los Angeles, CA or Metairie, Louisiana). However, when you consider that East Los Angeles, CA has steadily maintained a population over 100,000 since 1960, it seems silly not to list it. I agree, a compromise would be to list them in their ordinal position but not assign an official rank to them. That would allow the reader to know they exist...as do the 100,000+ people in them.R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, this list is for cities with 100,000+ population. Not one of your examples fits that definition. Quit trying to pretend a small 8,000-person village negates the need to recognized CDP's with 100,000+ residents. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Changing a listing to fit a new definition is not too difficult. Definitions are usually changed once a decade or less, unless part of the area is annexed.R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My fitting? I'm just following the census guidelines. If you read the census guidelines, it strictly states that CDPs have stricter guidelines than incorporated cities. Places like Paradise, Metairie, Sunrise Manor, and Spring Valley can change dramatically in it's definition by 2010. See Spring Valley, California, which had 55,331 in 1990, but it was broken off by La Presa, California, a new CDP (created in 2000), reducing Spring Valley's figures in half. And one more thing, unlike incorporated places, which can annex liberally, CDPs don't have that option and are vulerable to annexation by neighboring municipalities. Another issue with CDPs is that a few may contain two or more separate communities within it's bounds. Another example is Goleta, California, a good-sized CDP in 2000 with over 55,000 residents within the boundaries. Goleta incorporated in 2002, but with only half of it's CDP population. Smiths, Alabama is another example. My reasons above is why other than the American Community Servey, the census doesn't count any CDP in its estimates. Other than some well-defined CDPs, it's just simply too difficult. The bottom line is definitions my friend. --23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether CDPs have a population of 4,000 or 400,000. For the exception of Honolulu and Arlington, all of them are vulernable, even East Los Angeles, which contains a separate, well defined communtiy of City Terrace on the CDP's northern end and the census would end up separating the two by 2010, but it's up to the regional planners and the local community feedback. --Moreau36 23:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EVANSVILLE INDIANA?

IS NOT LOCATED ON THIS LIST! KTHX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.209.10 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Houston is clearly not an Alpha word city

Revised 2005 estimates

Here are the accepted revisions: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2005/05s_challenges.html

Note that the population of Davidson County (which is consolidated with the city of Nashville) has been increased substantially, yet they did not offer a new estimate for the Nashville-Davidson balance (the figure we use here). Thus the difference between the county population and the separately incorporated municipalities no longer equals the balance, thus rendering it a meaningless figure. Way to go Census Bureau! Kaldari 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I updated all the revised estimates, including NYC, Boston, Houston, and Atlanta. For the rest of the cities...well they either didn't bother to challenge or their challenge was denied. Just in my opinion, it should have been obvious the numbers for some places (like Fulton Co, GA) were way underestimated. The largest county in GA grew 25.7% in the 1990's, why would it be declining now? Especially with the city of Atlanta alone adding 67,000 residents in just five years. Even though Fulton co. 'won' the challenge, I'd be willing to bet the number is still undercounted by 70,000 persons, minimum...why? 915,000+67,000=982,000. You don't think the rest of the county grew as well? With places like Alpharetta, GA still growing, and South Fulton continuing to add homes, it is still one of the wost underestimates nationwide...Alpharetta grew more than 100% in the 1990's, why forecast a decline now?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Estimates

I have seen the 2006 estimates already used on some websites, why not here?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have they been officially published yet? Kaldari 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake, they might have been the 2006 revision of the 2005 estimates...such as "Atlanta" at 483,000. But in any case, we need to find out when the next numbers will be out.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is Everett, Washington, it has a population of over 100,000

Incorrect

You all have made mistakes here, Seattle is the 24th largest city in the USA while Boston is The 25th. Sean mc Sean 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As of April 2007, perhaps. If you were not so quick to jump to conclusions you would see that this table uses July 1, 2005 figures, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. Any other petty complaints? -Phoenix 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What a ho'. Sean mc Sean 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Make yourself useful, bud. -Phoenix 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're such a slut. Sean mc Sean 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anger management. -Phoenix 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Slut. Sean mc Sean 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the Census Bureau revised the estimated population of Nashville, but didn't bother to revise the estimated population of the Nashville balance (what they used in their last ranking), so that's one reason our ranking doesn't exactly match their last one. Kaldari 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that. Irritating is that fact that people see their city's number and say, "Oh my gosh, it's wrong!", and update it to the latest local census. -Phoenix 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know, the 2006 estimates fro incorporated places (including "balances") will be released in late June. --Moreau36 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction?

I think Tucson, AZ should be updated. I heard it was over 800,000 in population now! BIG AZBIG AZ 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The list uses 2005 figures. As mentioned above, new figures for 2006 come out next month for all cities, at which time the list will be updated. For the record:

Tucson, Arizona Population (2006)

City	515,526
Density	2,647.8/sq mi (1,022.5/km²)
Metro	946,362

Since this list uses the population within city limits as opposed to metro areas, Tucson is nowhere near 800,000. --Phoenix (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Using Multiple Sources

In case users have missed the reference for this article, it is the United States Census Bureau Estimates for July 1, 2005. This is not a list of largest cities as determined by whatever local agency decides to come up with an estimate for a particular city. It is a list of largest cities as estimated by the United States Census Bureau on July 1, 2005. No other numbers should be acceptable here.

I know, for example, that on May 1 the California State Department of Finance released estimates for California cities as of 1/1/07, and users are dropping those figures into this list.

The integrity of this article rests on the fact that it comes from one source, using the same methodology across the board. You may not agree with the numbers (I don't), and the individual cities and states may not agree with the numbers, but until another agency comes up with a estimate list of every city in the country (not just in individual states) using a different, consistent and verifiable methodology (or until the Census Bureau comes up with a more recent reference date), this list should not change.

I only looked at the top 50 cities, but I tried to get the list back on track. In reverting the list to Census Bureau figures, I may have inadvertantly missed a estimate that was successfully challenged and revised by the Census Bureau. I apologize in advance. -Dtcomposer 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All that's been made painfully clear a number of times. When I realized how bad it was I watchlisted it and I try to verify every change that's made, especially since I nominated it for featured status. Fortunately, by the time I see it on my watchlist it's normally a good guy reverting the placement of a wrong figure. That's all we can do here, really; with a number of people watchlisting it, relatively clean it shall stay. --Phoenix (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Madison, WI

According to Wikipedia's own page about Madison, the population is over 200,000, yet it is not on this list. Personally, I think this list is completely useless but if it's here it might as well have the correct information. 66.188.122.56 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the information in the section directly above this one. The list uses 2005 data, and nationwide 2006 data comes out next month. Happy? --Phoenix 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Fremont, CA and Lowell, MA

Someone please fix.R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I fear; in trying to clean up the list again, I left a digit off Lowell's population and moved Fremont's ranking but didn't adjust it's population. Someone already corrected Lowell; I fixed Fremont. Thanks for catching those!Dtcomposer 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bunch of people watching this list; since we know how prone it is to curious editors. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore

someone needs to go get a better picture of baltimore, its a blurry picture and most all the others dont compare.(Esskater11 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Done. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

San Juan (again)

Dude518 placed San Juan, PR on the list. Since San Juan doesn't appear on the official source for this page, I have removed it from the table. However, I believe it is of interest (since it is the largest city in a U.S. territory) and have placed the information at the end of the table. Dtcomposer 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorporated Places, (Towns)

The "Town of Hempstead" on Long Island is an incorporated place with a population s of OVER 750,000. It outtrumps most cities as far as population goes. Since the areas of Long Island, NY are subdivided by school district and CDPs, all taxpayers recognize they live in a township and nothing else. Since it is acknowledge by the Census as an Incoporated place, the Town of Hemspstead and the Town of Oyster Bay should more than likely be up on the list. Right?

Unfortunately, even though it may be incorporated and considered locally as a single place, the Census Bureau does not include it as an incorporated place because it places it in the minor civil division category. --Polaron | Talk 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

jacksonville

according to the jacksonville article, the city has many more people than it says on here. someone fix this. 24.23.97.35 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Since the linked source in the Jacksonville article is the Census Bureau 7/1/05 estimate (which happens to be the same source used for this article), I corrected the Jacksonville article to reflect the number given in that source. I left a note on that discussion page, stating if someone could provide a verifiable source for the 800K+ number that was previously listed, they could revert my edit. Dtcomposer 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List does not reflect census list

The census ranking lists "balances" as opposed to entire consolidated city populations (as you can see if you pull up the CSV file). Our list, however, uses the balance population numbers, but incorrectly assigns them to the cities rather than the balances. If we are going to use the balance figures like the census ranking does, we should also list the balances they correspond to and link to the appropriate articles, for example, Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee. The way it is presented now is misleading. Kaldari 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I think if you live in Nashville, you are biased in favor of Nashville. In accordance with the principle that no city superimpose upon another, Goodlettsville TN should NOT be counted as part of Nashville (city) but part of Davidson County (county). The merging of the government services doesn't change that fact.Ryoung122 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is pure original research. Whether or not "Nashville" should include Goodlettsville is not under our perview. The fact is that Nashville does include Goodlettsville. There is no argument about that. There is no definition of "Nashville" that does not include Goodlettsville. Nashville has included Goodlettsville for forty years (well, half of it at least). If we are going to list "Nashville", we need to give the Nashville population. If we are going to list the balance population, we nede to list the balance (as the census list does). Anything else is factually incorrect and does not reflect the source used or common understanding of what the names of these cities refer to. Plus it causes Wikipedia to contractict itself as the city articles that this page currently links to give the actual populations of the consolidated cities rather than the balance populations (as is appropriate). Kaldari 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this not make sense to anyone besides me?? Kaldari 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, why are we listing Augusta as a balance, but not the other cities?? Can we at least try to be consistant? Kaldari 06:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole "balance vs. consolidated population" debate is a little worn out. If someone is really upset that the list says "Nashville" and not "Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee" then let them go ahead and change it in the list. Each of the cities in question (Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville etc) has a footnote that properly explains the issue and should be sufficient. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I have lived in Indianapolis (balance) for most of my life. Though, it's not a matter of honor here since our ranking would be unaffected) I think the best solution is to link to the balance articles, but have the city name as the text of the link. Otherwise, what's the point in having articles about these census divisions at all? --Random832 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what about adding to a footnote "These have populations of XXX,XXX, XXX,XXX, XXX,XXX, and X,XXX,XXX, and would be Nth, Nth, Nth, and Nth, respectively, if these populations were considered." --Random832 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking to balance articles instead of city articles might be appropriate, although potentially confusing to readers. A better solution is to have the city articles list both balance and consolidated populations instead of just one or the other. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the city articles do mention the balance populations, however, these are not mentioned prominently since most people are not familiar with "balances" and understand the city to refer to the entire consolidated city-county (and thus the larger population). The Census Bureau itself used the full populations in rankings in the past, and seems to have only recently switched to the policy of using "balances" for their rankings. I support the idea of adding the actual populations to the footnotes at least, as these are the numbers that people are more familiar with (at least people who live in those cities). Kaldari 18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the '06 Census estimates for the population figures for the consolidated city-counties? If so I'd not object to placing them in the footnotes, but I would object to the "Would be XXth rank" idea. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For Athens (112,787) and Augusta (194,398), see [5]; for Nashville (578,698), see [6]; for Louisville (701,500), see [7]; for Indianapolis (795,484),

This is for the city, not the county. Marion county had 863,000+ residents in 2000; by now it should be higher.Ryoung122 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

see [8]. --Polaron | Talk 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the footnotes accordingly. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be a picture of San Jose since it is the 10th largest city. This photo is missing.

Indianapolis

The city of Indianapolis lies in Marion County. Other incorporated places include Speedway and Beech Grove (and I think, 2 others?). Note the 2000 pop. of the county was about 863,000. Thus, the article's claim that the 'consolidated' population was 795,000 is incorrect.Ryoung122 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arlington too densely populated to be a city?

It is clear that Virginia's law is a corruption of rural-area politics, an attempt to keep suburbanites from forming suburban cities. Oxymoronically, Arlington VA is too much like a city to count as a 'city' in Virginia...while counties such as Suffolk County (huge, sparsely populated) that have the size and population of a county and the feel of a county are defined as a 'city'. Go figure.Ryoung122 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that if a good-sized suburban communities like Springfield, Reston, Dale City, and Woodbridge wish to incorporate as cities, these areas, according to law, would have to secede from their parent counties to become Independent Cities, which will likely create friction and possible legal challenges between the new "city" and the county in which the place originated. They could incorporate as a "town" or "village" to remain in the county, but I'm not sure if there's a population threshold requirment for this to happen. This law has been in the books for decades. I'm sure if Arlington wishes to incorporate, it shouldn't be a problem to trnsfer it's status from urban county to independent city. --Moreau36 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta's population not challenged yet

The city of Atlanta challenged the 2005 estimate of 470,000, which was revised to '483,000.' Yet the 2006 estimate of '486,000' appears to be a pig-headed attempt by the Census Bureau to ignore that challenge. The Atlanta Regional Commission estimated the city gained over 12,600 residents in the past 'population year', the largest increase since the 1950's. This would put the population closer to 496,000 (483,100+12,600).Ryoung122 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This occurs in many large cities across the country, especially in California. This is the sole reason why I personally wait until the next census for reliable numbers, but that's my POV. --Moreau36 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)