Talk:List of United States cities by population/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tucson photo

Alright, children, this is getting tedious. The fact is both photos have pros and cons, but I have to agree, the one currently up there (Image:Downtown Tucson Night.jpg) looks better because the subject of the photograph (Tucson, not the mountains) is in the center of the picture, whereas the other one, while good in its own right, does not focus on the city, just the mountains around it; the key to a good picture is to make sure what you are photographing is centered. That being said, this is quickly turning into an editing war, so let it go, because, quite frankly, this is stupid to be arguing over a photo. Rule #1 of Wikipedia: no one owns Wikipedia, so don't be offended if someone changes something. EaglesFanInTampa 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the back-and-forth between the two photos is silly. Ideally I would prefer a daytime shot of the city, but as stated above, the daytime photo we have now doesn't really focus on the city itself. I like the current nighttime picture more for the content but wish it was a daytime photo. I'd be half tempted to drive down there and snap one myself if I were less lazy :) Perhaps the uploader oculd be persuaded to take another in the daytime. For now I'm okay with it staying. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Table additions

Why was the table modified to include MSA populations without any discussion here on the talk page? A major alteration like that really ought to be discussed beforehand. I am removing it until some discussion here can show a good reason for keeping it.

Reasons for not keeping it include the fact that the information is incomplete, resulting in a poorly formatted table. The size of the table is also now causing a conflict with the city images on the right side in browsers running at lower resolutions (even a screen resolution of 1028px suffers from some overlap of the right hand side of the table with the pictures).

Finally we already have a table with that information in its own article, there is no need to reduplicate the information here. It only serves to clog up this article and muddle the display. I see no reason to keep it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Add additional footnote for successful challenges?

Because many cities challenge the census results, might it be a good idea to add a footnote that indicates the challenge and reports the corrected total? The rank can remain the same in the table, and the table can still report the original 2006 numbers, but I thought that in cases like this, it might be worth a FN. -Nick^talk 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, successful challenges are official Census numbers once they are accepted and the table should be updated. Personally I'd prefer to wait until challenges show up on the Census' challenges page [1] before making the changes, though the above source seems credible to me. The only thing I don't like about it is they keep referring to it as a "revision" to appear in next year's estimates, which doesn't make sense. In any case, yeah, I prefer to wait until I hear it from the Census bureau, but that's just my opinion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The list needs to be updated. The U.S. Census Bureau corrected Milwaukee's population and it is over 600,000. It should now be at 22 of 25. Larger than Boston, Seattle, and Washington D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.20 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Counties

Does anyone else think there should be a column for counties? Obviously, some cities either are in multiple counties or not in counties at all, but this can be remedied either by listing the primary county (ie county where most of the city lies) or with a footnote.--Nkrosse (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a column for counties would be unnecessary information. Readers interested can easily click on the city and find out what county it resides in, but as the information is not especially helpful to the table there is no reason to add a new column for counties. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis out of place?

The page lists the population as 372,000, when as of 2006 the population was 387,000. Can someone please fix the ranking where needed, I believe that places it at #45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.181.124 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All incorporated places, or only cities?

I was just reading the article on Hempstead, a town in Nassau county, New York. With a poulation of roughly 750,000 it would be in the top 20 in this list. Is there a reason why it is not in the list? I know that most of the places here are cities and Hempstead is a town, if that is the reason it seems a bit arbitrary to me. On the other hand, not being from the US, I'm not entirely familiar with the exact differences between cities and towns. Knijert (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you got 750,000 from because it's actually about 53,000. The Viper (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on the town of Hempstead, now i see there is also a village of Hemptead, located in the town. That actually illustrates my question, or shows how little I know about US municipalities. Knijert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.105.129 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, in New York State, a town is a county subdivision rather than a coherent community. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, towns aren't incorporated municipalities in New York. I'm not sure that any entities which are clearly municipalities, but not cities, have more than 100,000 people. If we were to expand the list, I think that villages, boroughs, and towns in most states would probably qualify. That being said, townships would be problematic (Upper Darby Township, Pennsylvania, for instance), as would New England towns - some of them are essentially functionally identical to cities (Brookline, Massachusetts, for example); others less so (e.g. South Kingstown, Rhode Island). john k (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, though, that the simplest thing would be for any sub-county division to qualify, other than New York towns. john k (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I understood why Hempstead wasn't included after your first answer, and I actually agree with that argument not to include it. Your later post however, seems to contradict the earlier reply, at least partially. Are you saying that all kinds of subdivisions should be added, or am I reading you wrong? Knijert (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte, NC out of place

Charlotte has a 2008 population of 695,995. it should be 17 instead of twenty. Just now noticed. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.180.89 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know there are several cities that should be on here bu aren't. Some of the rankings area also out of place. Would someone with the correct knowledge please fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.26.109 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, all rankings are correct as per US Census figures. If you have a different number for a particular population, it is a local estimate not recognized by the US Census Bureau, which is the only consistent basis for comparison. Charlotte's local Chamber of Commerce, for example, somehow adds 66,000 people to the city's population, which would bump its rank up to 17th. We do not use local estimates, especially one with such a conflict of interest in reporting population as the local Chamber of Commerce.--Loodog (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Rochester,MN be in there?

No. -- Phoenix2 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

San Jose Photo

I just wanted to say that the picture in the wiki for San Jose is absolutely terrible. I have better pictures of San Jose taken from my cell phone. I think the main thing is that the picture is taken from a vantage point which is too far away from San Jose's downtown area. The photo depicted in the wiki looks like a city similar to thousands of other cities with a population of around 50,000. Please do San Jose some justice and upload a higher quality photo...it should be EXTREMELY easy to find one that is better than what's already on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.34.74 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and upload one of your pictures. It should be EXTREMELY easy to do so. Post a link here and we'll see if your picture quality is as good as the current photo. If it is, I'll be happy to replace the picture. APK ^{yada yada} 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the LA photo that just got put up? Are we trying to convey the smog-laden quality of LA as its defining feature in this article?--Loodog (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then replace it with the photo found at the top of the Los Angeles, California article. APK ^{yada yada} 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok here's some good ones: [2] or [3]207.47.34.74 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who took those pictures? APK ^{yada yada} 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

135 and 145 are Flip-Flopped

135 is currently Rockford,IL with a population of 155,138 and 145 is Chattanooga, TN with a population of 168,293. Either their populations are mis-matched or they need to swap places. Wewantutopia (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)wewantutopia

Density

Would anybody mind terribly if I added another column to this table including population density? It's an interesting attribute to think about when comparing city sizes.--Loodog (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have a very slight objection to that idea, if only for the issue of where you are getting your population density figures. AFAIK the Census bureau does not release either density or updated areas between the decennial census, and if you are using the figures from the 2000 census for area, they'll be outdated due to annexations. Unless you (or whoever is adding the information) intends to verify updated areas due to annexations to keep the density figures consistent throughout the list, I'm not keen on the addition. Shereth 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One could take US Census 2006 populations and divide by land area, which, far as I know, is pretty constant and uncontested.--Loodog (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Shereth on this in that I would want all the figures to be verifiable and accurate. I would want some kind of source for all the area figures to make sure they are accurate. This brings up another point though, most individual U.S. city articles don't cite a source for the area figure they give, so I'm wondering where these figures are coming from. It would helpful to cite official area sources in both the invididual articles and then in this article for population density. It would definitely improve this article but only if done right, and it seems like a lot of work. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been done. And with a consistent source: city-data.com. The work would be have Excel divide column 1 by column 2.--Loodog (talk) 19:26, 19 June 20

I'm sorry, but I don't trust that list. It does not seem to be rigorously maintained, it claims to be based on US Census Data but then proceeds to list the city-data.com as a reference. That reference is absolutely useless - it seems to be a weird amalgam of counties and general regions, but in spite of claiming to be a Top 100 Cities with Largest Land Areas, only a few of the entries on their list are actual cities and I have no idea where they are getting that information. Lastly, even if List of U.S. cities by area as based on a trustworthy source, many of the cities on List of United States cities by population do not make it onto the list by area. Again, I'm not really opposed to the concept of adding the information in principle, but it would need a reliable and consistent source. Shereth 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in terms of your point of, say, SF not making onto the largest by area list, city-data.com does elsewhere have numbers for all cities.--Loodog (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I am still unconvinced that city-data.com qualifies as a reliable source due in part to the problems I mentioned above. Shereth 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a ranked list that is based on the 2000 census figures for area and population derived from this Census table. The density figures in the table appear to be off a bit because of rounding errors. One can always use the Census density figures and rank them using a spreadsheet. However, it is as of 2000 and excludes cities with population under 50,000 in 2000. --Polaron | Talk 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Polaron beat me to the punch but the US Census Bureau has land areas: http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1010a.txt --Loodog (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They also have densities: http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1040a.txt --Loodog (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(random outdent) I am aware of the existence of area and density figures for 2000. Since this list is of 2006 (soon to update to 2007) populations, the density figures would be naturally outdated. If this is mentioned explicitly (ie. that the density figures are based upon figures from 2000) then I don't have a serious problem with it. What I would have an issue with is using 2000 area figures and 2006 population figures for coming up with density figures, as these would be inherently wrong. Shereth 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Include 2000 densities with mention that these are 2000 densities. Shouldn't be radically different from what they are today.--Loodog (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised - there are a lot of cities that have seen substantial population shifts in the last 7 years, and the utility of the density figures will be rather diminished - but again, I'm not really that bothered by adding the information. I do have a couple of questions for you, however - for one, the list of cities over 100,000 has grown by 20 entries since the 2000 data - I assume you are going to manually calculate the densities for these cities based on the 2000 data? Secondly, how quickly do you intend to get this done? In all likelihood the Census will be releasing their 2007 population estimates for cities within the next week, and this list is going to be seeing a major overhaul. Right now I have a script in place to generate the new table based on the new information (assuming no one else does it first), but the addition of another table will render my script obsolete. Would you mind holding off for a week or so until the new census data comes out? Shereth 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure.--Loodog (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And yes, manual calculation based on 2000 Census data for all that isn't listed is the plan.--Loodog (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't people stop arguing about HOW to do the population density factor and simply workout a way to DO it? It would be useful. Because, seriously, Chicago is the second biggest city in the US, and this list is simply thrown off looking like it's LA when that's because Chicago was polite enough not to claim the whole county to inflate it's apparent size for political and monetary gain. LA did that, much like San Francisco, Indianapolis, and assorted other locations.Citation Not Needed (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of this list is "cities by population", and Los Angeles is #2 by population - thus the list is not thrown off in any fashion. Shereth 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing Citation Not Needed is getting at is that there are different categories of "city propers", varying in density and how much area is officially the city proper. Because of this, city proper often misstates how much population is integrated to what degree in the city. Sure, Phoenix now is more populous than Philadelphia, but on its own, that can be misleading.--Loodog (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what he is getting at, but my point is that the article makes it plainly evident that this list is not an attempt to characterize a city as "feeling" bigger or smaller, nor that it is representative of the size of a metropolitan area, nor that it is anything what it claims to be - a straightforward list of cities by population. This list should make no attempt to clarify the perceived "bigness" of a city in any way, as there exists numerous different ways in which a city's size or importance is perceived. The maintainers of this list have been adamant about maintaining its integrity in terms of source for the very reason of avoiding bias toward one city or another, and we should avoid the appearance of putting forward anything other than what is dry fact. The only thing misleading would be trying to spin the numbers in any way other than what they actually are, and we leave it up to the reader to interpret the figures as they may. Shereth 19:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see inclusion of density as being spinful.--Loodog (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I say it was. I was just responding to the comment above on its own merits, not trying to discredit adding density. Shereth 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing my two cents in (albeit a bit late), I personally don't see a reason why population density figures cannot be added to this table. However, if the editors wanted to keep this list purely a table of population figures, nothing else, then why not make another article "List of United States cities by population density"? Just use the same format and update it with the densities provided from the source. Update the template at the bottom of the page and voila, you're set. -epicAdam (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis Photo

What do you think of it? Do you like it or not? And would it be OK if I changed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingky3575 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

2007 estimates are in

Census has released the 2007 estimates. I've gone ahead and updated the table accordingly. Please feel free to comb it over for mistakes :) Shereth 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. APK like a lollipop 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I discovered this thanks to a Dallas Morning News article which I have since used as a reference to update the few North Texas cities mentioned in the article. Given the changes, it might be useful to take a sweep through these city articles and adjust their national rankings with a reference to the new data, if necessary. - Dravecky (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovered this list? Or just the fact that the new estimates are out? :) In any case, I certainly have no issues with going through to update the individual city articles with the new information. However, do be aware that while this list may be considered authoritative for determining rankings, some editors prefer to use more local estimates (ie. California Department of Finance) and I am unaware of any policy/guideline that proscribes doing so. Fortunately there aren't too many changes in the rankings .. Shereth 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, only U.S. Census Bureau numbers are to be used for population statistics for U.S. cities. Best, epicAdam (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely binding! Be that as it may, I do agree that only census numbers should be used - but patrolling the several thousand US city articles is nigh impossible and I learned long ago it's not worth the hassle of trying to convince determined editors not to use local government statistics. Shereth 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Omaha population

The Omaha number doesn't include the population of the city of Elkhorn, which was annexed in 2005, our newspaper even says the current population is 432921 and so does the Omaha article, but the list doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inbierno (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your local newspaper is not the United States Census Bureau. We therefore cannot accept any figures it gives.--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why was Elkhorn included as part of the population before the new estimates? Inbierno (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever definition the US Census Bureau is using is what we use. Other definitions and figures are unacceptable because they will come from differing sources.--Loodog (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Loodog is correct. Official US Census figures are the only ones we use for this list - it is not up to us to analyze the accuracy of the Census estimates. If and when the Census releases a modified (challenged) count for Omaha - or anywhere else - we can update this list, but not until then. Shereth 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What confuses me is that 432,921 is used on the Omaha wikipedia article, which includes Elkhorn, but 424,482 is used in this article so shouldn't there only be one to avoid confusion? Inbierno (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USCITY, articles should use the U.S. census bureau data for their official population figures. You may certainly change the population listed in Omaha, Nebraska to reflect the 2007 city estimates; just make sure to provide an edit summary and sources when you edit the page. If you would like, you can also mention in the demographics section that the city of Elkhorn was annexed by Omaha and subsequently the city's population is higher than the census bureau estimate. Again, just make sure to provide a source. If you need any other assistance, please ask. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding a footnote to the Omaha figure explaining the annexation and the new total (using the 2007 Census estimate for Elkhorn) probably wouldn't hurt in this case. --Polaron | Talk 12:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to that idea, however a part of me is a little leery of starting a habit of putting in footnotes regarding annexations. The Omaha/Elkhorn example is pretty straightforward, but annexations are a pretty commonplace thing and I see the potential for a lot of folks showing up with newspaper articles or press releases or city websites because of some recent annexation that nudges city X above city Y on the list. As Omaha is almost certain to challenge these numbers, I would just as soon not create a precedent for altering the list (or tacking on an unnecessary slew of footnotes) for the sake of annexations unless a successful challenge is filed. Shereth 23:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing density figures

Is there not another source that would provide all the remaining density figures? I can't imagine having to provide sources for the density figures of all those remaining cities. If consistent, standardized density information cannot be found, then I would move to not provide it at all on this list. Another list using the U.S. Census Bureau data of the nation's highest-density urban areas (which is really what the source provides) would be more appropriate. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: The citations next to the density figures also seems strange because the numbers no longer appear in neat columns... the references shove the text over putting it out of alignment. Not a great situation, either. -epicAdam (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It should also be made more clear that these density figures are based on old (2000) data, not current demographic information. The wording above the table is easy to miss by the casual read. Shereth 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems in article

This article is titled "list of cities by population", yet goes on to provide a "list of incorporated places". However, the list actually only uses cities, otherwise it would include Hempstead (town), New York, with a population of 755k, in the top 15. The article should decide if it wants to be a list of cities, or a list of incorporated places, otherwise it should not be a featured list. MrPrada (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The list has incorporated towns (Gilbert, Arizona and Cary, North Carolina), as well as "Metropolitan governments" (Louisville, Nashville et al) and does not discriminate against incorporated places not considered a "city". Hempstead is not included because it is a county division (towns in New York are county divisions) and not a municipal government - it has nothing to do with the use of the word "town". Shereth 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hempstead is an incorporated municipal government, so I'm not really following you. The census bureau site has a .CSV that includes Hempstead, but the one used as the source is currently delineated by "City" only. MrPrada (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As I replied on my talk page, I am unsure which CSV you are looking at but the one used as a source here includes several places that are not listed as City : it has towns (96 Gilbert, 199 Cary), CDPs (49 Honolulu, 98 Arlington), municipalities (65 Anchorage) and Metropolitan Governmenta (25 Nashville, 29 Louisville). Hempstead is not an incorporated municipality - the word "town" as used in New York is synonymous with Civil township, a county subdivision and not an incorporated municipality in the same way that cities (and towns in many other states) are. Shereth 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Shereth is correct. See Political subdivisions of New York State#Town. Towns in New York are treated as minor civil divisions by the Census Bureau (for among other reasons, towns can contain incorporated villages and the population of such villages are also included in that of the towns--so including both in a list of incorporated places would result in double-counting of some populations. In other states, towns are incorporated municipalities in the same sense as cities and villages. This list does include such incorporated towns. This is somewhat comparable to the problem with New England towns, in that the towns are recognized by the states as incorporated municipalities -- but are still considered as minor civil divisions by the Census Bureau. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, why are we listing Arlington County, Virginia and Honolulu CDP? We should replace Honolulu CDP with the City and County of Honolulu and drop Arlington County. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The answers to these questions are found in the footnotes below the table. More generally, it is because this list is designed to match the list and information provided by the Census Bureau. Whether we agree with the Census Bureau on every single entry and their definitions of "cities", we can't pick and choose which ones from the list we'll use and which ones we won't because that would constitute a form of arbitrary original research and merely stick to the source. Shereth 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shereth, the article says "As defined by the United States Census Bureau, an incorporated place includes a variety of designations, including a city, town, village, borough, and municipality.[e]" - I do not see CDP in that paragraph. Plus when I see http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1040a.txt - it says that it only uses CDPs specifically in Hawaii as Hawaii "has no incorporated places" - even though Honolulu is a consolidated city-county. I can understand wiggle room with CDPs in Hawaii, but with the other states we should not use CDPs. Arlington County definitely needs to go. By the census bureau's definition, CDPs are NOT incorporated places, so we should not list CDPs (except maybe Hawaii's - that is debatable). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if you can convince the Census Bureau to stop putting Arlington CDP on their list of incorporated places, we'd be happy to remove it from this list as well. In the meantime, as this list is a direct reflection of the data released by the Census Bureau, it will continue to reflect both the populations and rankings of the Honolulu and Arlington CDPs. Now, as far as their reasoning is concerned, it is my understanding that the bureau includes Arlington County because it does not and never will contain any independent cities per Virginia law, is fully urban in character, operates in a fashion functionally identical to an incorporated municipal government, and thus the bureau ranks it along with other incorporated municipal governments. As you state yourself, the situation in Hawaii is complicated by the way administrative divisions are handled by state law and for better or worse, the Bureau has chosen to use the portion of the County that is coextensive with the judicial district. Anyway, what it all boils down to is these are the entities that the Census Bureau has chosen to include in the rankings, and since our rankings are entirely based upon theirs with no interpretive alterations on our part, they remain the same here. Shereth 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't see Arlington CDP in this document http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1040a.txt but I see it in this document http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-01.csv - The former says that only Hawaii CDPs are shown, and the latter does not say that. Is there a conflict? Or is there a difference in the lists? Either way, I do not have a reference of the US Census explicitly stating that Arlington CDP is to be listed for special reasons, while I have one for Hawaii. At the same time, we need to modify the lead if we are to list any CDPs at all, because the U.S. census explicitly states that CDPs are NOT incorporated. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
        • The first link you gave is a list of population densities from 2000; the second (which is the source used for the list) is a list ranked by population from 2007. If you object to the current wording of the lead paragraph, I have no qualms over changing it to seem more "clear". All the same, the Census does rank both Arlington and Honolulu CDP in their list of "incorporated places", so if there is an inconsistency going on it is on the part of the Census Bureau. The problem with the Bureau not using a single, simple definition for "incorporated place" has caused confusion with other locations in the past (the perennial Hempstead, NY argument), so rather than try to define what is or is not "incorporated" on our own, we simply take the Census' list at face value and try to make a note of any apparent inconsistencies in the footnotes, but we do not attempt to repair these inconsistencies ourselves. Shereth 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I am curious; has the actual definition of an "incorporated place" changed, or is it simply using the same definition being applied inconsistently? I have found a reference for how it treats Hawaiian CDPs, but I haven't found one for Arlington County (all I added is that lists in 2007 list Arlington County). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
            • To get to the core of the issue: we are not attempting to define "incorporated place" in this article, nor are we especially concerned with the definition thereof. Really the only thing we are doing here is presenting a list of the most populated incorporated places according to the Census Bureau. We have a list from the Census titled "Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places" and this is the information we present. It really is that simple: here is the list of most populated incorporated places from the Census Bureau. I really think the matter is becoming overly complicated by trying to divine why they include some CDPs and not others. Trying to shoehorn these exceptions into the lead is detrimental to the quality of the article, as this information is already presented in the footnotes and does not need to be repeated. I will move the information accordingly. Shereth 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Omahas Photo

i beleive that this picture has a better dicription of omahas NE skyline, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Omaha_skyline.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Nienaber (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii

So, how should we treat Hawaii's settlements?

We have two choices:

• Include Hawaii CDPs as, even though they are not defined as incorporated places, the U.S. census bureau lists them as only Oahu has an incorporated place (City and County of Honolulu, which covers the entire island)
• Do not include Hawaii CDPs and list City and County of Honolulu by its population, as it is the only incorporated place in Hawaii

I prefer the latter as this article is supposed to list only incorporated places and I prefer it to stay that way, but if there is a consensus to, one could include CDPs from Hawaii (and from no other state). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually we have a third choice, which is to use the list the Census provides us and not apply any interpretive spin on it. We present the list as "according to the Census Bureau", so we should not be altering it to our own definitions. Shereth 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Except we are using the Census bureau's definitions, and I found a source explicitly stating that CDPs are not incorporated places. So my original question stands. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • We're using the Census Bureau list, not applying the definitions individually. That the Census has at one point stated "CDPs are not incorporated" but later delivers a list of incorporated places with CDPs on them is not our concern. For what it is worth, the source you are using is 7 years older than the source we are using; the criteria for the old densities list do not apply to the current population list. Again, the reasoning behind that is not known (nor important) to us, and all we know is that the official list of "incorporated places" includes Honolulu CDP. Shereth 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
        • As I said, the census bureau clearly states that the Hawaii CDPs are not incorporated, but the bureau lists the CDPs anyway because of Hawaii's municipal structure. What I did is I added that the Bureau lists Hawaii CDPs, *plus* lists from 2007 also list Arlington CDP. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
          • For the record, Arlington CDP has appeared in the Census' lists since at least 2003. Shereth 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos in Gallery

I rearranged the photos of the article into a (wikipedia formatting) gallery. This was reverted by LonelyMarble.

I strongly believe a vertical list of photos is not useful.

The gallery arranging 4 photos in one row is much nicer to look at and involves less scrolling in case the reader was not looking for photos.

I'm trying to see reasons for preferring a vertical arrangement of the photos but couldn't find any. The reasons given by LonelyMarble (in Edit Summary messages) are

1. The gallery just makes the article redundant.
2. It comes off as messy and less aesthetically pleasing to me

I can't relate to either of those:

1. The gallery is more than the article, and so if the article becomes redundant, then in my understanding of logic it would follow that the article should just be the gallery.
2. I see no messiness on my screens, testing with Firefox, and Opera. On the other hand the gallery in my mind is aesthetically vastly superior to a vertical stack of images.

Similary, I added the population figures to the captions. Those figures are the whole point of the page: so it is nice to be able to see them readily while perusing the photos.

Here is the version before the revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_cities_by_population&oldid=238172931

I submit that the layout of this version is vastly superior.

--Stephanwehner (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The main point of the article to me is listing all cities with a population over 100,000 in a nice, neat table. This table provides population density too and allows you to sort any of the columns in either ascending or desceding orders. All these abilities are lost in a gallery of images. I don't understand your first point at all about "the gallery is more than the article". The article is not about the images, if people want to see an image of a certain city they can simply click on the link to the city's article. And the table makes finding any city you want easily with the sortability options. Furthermore you won't get good pictures or even any pictures of all the cities on the list. I say redundant because why have a gallery of the first 50 cities showing their population and then when you scroll down you have a table of the same thing. Seems to make more sense to me to have the table and the images along side each other at the same time like it is now, it doesn't waste any space and doesn't give the impression of redundancy.

Regarding the messiness comment I made, objectively the gallery created a side scrolling bar on the bottom of my screen so I had to scroll over to see the whole thing, this is a problem that could be fixed though I'm sure. Subjectively, I just don't see the benefits of a gallery over the vertical arrangement there is now, both functionally and aesthetically. One thing I objected to at first though was when you added the population figures to the image captions. If you want to do that fine, I don't think it makes that much of a difference, but if you do it I would either add the population to all 50 images or none. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to side with LonelyMarble on this one: the existing vertical arrangement is superior. I too get the issue of the horizontal scroll bar when the gallery is used (a problem at 1024x768 resolution and lower) which is never a good thing. The current method of the vertical stack helps to flesh out some of the whitespace on the side of the table and makes the article feel more visually "balanced", in my opinion. A lot of it boils down to the fact that - as stated before - the primary function of this article is to provide a factual, easily navigable and sortable list of cities and their population data. The images are a secondary feature of the article and as such their prominence should be secondary to the table. The gallery, on the other hand, was usurping the focus from the table and that is just not good. As far as adding the population figures to the pictures is concerned, while not inherently detrimental, is somewhat redundant and doesn't really add anything. That's my $0.02 on the matter. Shereth 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Work

I'd just like to congratulate those who have helped collect the 50 city pictures in the article. It's such a striking feature and one of the things that wouldn't be possible without Wikpeadia. Well done on making the statistics that bit more vibrant. Syferus (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Population Update

Boston's population has been officially updated by the US census according to Boston.com. The new population is set at 608,352 which would replace El Paso as the 21st largest US city. This info comes from http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/05/revision_puts_population_estimate_for_hub_over_600000/ and should be updated to the US census website shortly.

Good catch, I've updated the population and rank.--Loodog (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

30 November 2009: The city of Boston won another challenge against the US Census Bureau that now puts the official estimated population of Boston at 620,535. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/30/boston_successfully_wins_census_challenge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikyow (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job catching this. I've updated the article.--Louiedog (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco

According to the SF Chorincle, the US Census bureau has corrected the 2007 estimated population of San Francisco to 799,183. Someone please update. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/13/BAUD14N3S7.DTL --67.101.45.184 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.--Loodog (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Density/sq mile should also be updated on both pages. Since that's affected by the census revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.12.229 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Density is per 2000 Census.--Loodog (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I edit a protected page when I'm a user?

I've tried plenty of times to edit this page and it never works. Please tell me how you edit the page if you are a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPQzy (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be an established user. You can read about that here: WP:Established users. --Local hero 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Arlington

Is the only picture available of Arlington, Texas inside a baseball stadium? Could a picture of the main business district or a neighborhood street be shown? It would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There would be no picture of a downtown Arlington because the city is basically a residential area. People who live in Arlington commute to Dallas and Fort Worth for work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.197.215 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Does The List Stop at 100,000 people?

Just wondering. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the list is already too long and this was the best consensus we could come up with. Usually, lists like this are "Top 100" or "Top 200" or some definitive "Top" number; however, people felt their town was left out and it became more of a popularity contest than an actual factual list, so it was decided to make it population-based so people don't think "Top #" means the ones that don't make it "aren't as important". Not sure when it was decided, though. Hope that helps! EaglesFanInTampa 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also true that the main reference for the article is the Census Bureau list of cities with over 100,000 population (reference #1 in the article). To some extent this article is a wikilinked and illustrated version of that list. --Uncia (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people should merge with this article

Per duplicate in context. Please see article's talk page for further discussion. --Moreau36 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange counting fx Jacksonville

The population density for the US cities varies too much on list of US cities. And for example Jacksonville with 805 000 population have a density of 971 per sq.mile which is eqvivalent to 377 per sq.km - a value that is lower than for the entire Holland or Belgium and close to the pop.dens. of United Kingdom !!!

What do you mean it "varies too much"? It is what it is. In the last census, Jacksonville had a population of 805,605. Jacksonville covers 885 square miles, 767 square miles of it land (in fact, it is one of the largest cities in the United States in area). That works out to 1,050 per square mile (so the figure of 971 might be a bit low, but not by much). On the other hand, San Francisco had a population of 799,183 following the last census. San Francicso covers just 231 square miles, and only 47 square miles of that is land. That works out to 17,004 per square mile. So, Jacksonville and San Francisco are approximately the same size in population, but Jacksonville is over 16 times larger in land area. Again, it is what it is. Phizzy (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City, MO Population Change

Due to a US Census misunderestimation, on Feburary 6, 2009 the US Census approved an appeal from the city to change the official population of Kansas City, Missouri from 450,375 to 475,830, thus adding about 25,000 residents to the city. I have changed the city's population to reflect that. [[4]] that web page is where you can find the information, which is on Kansas City's official municipal web site and was a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When you add information to an article, please also add the references (sources) there rather than on the talk page. I've added a note to the article with your reference information. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk page with four tildes. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where should the photos stop? Top 50?

I believe the intention was to show city photos of just the top 50 cities, but Dpm12 added several more. As I write this, it is up to 54 (Tampa), but Dpm12 seems to be adding even more. Where should this stop? Phizzy (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, it is up to 60. Phizzy (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and deleted them, inc. San Juan, since it makes the article WAY too long. While it's a nice touch, it's really gotten to a point of taking value from the article, esp. #50 - really, a stadium for Arlington? C'mon. Personally, I think they should all go, but I'm just one guy, and I'll let others figure out the limits. All I know is more than 50 makes the article too damn long. Thanks for the heads-up, Phizzy! :-) EaglesFanInTampa 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be the top 50 and stop there because that is completely neutral and logical and prevents editors from trying to extend it just for the sake of extending it to include their own favorite city. I don't see why you would want to take the images out altogether, they add an enormous amount to the article in my opinion; without them there would simply be white space next to the list. Obviously the stadium for Arlington is not a good image but eventually we will get a free image of the skyline, there's not a huge rush. And why take out the San Juan image, it's simply next to the Puerto Rico section where there is white space without it, and if it was ranked it would be in the top 50, I don't see how that image detracts from the article at all. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you took out the San Juan image because it was in an odd place on your browser I fixed that problem, a bunching error was causing it to interfere with the right-aligned images. It's now left of the Puerto Rico table where it was intended. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

50 has been established as an acceptable number for some time and there it should stay. Personally I believe even that is pushing it a little; on wide-format monitors it causes the images to extend downward well beyond the list and into the see-also section. Any more than 50 will create a lot of undesirable dead whitespace at the bottom. Shereth 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On 1280x1024 resolution the images extend right about to the see also section, depending a little on which browser you are using. I don't see a problem with it extending beyond the list table because it just helps fill white space on the right. So right now the top 50 is a perfect amount, and like you said, any more than that would cause problems on higher resolutions. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Photo

I changed the Los Angeles photo as the original used the San Gabriel mountains as a backdrop for the photo, which is not a correct representation of the skyline of Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristiansr (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your assertion but one photo is just as good as the other and I have no problem with the change. Shereth 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated population numbers appear to be a year behind

I noticed that references for the consolidated city/county populations are for 2006 numbers, but the cities in the main list have population figures from 2007. Are there 2007 numbers for the consolidated city/county populations somewhere that can be pulled in? Or are there 2008 numbers available for everything? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I assume you mean the figures in the footnotes (the figures in the table are accurate and up to date) - not only where they outdated, but the references listed were totally irrelevant to the footnotes. I have fixed this as well. 2008 figures for counties have been released, however to me it makes sense to use the 2007 figures for now so as to be in-line with the rest of the data; feel free to bump these up to 2008 if others disagree with me. 2008 figures for municipalities will probably be released in July. Additionally, I removed Denver from that list as, while it is a consolidated city-county, it is the only municipality in the City and County of Denver and thus does not suffer from the discrepancy mentioned in the footnote. Shereth 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Looks great! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Accepted challenges

I just updated some population figures for the accepted challenges listed on the census bureau's website: see here. We had 4 of them already but there are 14 total. Here is the list of accepted challenges for those curious, note that Miami Gardens went from 97k to 108k so it's a new entry on the list.

• New York City, NY 8,310,212
• Dallas, TX 1,266,372
• San Francisco, CA 799,185
• Baltimore, MD 640,150
• Boston, MA 608,352
• Kansas City, MO 475,830
• Miami, FL 424,662
• St. Louis, MO 355,663
• Toledo, OH 316,851
• New Orleans, LA 288,113
• Winston-Salem, NC 223,532
• Worcester, MA 175,521
• Springfield, MA 151,342
• Miami Gardens, FL 108,862

— LonelyMarble (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Peoria??

Peoria IL is listed as #6 most populous state, obviously not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.75.158 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple errors

All the top cities are wrong today (4/28/09) after New York, thru Phoenix at least. Could someone fix it?

The data is currently level-set to July 1, 2007. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info for New York City

Since this article is locked fom anyone updating it, can someone fix the population total on New York City? It is incorrect. It states 3.8 million people in the city, but the official 2000 census (the last real census taken) states 8.0 million people; and an estimate (which basically means a guess) in 2007 states 8.2 million people. Neither one states 3.8 million at all. This needs to be corrected as all the other cities on the list do not have their population totals increased over the census statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, read it again. The article says NYC's population is 8,310,212. APK straight up now tell me 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvas: Should non-Census sources be allowed on individual city articles?

Because there's a discussion about it here you may want to contribute to if you have feelings about it.--Loodog (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Hempstead (town), New York

Hempstead (town), New York says that it has population 755,000 and would be the 14th most populous city, were it a city. Does it belong on this list? Is the population inaccurate? This population is also mentioned in City#United States. Sligocki (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's infobox and the Town's website call it a township. This article says the list should include cities, towns, villages, boroughs, and municipalities. I assume civil townships are not supposed to be included. APK coffee talk 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This question has come up numerous times. It is not included as an "incorporated place" by the US Census Bureau. Please feel free to review the talk archives of this page as well as the note on the list itself that explains this issue. Shereth 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A town in New York is not the same as a town elsewhere. It functions as an intermediate division between counties and municipalities. Samhuddy (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 update

I'll have the new table with the 2008 numbers up shortly. If anyone else is putting together a table, let me know so I don't waste my effort doing something that's already going to be done :) Shereth 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the new table. Hopefully my hometown will be movin on up like George and Weezy. APK coffee talk 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The update is complete! The column for density is missing for the time being; as the density data comes from a different source and there has been significant movement among the list (as well as several additions), there was no immediate way for me to ensure that the densities remained with the correct city. Densities will require a little more work to restore to the table.

Here are a few highlights for demographic wonks like myself. There was a change among the top 10, with Dallas overtaking San Diego for the #8 spot - by a razor-thin margin of less than 600. There were several other changes among the top 50 cities:

• San Francisco moves past Jacksonville for the #12 spot
• Austin takes the #15 spot from Columbus
• Charlotte moves in to #18 past Memphis
• El Paso is the 3rd Texas city to move up, pushing Boston out of its #21 spot
• Denver moves up 2 spots to #24, past both Seattle and Nashville
• Portland takes the #29 spot from Louisville
• Kansas City sinks 5 spots to #39 beneath Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach and Mesa
• Omaha jumps 2 spots to #40 over both Cleveland and Virginia Beach
• Raleigh moves past Tulsa and Minneapolis to #45

Finally, the 100,000 plus club gets 10 new members with Round Rock City, Texas; Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Lewisville, Texas; Richardson, Texas; Gresham, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa; Columbia, Missouri; Rochester, Minnesota; Antioch, California; and Wilmington, North Carolina. Shereth 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the consolidated populations in Note e. Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Updated those as well. Shereth 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated since Dallas and San Diego have switched places. Does that have to be done on Commons? APK coffee talk 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but thanks for catching that as well. Got it fixed. Anything else missing? :) Shereth 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think every thing is correct/updated. I'm glad North Cackalacky has another city on the list (during my college years, I spent most of my summer weekends in Wilmington). APK coffee talk 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission Viejo, California

mission viejo, california has a population of 100,242 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.67.123 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the US Census 2008 population estimates. The source used in the Mission Viejo article is from the state government, and it's a January 1, 2009 estimate. APK coffee talk 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

The photo for Omaha lists it as size #41, the list puts it at #40. Paltivar (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Got it fixed. Shereth 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Update

The new pop. figure for Seattle just came out putting the it a 602,000, or one spot up at 24 place, so should the table changed to reflect that? --76.121.4.143 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This table is based on US Census estimates, not city or state estimates. The most recent data are for July 1, 2008. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anon, unless this new figure you speak of was approved of by the US Census Bureau as a challenge, we can't use it for this article.--Loodog (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, well it was worth a try. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Providence and Worcester tied for 2007

I'm sorry the page looks weird but Providence and Worcester have a population that it 2007 were almost identical. So the number for them is both. But on ri.gov Providence's population in summer of 2009 is 175,211 to 176,000s. Toonami (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This page only uses one source: the July 1, 2008, U.S. Census Bureau estimate that can be seen here: [5]. This list is simply a copy of that list. The government of Rhode Island's estimate for Providence therefore does not matter for this particular list. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry Toonami (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't it make more sense to take the latest population census from each individual city based on their websites? Toonami (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just checked the list of the Bureau list, and the population of Providence between 2007 and 2008 is 175,000 Toonami (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad I read it wrong Toonami (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Rock Arkansas

Why is Little Rock, Arkansas missing from the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.44.150 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's #118. APK that's not my name 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

San Diego is the 7th largest city, look at the individual articles for San Diego, Dallas and san antonio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.237.30 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is Atlanta on the list?

Call me crazy but I would swear that Atlanta is one of 10 largest cities in U.S. It is not even on the list!

It's 33rd.--Louiedog (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By city proper, yes Atlanta ranks surprisingly low. However, if you extend the definition to include the surrounding metro area, Atlanta leaps to the top 10. That's one extreme example of urban sprawl! Mathpianist93 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Change LA's skyline back to better picture

Change LA's skyline back. That picture is so crappy and old. I have a feeling it was changed to make LA look bad which is a poor representation. Here's the orginal good picture with the mountains in the backdrop.

Change pic to this file. File:LA Skyline Mountains2.jpg

San Jose Population Update

Can someone update San Jose's population? San Jose's most recent population is 1,006,892. Jmumman 02:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. >>Atsuke (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its census population is still 948,279. You are referring to a local estimate that is an acceptable basis for comparison.--Louiedog (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Louiedog, I feel that you have a bias against San Jose. All other population counts for other cities, in particular, New York and Los Angeles, have their 2009 figure estimates. If you are going to keep it in its 2000 estimate, you might as well edit all the other cities' figures. Other than that, it's always better to have the most *modern* data available. 2000 data is no good. As long as it's backed up from an official figure, it's good. >>Atsuke (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

98.176.197.238 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - When voicing your concerns on a Wikipedia talk page, avoid making demands and suggesting editors are acting in bad faith. APK say that you love me 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Austin texas is using the 2009 est.insead 2008 estimate

this should be fixed. and if possible in the spring of 2010 we could update the article to 2009 estimates when all of the 2009 esimates are availbe but they should not be used together or jumbled together. they have to only reference each city on the same year no exceptions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.107.14 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't per the source being used by the article. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia population update 12/2/09

US Census Bureau has increased Philly's 2008 estimated population by 93,000 to 1,540,351 (still ranks as 6th place):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34235503

Jasonite74 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Jasonite74

• Thank you for the heads up; the table has been changed accordingly. Shereth 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)