Talk:List of U.S. states by population density/Archive 1

District of Columbia
I have added DC to the list without giving it a ranking among the 50 U.S. states. If DC were not included, the total average United States population density would fall to 74.0/square mile.

If it is not appropriate to include DC on this list, even though it is a wholly incorporated part of the United States, then please adjust the average U.S. population density accordingly to remove DC from the calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.47.126 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Something is very wrong with the numbers for DC. The conversion between pop/sq.miles and pop/sq.km is incorrect, but I don't know which (if either) is correct. I am removing this until somebody get figures to correct it. -- dpotter (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * U.S. census bureau says that in 2000, DC had a population density of 9,378.0 people per square mile. That is the equivalent to 3,620.6 people per square kilometer. Since those are the numbers provided by the US Census as used for all the other states, I will re-add DC using those corrected figures. Epicadam (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaska
What would our density be without Alaska? I think it really warps our idea of how much room we really have.


 * That's an interesting thought... as of 2007, the U.S. as a whole is 81.202 people per square mile, and the U.S. without our 49th state (which has a ridiculous 0.945!) is 98.624... which puts things in a slightly different light. But it's not wildly different.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alaska pt 2
Ah... Alaska's population is growing pretty rapidly; I don't think there's a problem there. It's not like it's all tundra. After all, we don't exclude mountain areas or desert or swamp areas from the "contiguous 48." Alaska is as much a state as the other 49, and no longer the least populated, either!

Checked data against US Census page
After finding an error recently introduced into the Massachusetts population density recently, I did a quick check on the other states. The New York population density has been wrong for 17 months; it was changed to the wrong number by an IP with no edit summary at 07:23, April 3, 2006. It's fixed now, and the other states' numbers all agree with the USCensus site listed as the second external link. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Metric measures VERY wrong.
Someone did some very very wrong conversions. I will try to fix them. user:Bassgoonist User_talk:Bassgoonist Special:Contributions/Bassgoonist 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, my brain is backwards. user:Bassgoonist User_talk:Bassgoonist Special:Contributions/Bassgoonist 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

if only the unit is meant to be specified
(regarding my recent edit) by including "square miles" then "per" should not be there. 'how to reword', then, is the question. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I was wrong abuot something. not sure what. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparable Countries
I think it would be nice to have a list of countries that have a population density similar to each of the states. 71.61.99.79 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're going with this, but unlike comparisons of U.S. states to countries by population, area, or GDP, comparing states to countries by population density is often unremarkable. The comparison doesn't really tell us much about the economy, social factors, or even urbanization. For example, the fact that California and Cyprus both have a population density of 90/km2, and the fact that New York and Micronesia both have a population density of 157/km2, tells us very little about places that are otherwise extremely dissimilar in nearly every respect. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, I think it would still be useful for putting things into perspective, especially where it concerns American "uniqueness." For example, people claim that the US is not dense enough for high-speed rail.  But then it can be pointed out that California is similar in density to Spain.  It won't do any harm, so I'll go ahead and be bold.  platypeanArchcow (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi PlatypeanArchcow - Being bold is fine, but the info still needs to be sourced. Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Territories
Shouldn't we include all non-state territories - not just Washington, D.C.? If you take a look at List of U.S. states by population, you can see editors included Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. and used a separate lettering system to distinguish them as non-states. Is there any justification for not doing the same thing on this page? --TheNunOwnedGoat 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNunOwnedGoat (talk • contribs)
 * The original reasoning on this page for including Washington, D.C. is that the city is calculated as part of the overall U.S. population density, whereas the territories are not. However, as long as this point is made clear, I do not have any other objection to including U.S. territories in the list. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)