Talk:List of United States cities by population/Archive 4

Information about Nashville is factually wrong
"The City of Nashville, Tennessee, and Davidson County, Tennessee, are separate entities with a single consolidated city–county government. The City of Nashville comprises all of Davidson County except the other incorporated municipalities within the county. See Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee."

There are two statements in the above footnote that are factually incorrect: I'm fine if we use the balance populations for this list, but please do not confuse the reader with incorrect information. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The City of Nashville, Tennessee, and Davidson County, Tennessee, are NOT separate entities. They are the same entity, thus the word "consolidated". They have the same boundaries, the same government, the same population, the same flag, the same mayor, the same everything.
 * 2) The City of Nashville does NOT exclude other incorporated municipalities with the county. The Nashville-Davidson (balance), which is a statistical entity, excludes other incorporated municipalities.
 * I changed the footnote to the following: "Nashville is a consolidated city-county. The population given is for the entire city-county, excluding other incorporated places lying within the city-county limits. (See Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee). As of 2010, the population of the city-county including other incorporated places was 626,681." Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Aurora, Colorado coordinates
The lat/lon currently listed for Aurora CO point to a place in the Dallas (TX) metro area. The lat/lon coordinates should be 39.69583°N, 104.80806°W according to Wikipedia and Google Earth. (Aurora IL is fine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.153.221 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014
Dafdwfvdf (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you actually want something to be edited here? T  C  N7 JM  12:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Map has states in the wrong regions
The map shows Nevada as a Mountain State rather than a Pacific State where it belongs. Nevada has more in common with the Pacific States than it does with the Mountain States and Nevada is in the Pacific Time Zone. The map also shows Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and Washington, DC as Southern States even though those 4 states are Northeastern geographically. The Northeastern Region is too small and The Southern Region is too big. Can someone please fix the map? MuppetHammer26II (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The map actually is quite accurate. The US Census Bureau defines four regions of the United States which you can find here.  So really the only mistake is that the three Pacific Coast states should be the same color as the rest of the "West" region.  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Chart Sections
The new population estimates for these cities is set to be released sometime this month and I have some questions regarding the current chart. First of all, do we really need the ANSI Code? It doesn't have anything to do with population geography (so far as I know) and I'm pretty sure almost nobody knows what that even is (I know I don't! Haha!)  Next, do we know if the Census Bureau or some other agency releases yearly estimates of the area of the cities? Or are we just continuing to use the areas the cities were as of the 2010 Census? If we cannot keep updating city areas and population densities yearly in concordance with the city populations, then perhaps we should eliminate area and density sections. Finally, maybe someone can go through and create a link to the latitude/longitude coordinates for each city like in the upper right corner of city articles where it links to GeoHack and offers multiple options for mapping that coordinate. Sorry if a lot of this made very little sense...I have a migraine right now and cannot think in clear, coherent thoughts so this may all seem jumbled. But these were just some suggestions to improving the chart to keep all data updated and relevant to the substance of the article. Also, maybe just to add a little color to chart, perhaps we can put flag icons of each of the states next to the state name...or if the city itself has its own flag we can put that little icon. Or to more easily specify which are the capitals and which are the largest cities, instead of bolding and italicizing, we can shade those boxes a different color. Thoughts? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion to remove the ANSI codes; it just adds confusion to the table. In fact, the Census Bureau does release yearly area statistics here. However, I don't think it's as important to keep the area column updated every year. Areas change a lot less and a lot less often than population, so using the 2010 values for density would be easy and mostly correct. As far as adding links to the coordinates, I have no opinion. I am against introducing more clutter into the table with flags. It's already quite a busy table. I would also like to suggest decreasing the significant figures for the areas. (Is 153.000 sq mi really necessary for Denver?) Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014
A new batch of population data has been released by the US Census representing 2013 population estimates for US Cities. This page needs to be updated asap. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Sockistan (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on it...will also be removing the ANSI column. Land area and population density will remain unchanged for now until more data is found.  I will also reduce the number of significant figures to one decimal place.  Also, I will remove the last section (listing each state and its largest city).  This seems to be unnecessary for this page...I think there's a separate page already for states' largest cities.  As there is a lot of work to be done, it may take a few days.  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The last section was recently added as a result of this discussion, although there were only two people participating, so there isn't terribly strong consensus to have it here. I think it's hard to find a good place to put that list. Kennethaw88 • talk 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a page with that info already on it...and then some: List of U.S. states' largest cities by population Coulraphobic123 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good. Then there's no reason to keep it here. Kennethaw88 • talk 04:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ - or at least underway - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Finished! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014
Due to the overall size and overall population/residency of Kansas City, MO, I feel that saying Kansas City, KS is a wrong statement and should be changed to Kansas City, MO.

198.1.3.229 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS are two separate municipalities so the list is correct. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

huh?
Isnt honolulu a city within the United States? I do not see that on this list... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.164.83 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's #54. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reno, Nevada is not growing
The Population Growth is not right.

USFan237 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014
Bsutto04 (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  11:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014
Macon, Georgia consolidated with Bibb county 01/01/2012 and now the city has a population of 155,547 and a land area of 255sq. mi 69MadDog69 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014
Please Change Macon, Georgia to the 158th Largest City in the United States due to its Consolidation with Bibb County. Please see below from other Wikipedia Articles that have corrections but need to be corrected on a National level. This would put it just before Springfield, Mass on a national level. Thanks

Macon /ˈmeɪkən/ is a city located in central Georgia, United States. Founded at the fall line of the Ocmulgee River, it is part of the Macon metropolitan area, and is the county seat of Bibb County. Macon is also the largest city in the Macon-Warner Robins CSA. It lies near the geographic center of Georgia, approximately 85 miles (137 km) south of Atlanta, hence the city's nickname as the Heart of Georgia. After voters approved the consolidation of Macon and Bibb County in 2012, Macon became Georgia's fourth-largest city (just after Augusta), with a population of 155,369 based on 2010 Census figures for Bibb County.[3]

199.168.151.163 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

San Francisco density
San Francisco's listed "2013 population density" is mathematically incorrect--it should read 17,855 persons per square mile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7B80:125:30AE:EB0F:B93C:B8E3 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Taken literally...
...the "Land area" and "location" columns contradict, because the location column reveals an exact location whose area is zero. Please fix this. Georgia guy (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most geographic articles have coordinates; having a non-zero area does not preclude the use of location coordinates. I haven't bothered checking the coordinates individually, but I would guess these point to somewhere close to the center of the cities. kennethaw88 • talk 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Santa Clarita, CA
The population for Santa Clarita, California is wrong, simply because the city has added approximately 30,000 residents during the past three years.

http://www.santa-clarita.com/index.aspx?recordid=1030&page=133 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5E22:2C19:AD77:9B74:38A0:7D18 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This article (and most others) uses the US Census Bureau as the source for populations. According to the July 1, 2013 estimates (here), the population was 179,590. In order to keep the table consistent, that is what should be used. In some cases, the Census Bureau doesn't keep up with these changes fast enough. But until a new estimate is released, or the city successfully challenges the estimates, we have to use the lower figure. kennethaw88 • talk 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 population estimate
I found the 2014 estimate for states, but not city estimates. Can anyone else find it? APK whisper in my ear  13:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the city estimates will be published until March 2015 or so. Indyguy (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahh, ok. Thanks. APK  whisper in my ear  16:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015
The population density statistics appear to be wrong. It say 2013 pop density, but the figures don't match the 2013 pop estimates / 2013 land estimates.

208.253.23.130 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015
The citation for: The city population density as of July 1, 2013 (residents per unit of land area)[4] is not supported by the referenced link: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/gazetteer2013.html

Please change the reference to number 4 to

The link specifically states: Notes:

All national files are in compressed format. Files are tab-delimited text, one line per record unless other noted. Population and housing unit counts are not included in these files.

The link dose not appear to include the cited population density stats. It is unclear where the population density figures are coming from. Additionally, since the pop density figures are "residents per unit of land area" as of July 1, 2013, the figures should roughly equal the July 1, 2013 census pop estimates divided by the cited land area figures. However, they do not. For example, NYC is listed as having a July 1, 2013 pop of 8,405,837 and a land estimate of 302.6 sq miles. This would indicate a density of 27,778.71 people per sq miles. Yet, the table cites a density of 27,012 people per sq mile. This is very close to the 2010 census pop estimate of 8,175,133 / 302.6 sq miles = 27,016.30205 people per sq miles.

73.39.70.2 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just done some investigating, and it seems the density is exactly the "2010 Census" divided by the "2013 land area". Eg in the second row, 3,792,621 / 468.7 = 8091.78 Stickee (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Shortening list to cities >150,000
Currently the list includes all cities of 100,000 and greater. To shorten the list, how about only include cities that have, say 150,000 or greater? This would immediately shorten the list by half, leaving roughly the 165 largest US cities. It's currently very long, naturally will continue to get longer. Reducing the list to cities >150,000 also makes it easier to maintain as population updates come along. Thoughts? --Comayagua99 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, consider listing only the 100 (or 200) largest U.S. cities. That is a less roundabout way of limiting the list's length.  But I'm not convinced the length is a problem.  Is it?—Stepheng3 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Census Bureau uses 100,000 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projections--states_metropolitan_areas_cities.html) - since this list mirrors Census data, it makes sense to frame/scope the data in the same way. Watkinsian (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015
The location for College Station, Texas is incorrect (it appears it was copied from the previous entry). According to the page for College Station, the correct coordinate are 30.6013N, 96.3144W.

Narced133 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015
The table of cities by population size is outdated. There is no need to estimate 2013's population size since this data is now accessible to the public. Using up to data data changes the rankings.

63.111.50.30 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If you can provide the source of that data I'll be happy to add it. Leave a message here.  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pre RFC Question - eliminating columns from existing table
Hello all. I'm also letting the US City project know about this, so hopefully we'll come up with a nice, not too-time consuming, consensus.

I just finished updating the pop numbers in both the US and Puerto Rico tables. Took me hours (maybe I'm doing it wrong, but can't think of a quicker way). After doing that, another diligent editor, noticed that the areas of many of the cities are also incorrect. In addition, since the population #'s have changed, EVERY density # is now incorrect. I propose we delete both the area and density columns. On a table of this length, when you have to manually go in and make the changes, that is incredibly time consuming. Just my updating the population figures took over 4 hours last night. If there was a way to auto update the density that would be a different matter, but I don't know of one. If there is a way to make the density auto, please show me. But even then, we still have to go in and make the land area #'s correct manually. Rather than being bold in this instance and deleting the columns, I thought it more prudent to open a discussion. Suggestions? Onel5969 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for updating all the population data. Much appreciated. However, I don't think the columns should be removed. There has to be an easier way to auto-calculate the densities based on the land areas (which, while I'm sure there are some errors in land area, it's not something that constantly changes). Any help from other editors on how to solve this problem is much appreciated. In the meantime, however, I recommend changing the headers to 2010 land area and density, which is what they appear to be. Best, epicAdam(talk) 10:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015
In the CDP section, "Arlington, Virginia" has an area of 25.98 sq mi/3085 km2, while its article has 26 sq mi (67 km2). Should there be an automatic conversion or what? 85.217.20.204 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015
Austin is now larger than San Jose, and Phoenix is larger than Philadelphia.

Sametheon (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cities formerly over 1,000,000 people
Hi. An editor has expressed displeasure over the inclusion of a table for cities which have previously been over the 1,000,000 mark, but have since dropped below that threshold. The main rationale seems to be that since there is only one, it is unnecessary. My position is that the fact that there is a single instance makes it even more noteworthy. I put it in a table to conform to the rest of the article. Thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 02:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree...I think it's unnecessary to have its own separate section since it's just one instance. If anything, we should include it as a subsection under "Cities formerly over 100,000 people."  Thoughts?  216.249.220.104 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Detroit needs a table all to itself, and it's unlikely any others would be added anytime soon. The page is already large enough with several large tables, anyway (and a lot of pictures, too). kennethaw88 • talk 04:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed Graphic
I deleted this graphic:

Image:United States cities over 500,000 population.jpg

since it had numbers that didn't match the actual table - namely, it overstated Columbus' population by over 200,000 people. Dtcomposer (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Wow! That's quite an overstatement, isn't it? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Census-designated places
Columbia, Maryland has 103, 683. Should it be added to the section mentioned above? --ACase0000 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

City names in Bold
Why are some cities names in Bold? 69.126.106.149 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well, as it says in the intro to the table, that would mean it was either a state or federal capital. Take it easy.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Guess I missed it than. Thanks for reply.69.126.106.149 (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Should San Juan, PR be on this list?
Since it is a US city, and has a population of 395,326, it should be ranked at 47. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.82 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The five cities in Puerto Rico are listed in a separate section of the article. Puerto Rico is neither a state nor a territory of the U.S., so it is treated differently. Indyguy (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico *is* a territory of the U.S., and this is stated in the opening sentence of its Wikipedia article. The data in this article is sourced exclusively from the U.S. Census Bureau, which for whatever reason chooses to exclude Puerto Rican cities from its countrywide rankings. Since the article’s data conforms to the Census Bureau, so does its methodology of presenting Puerto Rico statistics separately. Trorov (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 estimates
When will it be time to update the article to use 2015 estimates rather than 2014 estimates?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As soon as someone takes the time to do it. Are the estimates in for all cities?  Onel 5969  TT me 22:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's usually updated around May or June. So we should wait for 2015 estimates in May or June. Roif456 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Census Bureau website says the estimates will be released in May:   Coulraphobic123 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016
There is a typo in the first reference (See text:Census treatment of the New England town system). I believe underscores are needed to access a heading within a page. So the text:

Should change to:

MaynardHC (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

MaynardHC (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Can't reproduce the issue. The current wording gets me to the heading just fine --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Honolulu and Anchorage are missing
Looks like you've left out state the 49th and 50th states. Honolulu is huge - nearly a million people, and Anchorage is over 300,0000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.67.193 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Honolulu and Anchorage are on this list and always have been. Honolulu is #55 and Anchorage is #64.  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The picture for Los Angeles is actually Denver
The picture is wrong! Verdeyen (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. APK whisper in my ear  11:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I saw the same photo used somewhere else as Denver. Gosh, LA is pretty. Verdeyen (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Honolulu's population
How come Honolulu's population in the 2010 US Census is listed here as 337,256, yet on the wikipage "Honolulu" it is listed as 390,738 in the 2010 US Census? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haihe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi - the info on the Honolulu page referred to the CDC, not the city proper, which this page refers to. I've amended the city article to reflect the actual city population. Onel 5969  TT me 00:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Smaller population
Could there be a list for cities with populations smaller than 100,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C416:4D80:E8BF:D0E7:E58A:9861 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be an extremely long list and I don't see a need for it. APK whisper in my ear  18:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Update time
The latest estimates are out. Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Being bold with bold!
I was checking out the article at List of United States cities by population density and there is a cool feature where a city name is emboldened if it not within the MSA of a larger city. For example, NYC is bold, but Newark and Jersey City (and countless other cities) are not bold. I thought it would be nice to implement this here. I did all the work by hand, so it's possible there's an error, but everything has been triple-checked. In order to make this work, I had to move the emboldened state capital feature over to the State column. Hope that's okay. — atchius (msg) 13:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the input, but the article states that cities that are in bold are state capitals and italicized cities are the largest in their state. I will have to revert the edits.  I think this just causes too much confusion as to why so many cities are bolded and since this is about cities proper by population and not about metropolitan area, then it's just not necessary for this article.  Maybe you could try something on the metropolitan list? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * of course, I changed the text in the article as well, so there would be no confusion except for those who visit the article frequently. See below though. (Atchius, not logged in) 74.83.85.175 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I must second the reversion back to the old format. Whenever main entries are to be distinguished by special typography (boldface or italics), these entries must be the exception -- not the rule -- in a ranking table. Otherwise, the format is busy and counterproductive. The original format is already overbaked in my opinion (for ex., why not use a simple asterisk to highlight state capitals?). Adding yet more extensive boldfacing so that it completely dominates the list is unhelpful. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The bold was the exception, not the rule—but that was certainly hard to see from the beginning of the list, since of course the top several cities by population are also the top cities by population within their respective MSAs. When I've been using this article lately, it's been for a project related to population density, so I've been routinely sorting the list by that column (at which point the changes I made were very helpful). Is there another way that I could present the information within this list that isn't so intrusive as boldfacing? (Atchius, not logged in) 74.83.85.175 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Out of the first 300 city entries in your version, I counted more than half with boldfacing -- thus, only 145 are in lightface, when lightface is always the default format in any ranking table. When special typography or symbols (i.e., boldface and asterisks) approach 50% of the chart's main entries, already that's typographic overload; your edit exceeded that. I think Coolrophobic's revert is logical. If you wish to revise a long-standing WP chart in this kind of detail, you really should take it first to the Talk Page and get consensus. I don't think we're there yet. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anybody else besides the two of you follow this talk page? What's the best way to solicit the opinions of others? I do think it would be a helpful feature to add to the list, albeit not using boldface. — atchius (msg) 11:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I follow this page and I agree with Coolrophobic and Mason.Jones. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I just believe that any formatting or editing that has to do with a city and its metropolitan area should be done specifically on the List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas page and not on this one since this is solely for city proper. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with the others that this bolding is more distracting than it is informative. (How helpful is it to know that a city isn't the core of an MSA if you don't even tell the reader which MSA it's in?) Cities and metropolitan areas of the United States, while far from perfect, presents this information more effectively and comprehensively. Cobblet (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's insane. Also my new favorite article, thanks for the heads up. And sorry, everybody, for bothering you with my friendship!! ;-) (Atchius, not logged in) 72.49.28.44 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

2014 Estimates
The 2014 Census Estimates came out, and since I'm not "allowed to edit", let alone do I have the time, I'd like to see the estimates put in the chart as soon as possible so I can also update the Wikivoyage article. Not saying what to do, but it is a suggestion. Thank you. DAZ14LPA (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The United States Census Bureau has issued estimates of July 1, 2014 population for states, counties, and metro areas, but I haven't yet seen new USCB estimates for cities or towns yet. Can you point me to the new estimates for cities?—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/index.html Dtcomposer (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Okay, I'll attempt to update the population estimates in the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I updated the table, but of course, the stupid census bureau link does not bring up the correct table.  Will correct tomorrow when I can put some time into it. Onel5969 (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Onel5969. I've corrected the source link. I notice you didn't update any of the population densities.  Is that something you could do easily?—Stepheng3 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, many of the land area statistics are out-of-date. I've done spot checks and made a couple adjustments, but the column should either be updated or eliminated.—Stepheng3 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - I propose we delete both the area and density columns. On a table of this length, when you have to manually go in and make the changes, that is incredibly time consuming.  Just my updating the population figures took over 4 hours last night. If there was a way to auto update the density that would be a different matter, but I don't know of one.  I'm going to open a new section, and list it at US Cities, and see what we can come up with.Onel5969 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A special-purpose template could be created, I suppose. I'm fine with eliminating both columns for now.—Stepheng3 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Edison and Woodbridge were removed from the list. Even though they are incorporated as townships and are not included in the list that is released by the Census Bureau annually, they are still treated on equal footing at the municipal level as other cities in New Jersey.  I think we should include these two.  216.249.220.104 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If Edison and Woodbridge are going to be included as they are, then the cite needs to be updated with wherever the population figures are coming from. Right now, the footnote takes you to the Census Bureau numbers, which, as noted, do not include them.  Frankly, because the Census Bureau do not include them, I wouldn't include them in the displayed list myself. dnrothx (talk) 15:55, 20 Dec 2016 00:19 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.87 (talk)

Washington, DC Population Density is Incorrect
According to the Washington, DC wikipedia page, the population density is 11,011/sq mi (2015 estimate). This page lists an outdated figure. Overall population numbers appear correct and the density number can be verified by dividing the listed population by the land area. It does not appear I have an ability to edit the page but if someone could make the correct it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.199.34 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually none of the population densities have been updated for 2015. Those who are willing to do this might find Template:Pop density helpful – it obviates the need to manually calculate each figure. Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Updating the density is not just a matter of dividing the 2015 population estimate by the listed city area. We would also have to determine what each city's area is as of 2015. While some cities are surrounded by other municipalities so that their areas do not change from year to year, others are still annexing areas. I suspect that is why the density column in the table is as of 2010. Indyguy (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Top-ranked cities by population
Shouldn't we update this gallery, because there is new information? And include either 30, 45, or 60 cities. It doesn't look nice with 50, in columns of two. Thanks! 24.246.89.125 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC) (New Edits)


 * The population figures are up to date and I don't understand the last part. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  16:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. The gallery below the list is not up to date, if I'm seeing it correctly. In addition, it includes fifty cities, which makes it look weird, asymmetrical, and out of proportion. Thanks! 24.246.89.125 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I updated the gallery. I'll let others chime in if they think the columns should be changed. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

2015 densities
The majority of the cities have solid growth, and many have very strong growth, so the 2010 densities are a little misleading since basically this list and almost every city has been updated to 2015 numbers in the infobox and population chart/table. Or is the problem just that the table gets too wide? It fits on my screen and I have my js/settings adjusted to blow up the text. B137 (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Indyguy's comment two threads up. Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cities on the Map
First of all, kudos to whomever made the map--they have talents greater than mine. But I have a request. The placement of the cities' names is not great. The label for Philadelphia looks like it's referring to Chicago. San Diego and New York are almost as confusing. I think that the number and name should extend to the right of the dot for the city, not to the left. Un sch  ool  20:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The map is defined at Template:United States Cities Labeled Map. I have moved around some of the labels to unclutter it a bit. New York and Philadelphia can't move all the way to the right, since they run into the edge of the image. I hope it looks a bit better. kennethaw88 • talk 02:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States cities by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100320084325/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218204847/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington D.C., District of Columbia
The fact that "District of Columbia" is listed as Washington D.C.'s state is misleading, as D.C. has no state. This should be removed and inserted into the city name column, along with D.C., or removed, and the state column should be blank. That's my opinion. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nashville/Memphis 2017 Population Estimate
New census estimates show that Nashville has now passed Memphis as the 24th largest city in the country. How can this new data be added in when there's no 2017 column? ToxicOJ (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Census counts that were released today are as of July 1, 2016. I am in the process of updating the page.  It will take a little while.  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017
1. new census data is out can you update to 2016, the source is the same, 3 on the references. 2. can you add a new column for current density so you can quickly compare the change between 2010 density and the newest density (2016)

Thanks for the consideration. IanScott1337 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Updated. But someone will have to update the map at the top of the page to switch around the rankings of Phoenix and Philly. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Template:United States Cities Labeled Map has been updated. kennethaw88 • talk 21:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: as noted above. Please provide the density calculations if you wish to include them. (is there a 2016 land area figure?) – Train2104 (t • c) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017
Population density of Seattle is 8398 per sq mi. Your listing of this stat is currently wrong. 2601:602:8703:4A14:F02D:1955:27DC:86A7 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The population density in the table is for 2010, not the current population. RudolfRed (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding color?
Hello all. Since the table on this page contains a lot of information and is rather drab aesthetically, I was trying to think of a way to add a little color to it. I thought about maybe shading some of the cities based on whether they are the capital, the largest city, or both. We already use bold to signify capitals and italics to signify largest cities, but I thought that some color would spruce it up a bit. Below is a segment of the table to show what it would look like (with a separate format for Washington, DC since it's the national capital). The colors would cause the top of the list to be a little top heavy with colors becoming sparser as one moves down the list...but I thought it might look kind of neat. I'm not sure it's typical Wikipedia convention to add color for the sake of aesthetics, but any input or opinions would be nice. Thanks! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I like it. But if color coding is used, then there would be absolutely no need for bolding or italics because it would redundant to what the colors are already indicating. Keep in mind, though, that there are a lot of very power-hungry and condescending editors who will find all types of reasons to sabotage your great idea. By the way, the proper term for Washington is federal capital, not national. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Color is useful, but the bolding and italics would still be needed for accessibility to those who are colorblind. Indyguy (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't it true that there usually needs to be a symbol next to something bolded or italicized as well like an asterisk or something for the blind? (In the event that a wikipedia page is printed off, they'd be able to determine that the preceding text is "special" in some way).  For the color scheme, I was trying to think of a red, white, and blue type theme were the largest cities are red, the state capitals are blue, those that are both the capital and largest city are purple (red and blue combined), and then maybe Washington, DC is yellow.  But I did some experimenting and I think the red, blue, and violet are too blah.  Thoughts?  Oh, and I'll change National Capital to Federal Capital when the edit goes into effect, thanks for pointing that out! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Indyguy, thanks for mentioning the accessibility issue. I had meant to ask about that, but forgot. Can you provide a wikilink to the guideline about it? Coulraphobic, you're welcome. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Indyguy (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I should've figured that out myself. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

template
There are links to this page of the form: 183rd-largest city (that is: 183rd-largest city ) which, I suspect, are almost always out of date. Other than that I don't know how to do it, this would seem ripe for a template. That way, when the list was updated, so would the appropriate links. (On the current list, Pasadena is 185th.) Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Change to top ### cities
With natural population increase, it's inevitable that the population criteria for this list will have to be bumped up so it doesn't get too long. Why don't we just change the list to the top 150 or so cities so that it won't have to continuously be trimmed? Kobra98 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a fan of that idea just because I find the stats interesting and I'm sure a lot of readers do as well. But open to other opinions.  APK  whisper in my ear  05:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't get what you mean. Why would changing the list to only including a certain number of cities rather than cities above a certain population make the statistics less interesting? The number doesn't have to be 150, it can be 200 or 300. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because I think it's a bad design to have to continually trim the list as the number gets to be too large. Kobra98 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

2017 Estimates
The 2017 annual estimates should be released by the Census Bureau here within a few days (I would anticipate) as they are scheduled for May 2018. I have a document on my desktop of the main table on this page in preparation for making the editions. I've also included color as discussed in one of the threads above. Hopefully the new updates will be posted on here the day that they are released! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Bug: Cannot Sort by Population Density.
The sort arrow on the 2010 Population Density column heading does not sort in any meaningful way. Appears to order the cities randomly. - 67.0.219.37 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Census-designated places
Two questions about the "Census-designated places" section

1) Shouldn't Honolulu, Hawaii technically be in this section? The population and linked article are both that of the census-designated place, not the City and County of Honolulu.

2) The population of The Woodlands, Texas was not over 100,000 (the minimum population for inclusion in this article) during the 2010 census. However, according to it's page, it's current population is estimated to be over that threshold. Should it be added to the "Census-designated places" section in the same way that Kenosha, Wisconsin is included in the "Cities formerly over 100,000 people" section? ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

ERROR
It states that Wisconsin is one of the five states with no city above 100,000 people, but Milwaukee is said to have 500,000 people living there. Wikiawizard (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you misread the sentence. It says "Wyoming", not "Wisconsin", and I don't see any edits in the history where it had been changed recently. Indyguy (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

location
What do the latitude and longitude refer to? They seem to be over precise for a city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.59.203 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I know most are taken from the U.S. Gazetteer, which is published by the U.S. Census. Although I have updated at least one city to match the geotag on the cities wiki page. Over precise? My thought is that the more precision the better. If city has a historic center, square, or place of obvious cultural importance then it should be used. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We are suppose to get coords from Geographic Names Information System (GNS) database. Search here https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0::::: If there is more than one entry for a city, choose the "Populated Place" entry. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Sbmeirow, as the resident WikiProject Cities expert, is that the recommended coor source for city pages? The source currently used on this list is the 2016 |U.S. Gazetteer. I have no idea if the two differ, it wouldn’t suprise me if the Gazetteer’s source was the GNIS. This page is in need of an update, I’d support using the GNIS as the location source if/when that happens. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple bots have updated city articles, so I'm not sure the exact database they pulled their info. In the distant past, too long ago for me to remember, I might have asked this question, or maybe I read it in a discussion, or maybe User:Nyttend told me to use GNIS.  Anyway, if I create a new community article (unincorp or ghost town), or fix vandalism, or validate coords, I always get coords from GNIS, and it's what I recommend to other editors.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 20:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2600:1017:B815:CCBE:15B8:6F4B:A25:59C7 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sets of coordinates in this article, and it's unlikely that anyone is going to take the time to check each one. Please give us some idea of where you noticed an error. Deor (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After two days with no response, I'm closing this report. Deor (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of United States cities should include Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska is the northernmost city in the U.S. (yep, Alaska is part of the USA) with a population of 100,000 or more and the most populous city in the state with an estimated 2014 population of 304,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlowthster (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Anchorage is already shown as number 68 on the list. Indyguy (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Minus signs versus hyphens
It seems as if some people who edit things like this fail to notice that a minus sign looks very different from a hyphen.

\begin{align} a\text{-}b & & & \longleftarrow \text{ hyphen} \\ a-b & & & \longleftarrow \text{ minus sign as a binary operator} \\ {-b} & & & \longleftarrow \text{ minus sign minus sign as a unary operator} \end{align} $$ Observe that
 * a minus sign is much longer; and
 * the space to the left and right of a minus sign when it is used as a binary operator, referring to subtraction, are much larger than those with a hyphen; and
 * the space to its right when it is a unary operator, referring to a negative number, is smaller.

I changed the many many hyphens in this article that were used as in the third bullet point above to proper minus signs. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

New Haven
The coordinates for new Haven should be 41.3108°N 72.9250°W, not a quad at Yale. Let's not play games.

New York
The coordinates for New York should be 40.6635°N 73.9387°W, not some place in Brooklyn. More silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:A544:20DD:A158:2420 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles
The location for Los Angeles should be 34.054099 N 118.243385 W, not somebody's apartment in west Culver City.

I bet all these coordinates are bogus.

I'd start correcting them, but this is not an editable page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:A544:20DD:A158:2420 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Chicago
The location for Chicago should probably be 41.884244 N 87.632344W, not a location in the McKinley Park Neighborhood.

All of these are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:A544:20DD:A158:2420 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Houston
The coordinates of Houstion should probably be 29.760079N 95.370106W, current coordinates are a couple miles off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:A544:20DD:A158:2420 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sugar Land population
Sugar Land TX 2018 estimate of population is 118,600. According to https://www.biggestuscities.com/, Sugar Land 2017 population is 88,485. That's a fairly huge discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.112.82 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The 118,600 figure for a July 1, 2018, estimate comes from this table from the U.S. Census Bureau (see rank #238). Deor (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * biggestuscities.com is NOT an official source for any census counts or estimates. For USA, the official source for Wikipedia articles is the U.S. Census Bureau.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco
The coordinates of San Francisco should be 37.7749N 122.4194W, the current coordinates are off the coast in the Pacific.

Anchorage
The coordinates of Anchorage should be 61.2181N 149.9003W, the current coordinates are a few miles inland.

Macon
Macon needs to be corrected. the information is very misleading. Macon did not have a population change of 60%, it had a governmental merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.115.134 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's really no different than a city annexing a large amount of land. Other consolidated city-counties likewise saw large percent increases due to their consolidations. We go by what the Census Bureau says. Indyguy (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

list vs. Top 50 map
List shows Tampa at #49, Wichita at #51. Map shows Wichita, doesn't show Tampa.
 * Good catch; I didn't even know that map was there (there's so much going on in this article). I have updated the map at Template:United States Cities Labeled Map Large. kennethaw88 • talk 04:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Formulae for means, etc?
It is not clear how "The mean density is 4,128.21 inhabitants per square mile (1,593.91/km2)." is arrived at. Is it sum of city densities divided by number of cities? Is it sum of population of cities divide by sum of area of all cities? Please clarify this number, and other summarizing statistics. Ihearthonduras (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Kenosha and Edison
According to the formerly-100000 list, Kenosha and Edison reached their peak populations in 2018 and have 2018 populations under 100,000. How is this possible? It sounds like Kenosha had 2018 populations of both 99,944 and 100,164, and Edison had 2018 populations of both 99,758 and 100,693. "2018 estimated population", the header title, and "July 1, 2018 US Census Bureau estimate", in the notes, should be the same, shouldn't they? Nyttend backup (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm usually the one that goes through the table and updates the populations for the cities when the new annual estimates are released, and those were the counts in the 2018 estimates the Census Bureau gave at that time. However, every year when the Census Bureau releases their annual population estimates, they tend to "tweak" the previous years estimates as well.  So at the time the 2018 estimates were released and the table contained the 2018 estimates, Kenosha and Edison both had populations over 100,000 according to the estimates at that time.  However this year when the 2019 estimates were released, the Census Bureau may have revised the 2018 estimates for those two cities as well as being less than 100,000 (as they probably did for most all other cities).  Hope this answers your question!  Coulraphobic123 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)