Talk:List of municipalities in Michigan

Updated city rankings by the 2020 census
1: Detroit (639,111) 2: Grand Rapids (198,917) 3: Ann Arbor (123,851) 4: Lansing (112,644) 5: Dearborn (109,976) 6: Troy (87,294) 7: Flint (81,252) 8: Kalamazoo (73,598)

Cities like Warren, Sterling Heights, Livonia, Farmington Hills, etc. are not counted, since they're basically bedroom communities. The first 2 weren't even listed in the largest, anyways.

WeaponizingArchitecture (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the 2000 census column should go and we should add the 2020 data. But it's such a large task. The images must at least match the current table. We can change around the images once the table matches the 2020 census. Mattximus (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a debate on 2000 data. I've seen other pages like this where they list three decades. I'd not be opposed to keeping 2000 data and simply adding the 2020 column. Anyway, yeah, this is quite a task and I've never done it before and wouldn't even know where to begin. If someone has an idea of where to start and how to input the data into the chart without having to tediously go jurisdiction by jurisdiction, I may make an attempt at it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is already *way* too large to keep 3 columns of populations. All featured lists of American municipalities just show the current and previous census. Strongly oppose keeping three columns for accessibility reasons. Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that: (1) the image-caption rankings should be current (2020 Census); (2) the image-caption rankings should match the table below; and (3) updating that table to 2020 is a lot of work that I am also unable to do. I have proposed an intermediate short-term fix in my latest edit, making the gallery caption explicit that the rankings are from the 2020 Census (and citing a secondary source that includes that ranking). While it's not perfect, it at least should help clarify for the next person who, like me, noticed the mismatch between the captions and the table but did not immediately notice the table was not current. Hopefully someone can update the table soon, though. --EightYearBreak (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Kathryn Jones
Keep it in 2600:1004:B20A:2E5E:7044:47FE:3959:98A2 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Table far too large
Thanks for beginning to update this table which was quite out of date! We do need to remove the duplicated 2010 column as well as the far out of date 2000 column along with the second percent change column (from 2010-2000 is out of date, all we need is the 2010-2020). The table is already enormous so these three columns have to go. Mattximus (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose this. Change between three censuses is not a completely unheard of way of organizing populations tables on Wiki, and I think the info is worthwhile and not cumbersome. My only change would be, perhaps, the order of the table. I'd list 2000, 2010 & 2020 populations right next to one another and then the 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 columns next to each other, and perhaps make clear land area and density numbers are from the most recent Census. But other than that, I'd oppose taking any columns out of the table. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The table is a complete mess right now, including 2 columns for 2010 population... the sheer size of this table may run afoul of accessibility issues. There are no featured list of populations of municipalities that include 3 censuses over 20 years (!). Mattximus (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, take out the duplicate column. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Criticalthinker (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to revert to a complete and well formatted (if outdated) list, than remove the one duplicate column and have a completely broken list with mostly blank spaces? I would support that. Mattximus (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I oppose this and the original proposal. I support removing the superfluous 2010 column (the uncompleted one). Criticalthinker (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like this may have to be a reversion, otherwise, removal would be tedious. Anyway, we need more opinions than just Mattximus' and my own about how to improve the table. I've already made my opinion known on this: Keep three census'-worth of population data; I'm willing to negotiate the rest such as only including a pop. change column for 2010-2020. If consensus is found on just inclyding 2010 and 2020 population data, well, it will be what it will be. But I oppose going back to that. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not just copy the format of the dozens of featured list of municipalities? I don't see why Michigan should be different than all the others. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it was agreed to revert. This new table is broken and only has a few 2020 data points. The old one is complete, but outdated. Didn't we agree above that it was preferable to have a complete and correct table, than a broken and mostly empty table? Mattximus (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We agreed to a reversion. We did not agree to a reversion that'd remove 2020 data. I'm not sure what you're talking about it having a "few" 2020 data points; it has 2020 population data for nearly every municipality in the state save for some "A" and "B"-named cities, villages and townships. Removing that data is non-negotiable on my end. If you're like to bring this dispute to a larger audience, that'd definitely be something I'd like to see done. Criticalthinker (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I started adding cells with zeroes for the 2020 census column and the new 2010 census column. It was going fine until some point past Portage, when it appears that I have hit some sort of maximum number of cells. The more cells I enter, the more cells at the end have error messages. The first error is a safesubst error. Not being knowledgeable in any way about how to fix this, I suggest we take Mattximus's original advice and get rid of the old population columns (old 2010 and 2000). Unless anyone can think of a better fix... Ken Gallager (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I still feel strongly that there should not be 2 (!) columns for 2010 population and that the 2000 population and 2000-2010 change columns are too old to be relevant here. That would make the table significantly smaller. Mattximus (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd now be supporitve of removing the second one and the 2000-2010. That's as far as a compromise as I'll go. I think the 2000 population column is worthwhile in showing a trend, something you can't do with only two data points. Criticalthinker (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing the second 2010 column and the 2000-2010 column will work. I'll start working on it off-line. Ken Gallager (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Columns removed; 2010 values are now in the new 2010 column. 2020 populations still need to be added. --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

2020 census data for townships and CDPs
I think every individual city and village article has been updated with 2020 census data, as far as population and area statistics. However, I can't seem to find the conclusive source that lists the same information for townships and CDPs. I am casually going through township and CDP articles and trying to update this information, but I am concerned that some census data may be inaccurate. I recently updated the list of census-designated places in Michigan article for the 2020 census, but some of the information may be inaccurate.

I often use this 2010 census document for population and area statistics for township and CDP information, which seems simple and accurate. There are a ton of mirrored unofficial websites listing population statistics, but I haven't been able to locate the official report for the 2020 census. I recently updated the Arthur Township article and several others with 2020 census information, but I'm confused as to which population statistics are the most reliable before I continue using questionable sources in future edits. For the Arthur Township article, I used 795 as the population for the 2020 census and the same area statistics from the 2010 census. However, here are conflicting Arthur Township population counts:


 * 1) censusreporter.org — population 790
 * 2) michigan.gov — population 676
 * 3) michigantownships.org — population 795

I know cities and most villages have more updated information, but many townships don't seem to have accurate 2020 census data. I just want to know if there is a reliable source for township data before I continue updating articles with potentially unreliable information, especially as other users have also edited township articles with questionable information (included one newer editor who updated some articles with "2021 census" information 🙄). If no accurate and reliable information is available, I will just continue using 2010 census data and remove/revert updated information for the time being when it comes to individual township articles. —Notorious4life (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, the most accurate data would be at the Census Bureau website. There are a whole host of tools and files, there, to find population data: QuickFacts, TIGERweb (for area), census.data.gov, etc. There is no need to deal with third-party sites, honestly. Census.data.gov would probably be the easiest one by which to compile a list of all places and minor-civil divisions (I don't personally have much use for CDPs, but those are there, too). Criticalthinker (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)