Talk:List of states and territories of the United 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)

GA?
I've just completed a series of edits to make this list a bit more engaging by adding flags and images. I'm wondering if it would qualify for good article status. I don't think it would make it as a featured list just yet, see List of U.S. states and territories by population for a similar list that has attained that designation. If someone who knows the subject could clarify the methodology used by the census in making it's determinations of density it would go a long way. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Buggy table
The table's 'sort by' buttons don't appear to actually work when you try to sort by population density. It seems to kind-of partially sort the list, but I'm not sure what it's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that. I think it has to deal with Template:Convert not rending the numbers in a way that can be sorted. The surefire way to fix the problem is to put the density by square mile and square kilometer into separate columns and then use Template:NTS to autoformat the numbers, but I'll wait to see if other editors have a better suggestion. -epicAdam(talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When is wikipedia going to fix their comparison algorithm for sorting tables? In this day and time there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this should be a problem. There exists algorithms that will compare properly so that the table sorts correctly REGARDLESS even if the field includes both text and numbers and properly sorting capitalization. I.E. the following list :
 * (alpha1, beta10, beta2, alpha10, beta02, alpha1b, beta207, Alpha1, alpha1a)
 * will be properly sorted as
 * (Alpha1, alpha1, alpha1a, alpha1b, alpha10, beta02, beta2, beta10, beta207).
 * GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS!!! This isn't a recent development either, its been around since the last century. --71.214.222.191 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alaska
The average of 88 is seriously scewed by Alaska is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.192.100 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I see from the archive that it would be well over 100 now if Alaska isn't included. Shouldn't this be in the article. Also in general if you take out tundra, desert and mountains this is in fact a crowded country. The comparisons to Germany and South Korea look pretty silly when you look at actual arable land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.192.100 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're correct that Alaska skews the average, I don't believe that we can arbitrarily remove tundra, mountains, etc. because these areas are still settled, if not arable. --107.20.220.39 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps need updating
To use 2010 census data. Contributor tom (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only maps need updating. Doesnt't anyone notice at least Rhode Island and New Jersey are missing from the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.185.111 (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also spotted an error in the top map it labels Orange County, New York as having a population density > 3,000 mi^2 whilst the actual article gives a much smaller figure. I assume they mixed Orange County, NY with Orange County, CA. 31.50.36.137 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed - it looks as if several Orange Counties anre mixed up with Orange County, CA - those in Indiana and Vermont have densities of 50 and 42, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rskurat (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The first map here is garbage - some random county in Tennessee has a higher population density than Miami-Dade County, FL? Removing until an accurate map is uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.243.55 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The map doesn't jive with the table. It looks like Wisconsin is in the 100-200 group in the map, but it's one of the lowest densities! It should either be fixed, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.224.106 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The map of states scaled proportional to population density has a mistake: I think Colorado and Wyoming have been reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacushman (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Table units
Is it my impression or the unit labels (sqmi and sqkm) of the table are inverted? Since a mile is larger than a km (1 mile = 1.609 km), I would expect the density in square miles to be smaller than the density in square km by a factor 1.609^2. Or there is something I don't understand?

I will change them. If it is wrong, please go back to the previous version. Alepr85 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This change is incorrect. Because square miles are bigger than square kilometers, more people fit into square miles than square kilometers for an area of a certain density. Therefore, the people per square miles values must be larger than the people per square kilometer values, by a factor of about 2.59. Burkenyo (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Clutter of excess information
Call me a curmudgeon, but I really hate the way these tables insert the regional results when you sort. I would really rather have a table that just showed the states, period. Yes, I see that the states' "state rankings" are available, but wanting to cut and paste this for my students, it's really annoying. I feel bad complaining, because I know that it was done with the best of intentions, with the desire to maximize information. But it makes for a less-clean look. 75.173.41.69 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of U.S. states by population density. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101229080554/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/tab-sorting_population.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/tab-sorting_population.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Conversions
The km² values in the first two tables are incorrect. Because a square kilometer is smaller than a square mile, the number of people per square kilometer must be lower than the number of people per square mile. Burkenyo (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. Burkenyo (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of the last table?
Isn't it totally duplicate of 2nd table, albeit less information? The difference I can see is the sort method, but you can sort by whatever order you like in 2nd table anyway. --fireattack (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of U.S. states by population density. 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/20111028061117/http://2010.census.gov:80/2010census/data/apportionment-dens-text.php to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-dens-text.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Numbers need updating
So it says that North Carolina's population is around 8.4M, while Virginia's is around 10M. Those are totally wrong, unless I'm misreading them?

Watchreader (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tables Values Messed Up, Cleanup Request
The values in density (pop / mi^2) are population multiplied by water area, not the stated value. Values for density in pop / km^2 are missing, and all the values further to the right are thus shifted to the left by a column. As a result, the rightmost column is also empty. Ratburntro44 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. states by population density. 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/20151223235718/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/tables/NST-EST2015-01.csv to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/tables/NST-EST2015-01.csv
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-dens-text.php

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) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Square Miles.
Found 3 states where square miles given here differ from their related Wiki articles. Between The main Arizona article and here, AZ. lost 396 SM., while New Mexico lost 291 here from it's main, and of the 3 Ohio lost the most, suffering a loss of 3964 SM. I haven't checked any other states or attempeted any edits. Ideas ? Jonel469 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Link showing below is not mine, don't know how I got it on here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonel469 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Montana and Wyoming
When sorting by scientific measurement (km2) it will rank Montana as being less populated than Wyoming because it sorts alphabetically. It's fine when using the ancient colonial measurement system. I don't know how to fix this. Isn't it time to adjust all tables to the 21th century? Bijdenhandje (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)