Talk:Quad Cities metropolitan area

Population
The population for the Quad Cities Metropolitan Area is listed as exactly the same as the Quad Cities, at 379,690. There must either be more people in the QC Metropolitan Area, or less in the Quad Cities. How can we fix this? Ericaparrott (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Groupings
I'm going to make some changes in the groupings, for the following reasons:
 * First of all, Davenport's official population is less than 100,000.
 * Secondly, the grouping "10,000-30,000" seems really strange to me, and it also has the weird affect of grouping together just two cities, one of which is literally twice the size of the other.

A more intuitive grouping, to me, might be:
 * 0-100
 * 100-1000
 * 1000-10,000
 * 10,000-100,000

But this wouldn't serve the reader very well, I suspect; the grouping should give an impression of magnitude, for lack of a better term. I'm going to do some more thinking about it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just realized, the Davenport grouping is accurate, but it's totally bizarre . . . What's the point of a group 90-120k when the only city in it is 99k? Very odd, and makes me wonder if someone has an agenda. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now corrected the populations, but (with the exception of Silvis) I have not actually checked the US Census figures; I've taken it for granted that the Wikipedia articles on each town have the correct population. That, of course, may not be the case, but it's all I've got the will to do right now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Update
It's starting to appear (from recent edits) that someone has an agenda, but I can't figure out what it is. Anyway, with this edit, I created a grouping that I think was more intuitive to most readers. Why do I think this? Look at my comments above, where I note that the most intuitive grouping might be based on powers of ten. But, I recognize that we also frequently subdivide our groups based on ten into groups based on five. Either one is fine. Of course, it doesn't have to be based on five or ten, you could also have smaller subdivisions. But with this edit the editor does something bizarre. From out of nowhere he quite arbitrarily creates a group with a 30k range (from 90k to 120k), and another group with a 20k range (30k to 50k). Why the difference in ranges? What is so magical about 30k? Maybe a group with a 25k to 50k range would make sense. But then again, in this arrangement, there is no group from 50k to 90k. Why not? Sure, there's no cities with a population in that range, but it looks to me like these ranges were picked intentionally to try to group the cities a certain way, and that is a second-cousin of WP:OR.

As I indicated in my edit summary once before, I didn't care much for the way my groupings turned out--I just don't think Kewanee belongs in the listing with the actual Quad Cities. But too bad--I didn't get to define the QCMA and so I've got to live with how it turned out. If the anon editor has an agenda (as it appears to me he has), he needs to get over it. And this should not be changed now without sincere back-and-forth discussion on this talk page. I have now repeatedly explained my edits, both on this talk page and in my edit summaries, and I expect the same courtesy in return. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Message to the non-communicative anonymous editor
With this edit, you have finally done something that at least approaches a possible compromise. However, I still see two problems with it as you've left it, and so I'm going to revert. I could type out my complete explanation right here, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of your refusal to engage in discussion--you're making me do all the work here. So I'm reverting the current version (not because you're being obstinate, but because it remains unacceptable) and await a discussion with you, here, before we proceed any further. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Official decennial figures or estimates
I've been doing some reading on project pages for the consensus on whether decennial census figures or most recent estimates are to be preferred. (I had thought it would be the former.) Well, my research seems to indicate that there is not a clear consensus on the matter.

Now as far as Davenport's population is concerned, I think Davenport, Iowa does a pretty good job of covering this. The infobox gives the official figure, but the lead section explains the controversy over the decennial figure. Unfortunately, a nuanced approach has escaped us here (in no small measure due to the refusal of other parties to the issue failing to participate in the discussion). So anyway, I do not accept that a consensus exists for listing Davenport at over 100,000; the reasons for this can be found in the city's own Wikipedia article. But I am willing to cooperate, and my next exit will show this. In fact, my next exit will not only be undeniably accurate (something that cannot be said of the article's current layout), it will also correct the unfortunate set of headings which simply seems wrong, because it leaves a blank space in the middle of the classifications.

As always, I am willing to discuss these issues with the anonymous editor(s) who have their own ideas. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)