Template talk:US Census population

This template is awesome.
, thanks for making this. I didn't know MediaWiki allowed templates to do math now. Good stuff. I've added an optional set of paramteers for a census estimate. Hope it is useful. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; it is cool that templates can do math. What I'd like to see, though, instead of percent changes from census to census, is an average annual increase or decrease. For example, an increase of 100% over the decade amounts to an average annual increase of 6.93% (as $$e^{10\times0.0693} = 2$$). It's much easier to comprehend, I think. That aside, to my knowledge there's no way to use the natural logarithm (or any other), which is the only real way to do it. There may be ways to closely approximate ln that I'm not aware of. Does anyone else feel this way? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's done!!
There are no longer any U.S. articles that use Histpop! All articles have been switched to USCensusPop. /Timneu22 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Data tables
Hi, I've noticed that this template presents some accessibility problems. Please see Accessibility and don't hesitate to ask if you have any doubt about this issue. Thanks! &mdash;surue&ntilde;a 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect minus sign
Can someone who understands this template please correct it so that negative percent changes show correctly? They are currently displaying the negative as a hyphen rather than a minus sign (see the difference between hyphens, endashes, emdashes and minus signs at WP:DASH) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This template does math using the wikimedia engine. Nothing can be changed here, the engine needs to be changed.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I added Template:Val to all the percentages, so negative percentages should show with the correct minus sign now. Feel free to yell at me if I screwed something up. —Werson (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm happy to see you use val, but there is one problem with this: if the census was 0 and then increased, the percentage calculation is impossible. I'm not sure what it returns in this case, but val doesn't like it as evidenced in S.N.P.J.,_Pennsylvania. Can you find a way to fix this please?    — SkyLined  (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for identifying the bug! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar template?
Hi, I was wondering if there was a similar template to this, but that does not link to the US Census Data. For instance, I was looking at the South Africa article, and they use this template, which looks fine, but then each year links to articles for the United States Census for that year. It doesn't make any sense in the South Africa article to have links back to the US Census articles. I looked at the code, and it seems that if you use a Census year as the year, it automatically puts the links in there. It would be good to have the same exact template, minus the links to the US Census articles, so non-US articles could use the template and have it make sense. I don't really know how to make a new template, or else I'd try this myself. Thanks so much...the USCensusPop template is really cool. AstroZombieDC (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I don't know of any others, I created to be a more generic version that accepts up to 25 years of data.  I added it to the article you referenced, and you can see its proper usage there. —Mike 10:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A template for that purpose already exists, its called histpop, and is linked above. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge
This template has similar functionality to Template:Histpop, and it's lacking in a few features that the other template has (and vice-versa). I'm proposing replacing both with a supertemplate, Template:Historical populations. I tried to make it work for all cases. It'll still link to US census entries where appropriate, but will also allow arbitrary odd years, and use for other countries, without the need for two separate templates. It also adopts the row-shading feature of Template:Histpop, but in a slightly more attractive fashion, and with the option to turn it off. Let me know what you think. —Werson (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Excess white space being added to articles
Can an admin change the two lines: to just one line (like in so many other templates): |} so that the template doesn't add white space to articles? Thanks. Shawisland (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * I request this edit. --fryed-peach (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad grammar!!
Nice template, but bad grammar-- It's "historical population," not "historical populations."


 * I fail to agree without further explanation. Not that that matters, I suppose. For one, see Referendum. Least grammatically ambiguous might be "number of people living here in past years." D. F. Schmidt (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition for abbreviations
Can the definition for the abbreviations be given at the bottom of the template?SriMesh | talk  14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whole numbers ought not be rounded off
The table of population by decade in the New Hampshire entry (Sec. 3, Demographics) is done by the macro. In two cases in that table (1880 and 1930), the percentage growth is a round number (9% and 5%). These should be 9.0% and 5.0%. They would line up better with the other percentages, and putting 9% in a table like this means to a scientist that you are only sure it's between 8.5% and 9.5%, which I'm sure is not the case. Thanks. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a way to change it from 9% to 9.0%. Try asking at the talk page for the template Template talk:USCensusPop. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know when it happened, but it's fixed now; thanks. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No way to align to the left?
If I understand correctly, this box is always aligned to the right. Shouldn't left alignment be a choice as well? Ntsimp (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, otherwise it slides all the way down to the bottom of any infobox present, taking the text with it and leaving a virtual Sahara of whitespace. Please provide a left-aligned option. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
I noticed that the wikilinks for each year in this template must go through a redirect, i.e., United States Census, 1900 goes to 1900 United States Census. Is there a reason for this or is it an oversight? Mgreason (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed this again, after another WP:RM renamed the targets. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
I propose to add the following H:title to the 2nd row of this table, as can be seen in the example to the right.

Pop. %±

68.101.219.116 (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Seems uncontroversial, so ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - table alignment
editprotected Could this be updated to provide an option to manually change the table's default alignment? It really makes for poorly formated articles when there are infoboxes. It leads to a lot of unnecessary white space or misplaced tables. I'd keep the default right alignment, but having the option to force alignment on the left would be beneficial.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. There was already an align parameter, but it wasn't fully functional.  I have tweaked it a bit and added some documentation. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese Wikipedia
The Vietnamese Wikipedia now has a template that accomplishes the same purpose as this template, albeit in bar chart form. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FactFinder1 shutting down Fall of 2011
Email response that I received from the US Census Bureau today: Thank you for using American FactFinder. FactFinder 1 will be shutdown in late fall of 2011. To help with the transition to FactFinder 2, we have published a guide on how to link into the new system. The guide is called How to Build Deep Links into the New American FactFinder. It can be found below the tutorials on factfinder2.census.gov. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Jeremy Melissari, American FactFinder Staff, US Census Bureau. See http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/AFF_deep_linking_guide_v1.0.pdf and http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/aff2.html •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  13:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Use undefined instead of
This template currently uses H:title to expand abbreviations inside the table header. I propose the more appropriate abbr be used instead: (Note: The template parameters are inverted.)

Cosmetically, displays a help cursor when expanding an abbreviation (e.g.).

More importantly, ensures the expanded form remains accessible to screen reader users. For this reason, the documentation of specifically recommends using  to mark abbreviations.

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:H:title reveals to be used primarily to annotate pronunciation as part of the IPA template family. &mdash;Cheng ✍ 06:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request — Title of percent change column : abbreviation
Hello,

I request this modification :

The percent change column has this abbreviation : %±

Let's make the abbreviation more faithful to its meaning and to the contents of the column : ±%

To achieve that, please replace  with.

I was going to do that, but the template is locked.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request — Percent change : + or -
Hullo,

I request this modification :

The percent change has a - sign when the population decreases, but misses a + sign when the population increases. Let's add it. For consistency. And to make the contents of the percent change column faithful to the column's title.

I was going to do that, but the template is locked.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Estimates Bug
There is a bug with the way the percent change is calculated for estimated populations. If an estyear of 2010 or later is entered into the table following a 2010 Census value, the resulting percent change shown for the estimate will be calculated based on the 2000 Census value, not the 2010 Census value as would be appropriate. For an example, see Cavalier County, North Dakota. The percent change for the 2010 population estimate should be 0% rather than the -17.4% that actually shows up. The similar template Historical populations currently does not have this problem. Mwmnp (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello - thanks for making your request. Fortunately, this isn't the template's fault. It appears in some of the county demographic sections, previous editors did not remove the estimated 2010 Census data when they added the actual 2010 Census data. This is why the Cavalier County, North Dakota article had a problem. I removed the estimated data, and the table is now correct. If you run across articles with a similar problem, be bold and fix them. :-)
 * It doesn't apply in this particular case since the problem wasn't the template itself, but requests to edit complex templates are often answered by admins (like me) who are not fluent in template-ese. In the future, when making an edit-protected request for a template, you need to be very specific about which current line(s) of the template you would like added, deleted, and/or changed. More information is available at WP:TEMPTEST. Thanks again for bringing the issue to our attention. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   12:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I guess I should have tested the template by entering in a estyear of 2011 (or beyond) and seeing how the percent change responded. Interestingly, the estimated 2010 population was entered to the referenced article after the actual 2010 population was entered. In years when a census is taken, a population estimate for that year is actually published after the official census numbers, as the census is supposed to represent the population on the first of April, while all population estimates use the first of July as a standard date. Mwmnp (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Click to July 1, 2010 Estimate is counties in 50 states. I made edit in some counties in North Dakota. I used the Sandbox USCensusPop has from 2000 Census to 2011 Estimate for precent. Not 2010 census. Historical populations has 2010 Census to 2011 Estimate precent. Go see to Cass_County,_North_Dakota and Grand_Forks_County,_North_Dakota. 3 weeks ago through yesterday I made edit in all 254 counties in Texas is finished. I added historical population table in 1850 to 2010 Census. Not 2010 Estimate. My contributions is 208.107.212.115 at home; 24.111.34.170 in the Media Center Room; and 165.234.184.69 at Grand Forks Public Library. 2 weeks ago I made edit in List of cities in North Dakota is full list of cities is finished. End of April 2012 will update new July 1, 2011 Estimate 3,143 counties in the United States. End of June 2012 will update new July 1, 2011 Estimate all cities and towns.
 * Grand Forks County:
 * 66,109 population on April 1, 2000 Census.
 * 66,861 population on April 1, 2010 Census.
 * 66,991 population on July 1, 2010 Estimate.
 * 66,828 population on 2011 Estimate from GeoLytics.
 * 66,653 population in 2015 Projection from Demographics Worker Commuter in North Carolina. And List of counties in ND in 2015 Projection
 * 67,158 population in 2016 Projection from GeoLytics in New Jersey. Ross Degenstein (talk) --208.107.212.115 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, the problem described by the original edit request above was not actually fixed. To solve the problem, the following changes to this template must be made in the code a few lines from the bottom:

to

In other words, the three appearances of the number 2000 have to be changed to 2010. Having tested this change in the template's sandbox, I can confirm that this will correct the problem that editors have been experiencing. --Mwmnp (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done see . -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited on Wikipedia. I encouraged the administrators can edit from 2010/2021 Est to 2020/2021 Est for percent. See Cass County, North Dakota for large percent from 2010 Census to 2021 Estimate for 24.6%. From 2020 Census to 2021 Estimate for 1.1% for small percent. In late-December 2021, I edited Demographics_of_Minnesota. Thanks. Rossdegenstein (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with a thread that I sorted almost ten years ago? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar bug as above, need more help
I've been using this template to update South Dakota's county populations every year when the Census Bureau comes out with mid-year estimates and I know how to put in the estimate syntax (estyear= and estimate= ), but the growth percentage seems to be calculating from the 2000 Census entry instead of the 2010 Census entry. For example, Bennett County, South Dakota has a 2011 estimate of 3,441...which is 10 people more than the 2010 calculation of 3,431...yet when I put it in the table, it shows a growth rate of -3.7% (which is the growth rate since 2000) and the growth rate is supposed to be +0.3%. Why is it skipping the 2010 Census when calculating growth rate?

Here is what it currently is: Bennett_County,_South_Dakota

But when I go into the table and write "|estyear= 2011" and then "|estimate=3441", it doesn't calculate the growth rate from 2010...it does it from 2000. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A standard source citation?
I feel like it would be nice if the USCensusPop widget had a way to automatically cite the U.S. Census Bureau's web holdings as the source ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticLuntz (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012
Please change:

}}{{#if:{{{estimate|}}} | Est. {{{estyear}}} {{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }} {{{estref|}}} {{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2010|}}}|{{{2010}}}|0}} | $$% |}}

so that accurate population growth percentages show up as measured from the 2010 Census instead of the 2000 Census.

Sorry, I don't know how to wrap that text...

Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done see {{diff|Template:US Census population|prev|488159376|here}}. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose dropping the s from the end of "Historical Populations"
I hate to be "that guy", but I didn't find any previous discussion of this. I think it would be more appropriate for "Populations" to be singular in this template, as its function in any given article is to reflect the historical growth of a single population of a given locale. One would say in conversation for example that a population grew by 15% over the past decade, but I can't really think of how populations would be appropriate except to compare two different distinctly defined groups... such as that of two different cities or nations Roberticus (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, just noted the other Template:Historical populations, which, though its title uses the plural, shows as "Historical population", I mention this, for consistency's sake, as an add'l reason to possibly adopt this proposal... Roberticus (talk)

There has been no comment to my proposal from January 8th, so I'd like to formally edit request what I'd mentioned above, namely, that this template be revised to display as "Historical population", dropping the s from what is currently "populations", which will also make it consistent with Template:Historical populations Roberticus (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * done. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider changing of "Historical Population" to "Historical Census Counts"
Although "Historical Population" sounds accurate, older Census counts likely ignored native populations. This could lead one to conclude that the Seattle metropolitan area in 1870 (almost 6,000 square miles around Puget Sound) truly only had 4,128 people, for example. While accurate population counts were more difficult in the past, and the purpose of the Census was not necessarily always to count all people living in a given geography, I recommend changing the header "Historical Population" to "Historical Census Counts" to reflect this. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.191.148 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for maximum decade option
If anyone overhauls this template in the future with LUA, it would be nice to have the capability to show a maximum number of recent decades via a new parameter, like "RecentDecadesToShow = 5", which would only show the most recent 5 decades plus add some clickable thing so you could expand the list. The length of this list has grown too long for older cities. I prefer some method to hide older census instead of deleting older census counts. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I overhauled template:historical populations, and was planning to do the same to this template, but I just haven't had the time. do you have an example that I could use experimentation? Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We still need this feature. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a bigger issue in lower population communities that have shorter articles. In these articles, a long US Census table can cause layout issues because the article doesn't have enough text content, which is more typical in small rural communities.  Old communities in east coast states that have been around since the 1700s have another issues where their population table is much longer than younger western communities.  Some example: Bristol, Virginia / Southampton County, Virginia / Dickinson County, Kansas.  I'll try to find some more examples. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New table markup proposal
See Template:US Census population/testcases.

In the sandbox, I changed the table markup to resolve the accessibility issues, while keeping approximately the same layout. The main layout change is horizontal border-spacing. Notes, if any, appear inside that border-spacing, rather than taking up their own empty-headered column. I also right-aligned the percentage changes, since that seems easier to read for me, but I can revert that if centered is preferred. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks great. I didn't know that we could add reference for every decade.  What is currently typical is only ONE reference on the estimate line, but no others, so you might want to add a 3rd case to see how that looks.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 04:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, added a single ref test at testcases. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Have you tested it with higher population numbers, like 99999, 999999, 9999999? • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Though it looks nicer, I just now noticed that it's wider. Since thousands of articles use this template, I'm not sure how it will affect layout, since some article put this table on the left side.  Maybe should try to make this as narrow as reasonably possible.  I noticed white space to left and right of underline near top.  I wish we could narrow the estimate line, hmmmmm. Sorry to be a pain.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made some of the numbers artificially large and small for testing. It's possible to rearrange the "Est." as in testcases now, though interrupting the left-to-right flow is probably bad for readability . The border-spacing between columns is where the notes are visually positioned. It's also possible to remove the spacing, but then the notes, if any, would have to go inside a cell and affect the cell width. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Had a different idea. The "Est." could go inside the border-spacing like a note, as in the current testcases. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the last comment, unless you mean to put it on the left side of the year, which might be better. I do like the small "Est." and since the period is extremely tiny, changing it to "Est" would likely be fine.  To narrow the width, is it possible to shrink the white space on the far left and far right side of the entire box?  I don't know anything about the "behind the scenes" layout to make this work, so my comments are purely from a visual point of view instead of "how easy is it to do" point of view, be patient with my ignorance.  It would be nice if other people could look at your work and give feedback!  BTW, thanks for adding the higher census count examples! •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 01:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible to visually adjust the left side and right side border spacing (with negative margins), as in the current testcases. Putting "Est" superscript on the left side of the year is also possible, I can work on that next. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt-title parameter
This template needs a means of displaying an alternate title at the top other than just "historical population". p b  p  05:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request (6 March 2019)
Recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to delete the space between the "estimate" and "estref" fields, as found here? —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't. Maybe I can try more later--now that I have seen this, it makes me want to die. :/ ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DocWatson42, I can't see where there's a relevant space in the code. Would you remove it yourself?  See Template:US Census population/sandbox, where I've put the current code so you can modify it.  If you can't find the space, let me know and I'll make a help request.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see it either, but (unfortunately) I'm not very good with template markup/code. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were good with it, I wouldn't have had to ask for help :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reckon the problem is that they are separate columns. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * brought up this old discussion on Discord, so I took a look at the template- it appears that the cause of the space is, as Koavf aludes, that even though at first glance this template appears to have 3 columns, it actually has 4- there's a column between the 'Pop.' and '%±' columns, which you can see as a small break in the header line. For most of the rows, this is used for an undocumented parameter set- e.g. if the 2nd column uses a '1800=' parameter, the 3rd is for an '1800n=' parameter that's been there since the template was created in 2007 but never documented. For the 'estimated' row, however, the 'estref=' parameter is put into that 3rd column, not tacked at the end of the 'estimate=' value in the second column, resulting in a space. Moving the reference to the second column is easy; should the whole 3rd column be deleted altogether, however? It's not clear if it's actually being used for anything. I did a sandbox edit to show how to remove the space, but leave removing the whole column for discussion. -- Pres N  03:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you PresN for following up on this. I'm all for keeping the fourth column if it serves a (useful) function, but otherwise I think it should be deleted. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're happy with me making this edit to the main template, let me know and I'll be happy to do it. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for taking so long to reply, but please do go ahead and make the edit whenever you come back (I see that you haven't made an edit in over a month). (I'm afraid I don't pay much attention to my Watchlist; pinging me, however, will get my attention.)  The template is now locked, otherwise I'd follow your example and do it myself. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here just to see about exactly this irritation, and see it'd been discussed and settled long ago, but then apparently forgotten. Nyttend, can I induce you (or maybe User:Jonesey95, who last edited this template) to look at this again and make the change? Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about this, but I'd still like to see it fixed (please). —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the proposed fix is ideal. See Template:US Census population/testcases, especially the one called "With notes". (I have preserved the rendering here so that I can continue to mess with the sandbox.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited the sandbox to eliminate the notes column entirely, putting the notes into the number column. See Template:US Census population/testcases, which I will leave alone for a while . This change makes it so that the numbers do not line up, which is probably undesirable. Having two columns, one for the number and one for the note, allowed the numbers to always right-align in a nice column (preserved here). I don't know if there is a way to jam two columns together without a gap, side-by-side, with the left column right-aligned and the right column left-aligned; that might work here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK last(?) try. Take a careful look at Template:US Census population/testcases, especially the ones with notes. I have greatly reduced the space between the population numbers and the note indicators, while preserving the alignment of the population number columns, using guidance from Help:Table. I think this is a good as it can get. Feedback welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jonesey, thanks a lot for peeking (and poking) in. The last testcases look great to me. I'm glad you studied the suggested code change, because I hadn't really. If the others like your output, I hope you'll go live with your changes. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

let me know if you have feedback or can improve the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They all look good to me. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. That only took two years and a day to fix! Not bad. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

signing positive percentages
I think that it would be much clearer and concise to add + signs to positive percentages that represent increases, as unsigned numbers often represent percent of, which would generally indicate a decrease, while adding signs clearly shows that it is additive, not multiplicative Torzod (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2019
Please replace all instances of the "rnd" template (23 places) with its correct, full name, "round". During edits it "bleeds through" as a redirect in the "Templates used in this section" summary. Furthermore, "rnd" is usually interpreted as "random" in programming languages. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 22:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Display for estimate year
Just popping in to make a suggestion: How about moving the "Est." tag to after the year in the Census column. It currently reads "Est. 2018", but it would be more natural to use "2018 (est.)".  Sounder Bruce  06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good idea to me; seconded. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to add 2020
Hello, would someone please add 2020 now that the population totals have been released? Thank you.JohnMcButts (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added 2020 and 2020n. The estimate line is still based on 2010, on the assumption that people will use 2020 or an estimate, but not both. At some point, that dependency can change to 2020, but I don't know when that should happen. Alternatively, someone may want to come up with a better if/then test that controls the output a little better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting error
What is a "formatting error", and why does this template cause a problem at Energy, Illinois ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The template can't do math on something that is not a number. I moved the fact template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix! So the template must have numeric values for each year= field? Seems like this is something that could be added to the documentation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Chanhassen, Minnesota
At Chanhassen, Minnesota, there are two population templates because "Chanhassen" and "Chanhassen Township" merged in 1967. Is there a way to add a title to the template, so that each template could be identified? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Using 1960n might be a good option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Add estimate with 2020
Lots of pages have 2020 and an estimate for 2021. The template says one or the other. I think this needs to be both now. Lots of pages have both, so it's messing up the percentage increase from 2020 to 2021. For example United_States CTF8<b style="color:blue">3</b><b style="color:#60c">!</b> 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting to add the 2021 population estimates to this template. As seen in the above link of the US Population, the way it currently is set up, the population increase from 2020 to 2021 is an inaccurate percentage. <b style="color:red">C</b><b style="color:#f60">T</b><b style="color:#FF0">F</b><b style="color:green">8</b><b style="color:blue">3</b><b style="color:#60c">!</b> 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this change is that the estimate line is based on 2010. We will have to remove all pre-2020 estimates and update them to make this template change. I'm OK with this in theory (given it's been almost 2 years) but we can't go ahead and switch the template over until we update all estimates. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your RfC has no statement. Did you read WP:RFCST as I directed ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a bit confused about that as well. It looks more like a regular question, or edit request? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a TALK forum? Was there an RfC? Lindenfall (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Redrose64 I gave a brief neutral statement. What more do I need? <b style="color:red">C</b><b style="color:#f60">T</b><b style="color:#FF0">F</b><b style="color:green">8</b><b style="color:blue">3</b><b style="color:#60c">!</b> 05:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFCST. The RfC statement is the part between the tag and the next valid timestamp (optionally preceded by a signature). Above, the  tag is followed directly by your signature; therefore, you have given no statement at all. Have a look at Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture and compare the entry for this page with the others there - they all have statements that are brief (more or less) and describe the issue to be addressed. The entry for this page does nothing of the kind. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * so we would have to update all pages with this estimate template? <b style="color:red">C</b><b style="color:#f60">T</b><b style="color:#FF0">F</b><b style="color:green">8</b><b style="color:blue">3</b><b style="color:#60c">!</b> 05:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a matter of making sure all other pages using this template have 2020 up to date, or is there another change that needs to be made? 12.42.50.52 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still no update on this. Is there a list somewhere for all of the templates that need to add 2020 census populations somewhere so they can be changed? 12.42.50.52 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * About a month now, I assume at this point that nobody is watching this talk page. When someone next see this, would they please include some kind of list or give some kind of direction on the templates that still need updating? Because there the estimates are still calculating based on the 2010 census and we're now 12 years away from that. 12.42.50.52 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you know the best way to find those templates still needing updated? Don't mean to bother you out of the blue, but figured you had a good grasp on what the issue is. 12.42.50.52 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No clue. I was brought here as an uninvolved editor by the RfC template that was previously in this section. I had no involvement in this template prior to my comment and haven't been involved since. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen that you have edited this page in the past. I don't mean to annoy you or drag you into this conversation, but I was wondering if you had any insight on how we could get the estimations to be based on 2020 instead of 2010 up and running. Any thoughts? 12.42.50.52 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We need better if/then logic in the template, or we need to ensure that all values of estyear are post-2020, which I suspect has not been done yet. As far as I can tell, the code right now needs to say "If 2020 has a value and estyear is after 2020, use 2020 for the calculations. Otherwise, use 2010 for the calculations." It does not currently do that. I have asked for help adding a TemplateData section to the template documentation, which will give us a report in a couple of weeks that will show us the values of estyear. We could also use a tracking category to find articles that need 2020 updates and/or updated estyear values. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a first step, I have created . This category tracks transclusions of US Census population that have a value for estimate but do not have a value for 2020. The best way to fix this problem is to insert a value for the 2020 population of the place listed in the template, including a reference to the 2020 census. If the estimate in the template is dated prior to 2020, it should be removed or updated to a post-2020 estimate. It is acceptable for places, such as places that are no longer inhabited or listed in the US Census, to lack a 2020 population value as long as they do not have a recent population estimate in the template.
 * If my logic is wrong here, please let me know, and I will adjust or remove this tracking category from the template. I think that all of these articles need to be updated before we can change the estimation code to be based on 2020 populations. If this is wrong, tell me where my logic has failed and what we should do instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After some testing in the sandbox and on the testcases page, I have implemented some logic that is intended to show the percentage change from 2010 for estyears prior to 2020 (even if a 2020 population is in the template), and the percentage change from 2020 for years after 2020. I think I got the logic right. We may eventually want some logic that assigns a tracking category for articles with 2020 population figures and pre-2020 estimates, but with at least 14,000 articles apparently needing 2020 populations, that tracking can probably wait. Feedback is welcome, as always; this logic is somewhat complex, and I could easily have messed something up or missed an easy opportunity to find additional undesirable conditions in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am talking to myself here, but I'm thinking that it might make more sense to hide pre-2020 estimates if a 2020 value is present. If that makes sense to people here, I can work on that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely makes sense. The sooner all of this gets updated, the less confusing it should be for folks. Then we won't have to worry about it for another ten years hopefully lol 12.42.50.52 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely makes sense. The sooner all of this gets updated, the less confusing it should be for folks. Then we won't have to worry about it for another ten years hopefully lol 12.42.50.52 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue with Visual Editor
Partially copied from Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor

I know that there are limitations with Visual Editor and templates but I've started to notice it acting weird on a few specifically. If you edit Template:US Census population, it may mess up the parameter spacing in the template (Example). DiscoA340 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Inactive towns (no further updates expected)
I was having a discussion regarding a tracking cat with Jonesey95, and they suggested a wider discussion here. This gist is this: would it be beneficial to have a parameter to track entities for which we should expect no further census updates? Having this parameter ("active=no"?) attached to ghost towns, discontinued CDPs, merged municipalities, etc., would allow for better tracking of missing updates, whether it be decennial or even annual estimates. While I can foresee some errors relating to this (like a disincorporated municipality getting labeled inactive even though it's still a CDP), I don't think it will be very common. Star Garnet (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Borough of Princeton, New Jersey was merged with another municipality. Atkinson, Maine was deorganized. Manganese, Minnesota is a ghost town. None of these will be getting 2020 census updates, and it might be useful to have a parameter to note that. Such a parameter would help avoid these groups of articles being placed in . It would no doubt take a while to label all such articles appropriately, but false positives in maintenance categories are a hassle. My question is: what do we call the parameter? Constructions like yes and no tend to confuse people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "dormant=yes" avoids the typical confusion issues here? Star Garnet (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Dormant", to me, implies that the town might come back, but I don't think that is the case with many towns. What about "extinct"? I went looking for geographical jargon, and the US Census How-To Guides use the word "deleted" throughout their software instructions. We also need to think about the logic that will be used in the template, logical tests that will ultimately determine whether we think the table needs to be updated. For example: "If there is a 2010 number but not a 2020 number, and 'deleted' does not equal 'yes', assign the update category." There are more logical tests that we should probably perform: checking for estimates (which years?), checking for multiple missing decade updates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There simply won't be a term that applies well to all scenarios. 'Extinct' certainly applies to ghost towns and, I suppose, merged municipalities. But Atkinson hardly ceased to exist, although its government did. You just won't be getting a census total for the now-township unless you add up the component census blocks. And most CDPs that lose that recognition don't cease to be settlements. I would guess that 'extinct' runs the risk of angering people with ties a community that hasn't completely ceased to exist. I suppose that multiple terms could be used for the same effective purpose. Or it could be more elucidative, such as 'CurrentlyMeasured=no'. Star Garnet (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward "deleted" as a neutral term that describes how the town is viewed from the US Census point of view. I wouldn't want to make the people in Atkinson sad. "CurrentlyMeasured" is probably accurate, but it's so long (whining voice). Another possibility that I don't usually like, but which might be appropriate in this case, is that we could support both "deleted" and "extinct" as aliases. People could use whichever one seems more appropriate, and they would have the same function. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All reasonable points. 'Deleted', 'Deleted'/'Extinct', 'CurMeas', 'Contemp', and 'fl' all seem like good options to me; it's also presumably a parameter only a few people will come across. Star Garnet (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added deleted with an alias of extinct. Both parameter names work the same: they will remove the "needs update" category with values of "yes", "y", or "true". See Atkinson, Maine, for an example. Once the category is cleared out, we may be able to add more tests, like checking to see if the article has 2010 data without 2020 data. We could also do that now if there is some urgency, but it may overwhelm the tracking category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

State census counts
On another note, after having emptied Category:Pages using US Census population with unknown parameters of a hundred pages, I would suggest adding a set of custom state census parameters, e.g. statecensus1, statecensusyear1, statecensus10, statecensusyear10. That way, other official counts like the Minnesota state census can be included and oddities like the 1899 Puerto Rico census can be labeled properly. Star Garnet (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Horizontal layout
Short articles with a lengthy historical population would benefit from a horizontal layout. See:
 * Hamilton, Georgia
 * Walden, New York
 * Lucedale, Mississippi

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? I'd say a horizontal layout would be detrimental. Harder to compare over time, unwieldy on both computers and mobile devices, and (unlike weather panels, which are already unwieldy on mobile) there is generally no set limit as to how many entries there will be. Star Garnet (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All true. It would be an option on some articles where these is a lengthy population history, but a short article.  A horizontal option would prevent the template from poking deep into other sections of the article, like at Hamilton, Georgia. Allowing multiple horizontal columns could solve the width issue. --Magnolia677 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, see Oak Grove, West Carroll Parish, Louisiana. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A two-column version would still sit below the infobox. To me, that simply speaks to a need for more effort from somebody with local resources and motivation. There was a 30-page history of the town and a 300-page history of the parish published back in the 1970s; however I don't believe either has been digitized and they're primarily held at local libraries. However, newspapers.com has 86,000 pages of the West Carroll Gazette published from 1930 to 2023, and many of us have access to that. I'm sure there's some local coverage beyond obituaries, but that would require a ton of effort plus editorial skills. Star Garnet (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)