Talk:Luke, Maryland

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luke, Maryland. 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://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt to https://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
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) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For years, there has been repeated IP editing that has tried to adjust Luke's population, usually to 150, and so far as I've seen, always without any citation.   See as a small sample 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.  I would venture to guess that the majority of edits to this page over the last few years have been one slow edit war on this subject.  Below I'm capturing what counts seem available regarding the town's population:
Census Figures:
* an official 2010 population of 65 per the 2010 Census
* the Maryland State Archive provides an alternate 2010 census figure of 80 on this page, currently cited in the lead
Estimates:
* an estimated 2018 population of 61, again from the Census
* the Sun used this same 61 figure as an estimate of Luke's 2017 population, presumably also from the Census, in this 2019 article
* the MDSA provides the highest estimate, 118 for the year 2015 on the previously mentioned page
Existing Wikipedia policy on town demographics is clear that the official Census tally should always be used, and never superseded by other figures.  It does however allow for the decennial tally to be supplemented by "other reliable sources of demographic data" when appropriate, which might open up the possibility of integrating the MDSA estimate somewhere as a way of reaching consensus through editing with those editors who are adamant that a triple digit figure is more accurate, while keeping it linked to a credible, cited source.  On the other hand, that 118 figure is from 2015, and the Census has done four (significantly lower) estimates since then.  Perhaps MDSA knows something significant occurred that increased Luke's population by half in five years, but considering the other discrepancies in figures on that site, and the fact that it is in the end only an estimate, I don't think it belongs in the lead section.  If used at all, it would probably make sense to put a reference to the 2015 MSDA estimate in the demographics section only for the time being.  I'm interested in the thoughts of others, particularly User:Adavidb & User:Tedickey who have been reverting the majority of the unsourced edits for years now.   Sauzer (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of any valid source citation is why I've reverted the IP editor's claims of alternate population values. That editor has sometimes claimed in the edit summaries to be a city official, or that 'town records' or 'voter records' are a source, but nothing more specific that I recall. The ten-year census and most recent year's estimate are the only numbers that I can see as relevant, unless there is some reliable source that explains such a discrepancy as MDSA includes for 2015. Perhaps a city official provided MDSA with the 2015 'estimate'; a town Facebook page includes such numbers as well – "157 as of May 2018" – though no info on how the number was tallied. Regardless, a town official's say-so is potentially self-serving and unreliable by itself. —ADavidB 03:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: There's always the possibility that some of the edits are merely vandalism (some IP's like to repeat other's mischief).  But agreeing, that there's been no reliable sources cited for the 150. TEDickey (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: One point in favor of the anon editors is Census's 2019 population estimate, which now places the population at 102. I'm not sure how they determine estimates, but it may well prove that the population has grown significantly when the true 2020 data comes out. Until then... it has a margin of error of +/-53, so I'd take the figure with a grain of salt. Sauzer (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot the link for the estimate in question: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=luke,%20maryland&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePreview=false I will probably update the relevant parts of the article with this figure. Sauzer (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Actually, I will not update it yet as it conflicts with the other census projection for 2019 which shows a population of 60.  Maybe someone with more knowledge of the intricacies of census data can explain this discrepancy, but I'm inclined to just wait for the real 2020 count.Sauzer (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a population increase also has no mesh with reality, when the town's paper mill and main source of ecomomic support closed in 2019. —ADavidB 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Population