Talk:List of United States cities by population/Archive 1

message: Why is San Juan on this list?  Puerto Rico is NOT officially part of the U.S. and is NOT included in the U.S. population of 296 million in 2004.66.64.156.146 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: San Juan, PR

message: "Miami, Fl, which is ranked at #45 for city population, is ranked #6 for metro area, and #5 for urban area. Miami has only 35.68 mi2 of land, as compared to Phoenix, Az which ranks #6 in city population, but #14 in metro area, and #13 in urban area. This shows the innacurate nature of these numbers as compared to actual urban area size (Phoenix has 474.9 mi2 of land.)"
I added this to try to point out the way that this system works, and highlight the flaws of this system.  You can edit it if you want.  but do not delete it.  I only make small factual contributions, on things I know inside and out.
Miami is #5 for urban areas, but #45 for cities.  This is a gap of 40.  San Francisco and Washington DC also suffer from this.  Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Columbus are the opposite.  It should be highlighted.  Miami and San Francisco are of just 3 cities on EARTH that are at their peak population currently without ever annexing land.  (the other is Vancouver, B.C.
If you don't like my comments, let the community decide, or I'll go around and delete your posts.
The information presented currently is random and stupid.
ReignMan 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't delete my addition!

message: Is it right to keep the census information from 04 when the population of NO is now way less than 50,000?
:Wikichange 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see article. --Moreau36 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh New Orleans? 

message: Then Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Louisville populations should be changed and the consolidated city-county note should be dropped or re-worded in order to maintain consistencey. --Moreau36, 101, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed, otherwise the list should say "Indianapolis (balance)", "Nashville (balance)", etc. just as the cited Census list does, as the figures listed are not the actual city populations. Personally, I would favor listing the actual city populations and revising the list, as I imagine most people viewing this list are not interested in the rather obscure "balance" figures. Kaldari 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nashville is an individual incorporated city, it's "balance" is not. The "balance" has no legal existance. it's only an artificially created statistic. it does not correspond to reality. It is not an apple. It isn't even a fruit. Kaldari 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If so, the list should be partially revamped 

message: The different ways in which cities are consolidated are important to understand if we are to compile an accurate list. For example, in the case of Jacksonville, the communities of Baldwin, Neptune Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Jacksonville Beach, while existing within Duval County, lie outside of the city limits of Jacksonville. In the case of Nashville, however, the city limits and the county limits are the same, and communities such as Oak Hill, Belle Meade, etc. are actually within the city limits and considered part of the city of Nashville, both legally and practically (and thus should be included in the population figures). New York City is a third type of consolidation where the city itself is made up of seperately incorporated buroughs. Kaldari 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Oak Hill, Belle Meade have boundaries of their own, do they not? And people either reside within the limits of Oak Hill or they do not, and people either reside within the city limits of Nashville, or they do not. Kaldari will probably argue that one can reside within the limits of both Nashville and Oak Hill - and this is one way of looking at it. But again, if you take such a person who is a so-called "resident of both" and include them in the population figures for both, you are double counting this person! For the purposes of a ranking table, this is not "fair" and the integrity of the rankings is lost. Denvoran 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that not fair??? We're not ranking people, we're ranking cities. And if it's not fair, why is it that virtually every city population ranking on earth uses those figures rather than the balance figures? The "integrity" of the data is exactly what I'm trying to rectify. Right now this list conflicts with the data presented in each of those city's individual articles. And if this data isn't fair and has no integrity, why does the census use it for their own official census rankings (not the estimates)? Kaldari 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are different types of consolidated cities 

message: There has been lengthy debate about which population figures are appropriate for us to use in this list when we are referring to consolidated city-counties. Please vote on which option you agree with:
===Use "balance" figures===
A "balance" figure is the number of residents of a consolidated city-county that are not also residents of another incorporated city.
# Denvoran 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% wrong on that. Those residents do vote for the mayor of Nashville, as well as the mayor of their own city. Please research this before you start making false assertions. Kaldari 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afriad you are incorrect. The definition of the city DOES include the other municipalities. I'm afraid you may not have an understanding of what a consolidated city-county is. The legal definitions of Indianpolis, Louisville, and Nashville (but not Jacksonville) include the other municipalities. The census bureau does not contradict this, they simply offer an extra statistic for the "balance", which is not the same thing as the city. Kaldari 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another evil poll 

message: A "balance" figure is the number of residents of a consolidated city-county that are not also residents of another incorporated city.
# Denvoran 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% wrong on that. Those residents do vote for the mayor of Nashville, as well as the mayor of their own city. Please research this before you start making false assertions. Kaldari 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afriad you are incorrect. The definition of the city DOES include the other municipalities. I'm afraid you may not have an understanding of what a consolidated city-county is. The legal definitions of Indianpolis, Louisville, and Nashville (but not Jacksonville) include the other municipalities. The census bureau does not contradict this, they simply offer an extra statistic for the "balance", which is not the same thing as the city. Kaldari 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use "balance" figures

message: This means use the full city-county population, even when this includes the populations of several incorporated cities.
# Kaldari 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use population of the ''entire'' city-county

message: Hello, I've noticed two different types of formats people have used for links.
If you look at; 
San Jose, California
Detroit, Michigan
San Jose has a link to the "San Jose, California" article and a separate link to the California article. While Detroit is linked only to "Detroit, Michigan", without the individual link to the state.
If this intentional? If not, I'll put my hand up to clean it up.
Cheers.
Sclozza 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link formats 

message: This information is old and outdated. This page should be updated, and new populations should be listed (Denver has exceeded Seattle and Boston by nearly 10,000 since 2004). The title of the page is "List of United States cities by population", meaning it should be updated with the publishing of the census. Editor19841 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on this list comes from one source: the United States Census Bureau. If we add the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Rand McNally Corporation or the United Nations Statistics Division, the figures become an inconsistent mess and reliable "apples to apples" comparisons can no longer be drawn. What if the City of Seattle estimates that it has grown larger than Denver? or Boston says it's now bigger than both? Here, we don't care. We're using only the Census estimates - the latest of which are given here. New Census estimates will be released early this summer. Denvoran 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also: I don't really like your tone, Denvoran. Editor19841 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't really like Editor19841's reactionary accusations. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is not a government, but an "MPO" (metropolitan planning organization) which is an association of governments that decides, among themselves and independently of the federal government, to conduct various planning and research activities. DRCOG collects information and makes projections and estimates about statistics like population independently of the Census Bureau. It may or may not use the same methodologies that the Census Bureau does. Boston has its own MPO, and so does Seattle. Using its own methods and ways of collecting information, the Boston MPO may estimate that Boston's population is bigger than Denver's. So who is right? They are not necessarily contradicting one another - or the federal government - they are just going about answering a question using different means. The Census Bureau applies a standard methodology of estimating population across the country - including Denver and Boston. Thus the only way for this list to present accurate "apples to apples" comparisons is for the estimates to come from one source, and one source only. That is why the DRCOG figures, though more recent, should not be mixed with Census figures here. Denvoran 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The last census was published in 2000, therefore I believe this list should use the 2000 census statistics. Anything else is going to be mere conjecture (or "statistical estimation" if you must). If we're going to use estimates instead of the actual census we should change the name of the article to "List of United States cities by estimated population". Kaldari 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The decennial Census statistics are not estimates. Well, actually it depends on which figures you are talking about. The Census bureau publishes two figures for the actual census. First they publish the raw census numbers. These are definitely not an estimate. Every number corresponds to an actual person who was listed on a census form. These are the numbers that are used for most purposes: apportionment, federal redistricting, etc. These are generally considered the "official" census figures (and are the ones referred to in the U.S. constitution). They also publish an estimate shortly thereafter based on follow-up surveys, statistical analysis, and growth rates (similar to how the other annual estimates are created). This estimate is typically used for local redistricting in some areas and apportionment for services that are reapportioned annually. This is called the "adjusted" figure. Personally, I think we should use the official decennial census figures, since they are not estimates, but an actual tally of the population. Kaldari 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: After the cities in Puerto Rico, there's a triple star, but no corresponding footnote.  What is this note supposed to be? --Jfruh 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a note (someone removed it) to explain that the latest estimates for San Juan and Bayamón were dated July 1, 2003 (for all other cities, the date is July 1, 2004). The Census Bureau has now released new estimates for cities in Puerto Rico dated July 1, 2004 (which are now shown) and the asterisks have been removed. Denvoran 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR cities -- missing footnotes 

message: My changes were reverted so I'll place them here for discussion.  I think that names like Indianapolis (balance) are ugly and meaningless to the ordinary reader and should be replaced by Indianapolis, Indiana even though the latter is less correct.  The note and the link should be enough to explain the difference to the curious.  N.B. I am only suggesting altering the shown name not the link which properly goes to the actual entity listed.
:The problem with listing the cities as "Indianapolis" or "Nashville" is that the populations listed here are not the populations for Indianapolis and Nashville. For example, the population of Nashville in 2004 was 572,475, but here we list the population of the balance, which was 546,719 (a figure that no one cares about except for a few government number-crunchers). This has already lead to numerous errors in other media which have started stating that the population of Nashville is 546,719 or that Nashville is the 28th largest city in the country (since everyone gets their stats from Wikipedia now). The change you are suggesting would make this problem worse. Really the whole problem stems from the Census Bureau's bizarre practice of not listing consolidated city populations in their estimate rankings (since agencies who use the estimate stats really only need the balance figures). So we are left with an anamalous ranking that is not really accurate or even comparable to the census's decennial rankings (which do list consolidated city populations). Once 2010 rolls around, this list will get significantly rearranged, but only for 1 year, and then it will go back to how it was before. Sounds rediculous huh? Kaldari 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand that Jacksonville is a different type of consolidated city than Nashville, Louisville, or Indianapolis. Jacksonville fits your definition of a consolidated city, i.e. it excludes residents of other cities. That is why Jacksonville doesn't have a "balance". The city of Nashville encompasses ALL of Davidson County and has been that way since the sixties. Kaldari 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your sentiments about the notes. I just didn't think it made sense for them to be "references". Kaldari 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City names and Notes

message: After exchanging emails with a staff member of the Census Bureau, I have a much better understanding of how things work. First point: This is a list of "incorporated cities", however, the Census Bureau does not produce population estimates for "incorporated cities" per se. The Census Bureau produces population estimates for 11 different geographic levels, none of which are "cities" or "incorporated cities". They define "incorporated places" (geographic level "162") as including both cities and "balances", but not consolidated cities. The census ranking that was previously used as the source for this article was a ranking of "incorporated places", i.e. any geographic areas that had level code 162. It was not a ranking of "incorporated cities". The Census Bureau then goes on to define consolidated cities as "an incorporated place that has combined its governmental functions with a county or subcounty..." Even though the Census Bureau defines consolidated cities as "incorporated places" they are not included in the incorporated places geographic level. Consolidated cities are given their own unique geographic level code - "170". Entities belonging to 170 are not included in the "incorporated places" ranking, because although they are by definition incorporated places, the incorporated places ranking is using the term "incorporated places" to mean geographic level code 162. If we are going to go by their specialized technical ranking, the article should be renamed List of United States incorporated places (geographic level 162) by population instead of List of United States cities by population.
So according to the Census Bureau (and Denvoran), non-consolidated cities and consolidated cities are not the same thing, i.e. they are not the same "geographic level". However, this article is not concerned with geographic levels, it is concerned with "incorporated cities", which consolidated cities are and balances are not. The Census Bureau does not produce a ranking of incorporated cities. It does however publish population estimates for all types of incorporated cities including consolidated cities. Those estimates can be found here. Thus it is possible to use the Census Bureau figures to produce what is accurately described as a list of incorporated cities by population (which is what I have done). As a final note, I also learned that the Census Bureau does not classify Jacksonville as a consolidated city (170) since their technical definition of consolidated city requires that it "contains one or more incorporated places", which Consolidated Jacksonville does not. I guess that's just one more example of how specialized the Census Bureau's definitions are and how they do not necessarily line up with the definitions we use in the real world or within Wikipedia. Kaldari 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing list to include incorporated cities rather than balances 

message: After comparing this page with the census page: [Website] i found that Louisville should be 26th, not 16th. I know that someone already brought this up, but it bumps all the other 84 cities off one. I think this list should go by 2005 estimates, and not a city hall's estimate which is usually inflated.
:The population cited for Louisville comes directly from the 2005 Census Bureau population estimates (not "city hall"). Please refer to line 25202 of this table provided by the Census Bureau:
 170,21,000,00000,00000,Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky,A,693604,693872,694757,695843,698059,698903,699827
:The last number in the line above is the 2005 population estimate. Kaldari 06:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A city Lied about it's population? 

message: Read the following article:
*[Revision 'Big Deal' For D.C.] - The Washington Post
The article states that the population estimate from 2005 was adjusted a couple weeks ago, adding over 30,000 people to the city. Thomasmallen
::Don't forget St. Louis, which was also sucessfully challenged. A more reliable link for the challanges is from the U.S. Census website at http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/2005/05s_challenges.html. --Moreau36 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population count was too low in D.C. 

message: I have two problems with Ryoung's edits:
#He is listing "balance" populations, but not labeling them as such. If you are going to list the balance population, which is not the official census estimate for the city, it should at least say so, for example we should link to Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee rather than Nashville, Tennessee. Otherwise, it is misleading and confusing since the official census estimate population given in the Nashville article is not the same as what Ryoung has listed here (which is the official census estimate population for the balance, which is properly listed in the balance article). Even the Census Bureau's confusing ranking gets this right at least.
#I strongly believe that we should use the census population estimates given for the actual cities. For Indianapolis, Louisville, and Nashville, the census bureau gives us two sets of numbers, one estimate that matches the legal city limits of the consolidated city-county (i.e. how many people are eligible to vote for the mayor of that city), and then a 2nd estimate for the "balance" population, a statistical entity created solely by the Census Bureau which does not correspond to the legal definitions of the cities, Wikipedia's own definitions, or the commonly understood definitions of the cities.
Kaldari 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining revert 

message: Perhaps there wouldn't be any disagreement about how cities were ranked in this article if the article's title and opening content made it more clear that actual legal cities aren't being ranked, but rather what the U.S. Census Bureau designates as cities for its ranking process.  The U.S. Census Bureau openly shortchanges consolidated city/county governments, removing thousands of citizens of those municipalities from this ranking.  Since that's what they do, we should use a more precise naming for this article, something like "List of U.S. Census Bureau-designated United States cities by population" -- it's long, but it's factual. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to "be bold" in the near future on this.  The article's title is misleading and needs to specify that these are U.S. Census Bureau-designated places being ranked.  Any suggestions to how the title should read? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure I see much of a problem with calling this a list of cities by population, so long as it is clearly explained that the list and ranking are prepared by the Census Bureau using the Census definition of incorporated place. The several consolidated cities with semi-independent incoporated cities within them should be appropriately noted, which I believe there in fact already are. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a lie.  I have to be blunt here... the title is a downright lie.  It needs to become more precise and use the phrase "U.S. Census Bureau-designated" as the bureau's definition doesn't match the actual incorporated cities.  I'm making changing this an imperative. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is a "lie"? The bureau's definition certainly does match the actual incorporated cities -- it is only that consolidated cities are a different type of entity -- there are other incorporated cities within a consolidated city. I will firmly resist your unilateral change of this. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's either changing or going to AfD. I have had it with this lie of an article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, have at it if you must. I imagine that will be a rather entertaining AFD. Although I have tried to revise the introduction to explain what incorporated place means and how all the top entries in the list are cities and how consolidated cities are a different type of entity, and thus somewhat exceptional from the perspective of compiling a list. I suppose I'd be OK with renaming this as List of United States incorporated places by population, but that isn't exactly a common name, is it? older ≠ wiser 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rework of the opener is welcomed, and at least from a content perspective, it's as close to accurate as we can get.  But the title still is illegitimate by its imprecision.  At any rate, I figured the past discussion went nowhere, so I forced the issue today and at least the content now reads better and doesn't malign Louisville or Nashville any longer. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of this article

message: Recently, a survey was completed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments Research and Information Services. I believe that the data is more accurate that it is compiled by a local government. The link is here: []. This figure allows for Dallas to jump in the population standings. Also, this change also affects the Metroplex population list. If i recall correctly, I remember seeing on CNN that the Dallas metroplex recently surpassed the Philadelphia Metroplex in population. If anyone could verify this for my sake, that would be great. Thanks.
:Figures from multiple sources and potentially using different methodologies cannot be ranked. This is one of the reasons why the Census Bureau figures are used even if they are not the latest available numbers. --Polaron | Talk 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dallas Population Update 

message: Looks like we have space for more top city images on the righthand side, beyond just the top 10.  Agree or object to adding more? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More city images 

message: San Diego (1,311,162)has more people than San Antonio (1,256,509)... How is it smaller?
Belle 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego vs. San Antonio  

message: The charts indicate 59 cities with a population over 300k and 98 cities (total) with a population over 200k. The "other cities" section indicates 58 over 300k and an additional 30 over 200k. Now, it's been a while since calculus, but it seems to me that, even forgiving the margin of error of 1 city, 58 plus 30 is 88, which is more than a few fewer than 98. What gives? - Che Nuevara 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 +3 = .... 9? 

message: On my browser, I cannot see the regions listed in the final column because the pictures of the top cities lie over it.CoreyK 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout issue

message: Why no mention of CDP's with populations over 100,000? Such as East Los Angeles, CA?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, unlike Arlington, Virginia and Honolulu, Hawaii, which are co-extensive with legal boundaries (thus easier to deliniate), most CDPs are unincorporated, which makes things complicated to determined the boundaries of these unincorporated places. CDPs are also subject to partial or full annexation by a nearby incorporated place between the censuses. Unlike incorporated places, CDP boundaries are not "grandfathered" in as they can change dramatically from one census to another. see: Spring Valley, California, which the 1990 census boundaries split into a new CDP, La Presa, California in 2000. --Moreau36 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honolulu CDP is not co-extensive with legal boundaries.  Honolulu County is the next largest legal definition, which encompasses the whole of Oahu.  Beyond that, while of course CDP boundaries are  variable, there is no reason not to use the 2000 Census definitions of CDPs until the data for the next census is released. I agree with Ryoung that this list ought to include CDPs.  Perhaps a compromise could be found by listing the CDPs in their place, but not giving them an ordinal ranking? john k 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honolulu Judicial District is a semi-legal boundary (subdivision) within the City & County of Honolulu., which is co-extensive is Honolulu CDP, thus the Census is able to count annual estimates for the CDP, unlike others, which the boundaries are set by the census and are subject to change. --Moreau36 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  What do you think of the  idea of listing CDPs, but not giving them ranks? john k 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if listed, give the place names asterisk marks snd rank them according with the population, without putting the rank numbers. In 2000, there were at least 7 CDPs over 100,000 --Moreau36 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To add, if you read my statement above, unlike incorporated places, CDPs vary widely in behavior and sometimes the boundaries extend well beyond the "community proper". (e.g. Towson, Maryland; 1970 census: 77,768; 1980 census: 51,083.) Separate CDPs the previous census could merge during the next census. (see: Egypt Lake, Florida and Egypt Lake-Leto, Florida). Others no longer met the criteria to be a CDP (see: Del Rio, Florida). Some CDPs aince 2000 were partially annexed by neighboring incorporated places (possibly leaving the less-dense part) Bottom line is that, for the exclusion of a very few communities that are CDPs, tallying annual estimates for CDPs would be difficult at best. --Moreau36 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? My fitting? I'm just following the census guidelines. If you read the census guidelines, it strictly states that CDPs have stricter guidelines than incorporated cities. Places like Paradise, Metairie, Sunrise Manor, and Spring Valley can change dramatically in it's definition by 2010. See Spring Valley, California, which had 55,331 in 1990, but it was broken off by La Presa, California, a new CDP (created in 2000), reducing Spring Valley's figures in half. And one more thing, unlike incorporated places, which can annex liberally, CDPs don't have that option and are vulerable to annexation by neighboring municipalities. Another issue with CDPs is that a few may contain two or more separate communities within it's bounds. Another example is Goleta, California, a good-sized CDP in 2000 with over 55,000 residents within the boundaries. Goleta incorporated in 2002, but with only half of it's CDP population. Smiths, Alabama is another example. My reasons above is why other than the American Community Servey, the census doesn't count any CDP in its estimates. Other than some well-defined CDPs, it's just simply too difficult. The bottom line is definitions my friend.  --23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Census-Designated Places

message: IS NOT LOCATED ON THIS LIST! KTHX  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.209.10 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVANSVILLE INDIANA? 

message: Here are the accepted revisions: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2005/05s_challenges.html
Note that the population of Davidson County (which is consolidated with the city of Nashville) has been increased substantially, yet they did not offer a new estimate for the Nashville-Davidson balance (the figure we use here). Thus the difference between the county population and the separately incorporated municipalities no longer equals the balance, thus rendering it a meaningless figure. Way to go Census Bureau! Kaldari 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised 2005 estimates 

message: I have seen the 2006 estimates already used on some websites, why not here?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they been officially published yet? Kaldari 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Estimates

message: You all have made mistakes here, Seattle is the 24th largest city in the USA while Boston is The 25th. Sean mc Sean 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of April 2007, perhaps. If you were not so quick to jump to conclusions you would see that this table uses July 1, 2005 figures, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. Any other petty complaints? -Phoenix 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Make yourself useful, bud. -Phoenix 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anger management. -Phoenix 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, I noticed that. Irritating is that fact that people see their city's number and say, "Oh my gosh, it's wrong!", and update it to the latest local census. -Phoenix 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just in case you didn't know, the 2006 estimates fro incorporated places (including "balances") will be released in late June. --Moreau36 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect 

message: In case users have missed the reference for this article, it is the United States Census Bureau Estimates for July 1, 2005. This is not a list of largest cities as determined by whatever local agency decides to come up with an estimate for a particular city. It is a list of largest cities as estimated by the United States Census Bureau on July 1, 2005. No other numbers should be acceptable here.
I know, for example, that on May 1 the California State Department of Finance released estimates for California cities as of 1/1/07, and users are dropping those figures into this list. 
The integrity of this article rests on the fact that it comes from one source, using the same methodology across the board. You may not agree with the numbers (I don't), and the individual cities and states may not agree with the numbers, but until another agency comes up with a estimate list of every city in the country (not just in individual states) using a different, consistent and verifiable methodology (or until the Census Bureau comes up with a more recent reference date), this list should not change.
I only looked at the top 50 cities, but I tried to get the list back on track. In reverting the list to Census Bureau figures, I may have inadvertantly missed a estimate that was successfully challenged and revised by the Census Bureau. I apologize in advance. -Dtcomposer 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that's been made painfully clear a number of times. When I realized how bad it was I watchlisted it and I try to verify every change that's made, especially since I nominated it for featured status. Fortunately, by the time I see it on my watchlist it's normally a good guy reverting the placement of a wrong figure. That's all we can do here, really; with a number of people watchlisting it, relatively clean it shall stay. --Phoenix (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Stop Using Multiple Sources

message: According to Wikipedia's own page about Madison, the population is over 200,000, yet it is not on this list.  Personally, I think this list is completely useless but if it's here it might as well have the correct information.
66.188.122.56 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the information in the section directly above this one. The list uses 2005 data, and nationwide 2006 data comes out next month. Happy? --Phoenix 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison, WI

message: Someone please fix.R Young {yakłtalk} 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault, I fear; in trying to clean up the list again, I left a digit off Lowell's population and moved Fremont's ranking but didn't adjust it's population. Someone already corrected Lowell; I fixed Fremont. Thanks for catching those!Dtcomposer 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bunch of people watching this list; since we know how prone it is to curious editors. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Fremont, CA and Lowell, MA

message: someone needs to go get a better picture of baltimore, its a blurry picture and most all the others dont compare.(Esskater11 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltimore 

message: Dude518 placed San Juan, PR on the list. Since San Juan doesn't appear on the official source for this page, I have removed it from the table. However, I believe it is of interest (since it is the largest city in a U.S. territory) and have placed the information at the end of the table. Dtcomposer 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Juan (again) 

message: The "Town of Hempstead" on Long Island is an incorporated place with a population s of OVER 750,000.  It outtrumps most cities as far as population goes.   Since the areas of Long Island, NY are subdivided by school district and CDPs, all taxpayers recognize they live in a township and nothing else.   Since it is acknowledge by the Census as an Incoporated place, the Town of Hemspstead and the Town of Oyster Bay should more than likely be up on the list.  Right?
:Unfortunately, even though it may be incorporated and considered locally as a single place, the Census Bureau does not include it as an incorporated place because it places it in the minor civil division category. --Polaron | Talk 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporated Places, (Towns) 

message: according to the jacksonville article, the city has many more people than it says on here. someone fix this. 24.23.97.35 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Since the linked source in the Jacksonville article is the Census Bureau 7/1/05 estimate (which happens to be the same source used for this article), I corrected the Jacksonville article to reflect the number given in that source. I left a note on that discussion page, stating if someone could provide a verifiable source for the 800K+ number that was previously listed, they could revert my edit. Dtcomposer 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jacksonville 

message: The city of Indianapolis lies in Marion County. Other incorporated places include Speedway and Beech Grove (and I think, 2 others?). Note the 2000 pop. of the county was about 863,000. Thus, the article's claim that the 'consolidated' population was 795,000 is incorrect.Ryoung122 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indianapolis

message: It is clear that Virginia's law is a corruption of rural-area politics, an attempt to keep suburbanites from forming suburban cities. Oxymoronically, Arlington VA is too much like a city to count as a 'city' in Virginia...while counties such as Suffolk County (huge, sparsely populated) that have the size and population of a county and the feel of a county are defined as a 'city'. Go figure.Ryoung122 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that if a good-sized suburban communities like Springfield, Reston, Dale City, and Woodbridge wish to incorporate as cities, these areas, according to law, would have to secede from their parent counties to become Independent Cities, which will likely create friction and possible legal challenges between the new "city" and the county in which the place originated. They could incorporate as a "town" or "village" to remain in the county, but I'm not sure if there's a population threshold requirment for this to happen. This law has been in the books for decades. I'm sure if Arlington wishes to incorporate, it shouldn't be a problem to trnsfer it's status from urban county to independent city. --Moreau36 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arlington too densely populated to be a city?

message: The city of Atlanta challenged the 2005 estimate of 470,000, which was revised to '483,000.' Yet the 2006 estimate of '486,000' appears to be a pig-headed attempt by the Census Bureau to ignore that challenge. The Atlanta Regional Commission estimated the city gained over 12,600 residents in the past 'population year', the largest increase since the 1950's. This would put the population closer to 496,000 (483,100+12,600).Ryoung122 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This occurs in many large cities across the country, especially in California. This is the sole reason why I personally wait until the next census for reliable numbers, but that's my POV. --Moreau36 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlanta's population not challenged yet