Template talk:US Census population

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This template is awesome. 

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

message: Hi, I've noticed that this template presents some accessibility problems. Please see Wikipedia:Accessibility#Data tables and don't hesitate to ask if you have any doubt about this issue. Thanks! —surueña 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data tables 

message: 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)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Hey, I'm happy to see you use , 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  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)
replies: text:  Fixed.  Thanks for identifying the bug! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect minus sign 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A template for that purpose already exists, its called , and is linked above.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar template? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Can an admin change the two lines:
|}
<noinclude>
to just one line (like in so many other templates):
|}<noinclude>
so that the template doesn't add white space to articles? Thanks. Shawisland (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I request this edit. --fryed-peach (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess white space being added to articles

message: 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#Terminology. Least grammatically ambiguous might be "number of people living here in past years." D. F. Schmidt (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad grammar!! 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whole numbers ought not be rounded off 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No way to align to the left? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this again, after another WP:RM renamed the targets. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I propose to add the following  to the 2nd row of this table, as can be seen in the example to the right.
     
Historical populations	Historical populations	Historical populations	Historical populations
Census                	                      	                      	
68.101.219.116 (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Seems uncontroversial, so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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<> 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request - table alignment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vietnamese Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FactFinder1 shutting down Fall of 2011 

message: This template currently uses  to expand abbreviations inside the table header. I propose the more appropriate  be used instead:
*  → 
*  → 
(Note: The template parameters are inverted.)
Cosmetically,  displays a help cursor when expanding an abbreviation ().
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. —Cheng ✍ 06:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay,  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Use {{[[Template:abbr|abbr]]}} instead of {{[[Template:H:title|H:title]]}} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request — Title of percent change column : abbreviation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request — Percent change : + or - 

message: 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#Demographics
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)
thread_title:  Similar bug as above, need more help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A standard source citation? 

message: Please change:
}}{{#if: |
Est. 
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)
replies: text: Done see . --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 19 April 2012 

message: 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)
replies: text: done. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose dropping the s from the end of "Historical Populations" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consider changing of "Historical Population" to "Historical Census Counts" 

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

text:  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)
thread_title:  Request for maximum decade option 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, added a single ref test at testcases. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! Have you tested it with higher population numbers, like 99999, 999999, 9999999? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New table markup proposal 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: If I were good with it, I wouldn't have had to ask for help :-)  Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reckon the problem is that they are separate columns. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   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. --PresN 03:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:   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, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'd forgotten about this, but I'd still like to see it fixed (please). —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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#Workarounds. I think this is a good as it can get. Feedback welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: They all look good to me. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . That only took two years and a day to fix! Not bad. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (6 March 2019) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  signing positive percentages 

message: 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)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2019 

message: 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.)". SounderBruce 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good idea to me; seconded. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display for estimate year 

message: Hello, would someone please add 2020 now that the population totals have been released? Thank you.JohnMcButts (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added  and . The estimate line is still based on , 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)
thread_title:  Request to add 2020 

message: What is a "formatting error", and why does this template cause a problem at Energy, Illinois ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The template can't do math on something that is not a number. I moved the  template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting error 

message: 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)
replies: text: Using  might be a good option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chanhassen, Minnesota]] 

message: Partially copied from Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor#Possible issue with Visual Editor
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)
thread_title:  Issue with Visual Editor 

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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  and  tend to confuse people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "dormant=yes" avoids the typical confusion issues here? Star Garnet (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have added  with an alias of . 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)
thread_title:  Potential additional parameters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and  tend to confuse people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "dormant=yes" avoids the typical confusion issues here? Star Garnet (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have added  with an alias of . 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)
thread_title: Inactive towns (no further updates expected)

message: 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)
thread_title: State census counts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: Also, see Oak Grove, West Carroll Parish, Louisiana. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Horizontal layout