This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Consistent format for "list of [state]'s largest cities" tables[edit]
Hello everyone! I feel we should start a discussion about creating a consistent table format across each of the states' "largest cities" lists. Personally, I'm keen on the format that South Dakota and Nebraska use, but I could also see the use of adding in columns for population density and the like (though finding the most accurate up-to-date areas for cities may be more difficult than fetching the most recent Census estimates which are published annually). The first obstacle I can think of that could cause difficulty in maintaining a consistent format would obviously be in regards to how some states consider cities, towns, villages, townships, etc. to be different enough municipalities that they warrant their own pages (like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, etc.) I'm from South Dakota and incorporated municipalities are classified as either cities or towns (with one being incorporated as a village) and the current list that I linked above for South Dakota shows all of the incorporated places regardless of city, town, or village status. But some states have separate lists for their cities, towns, and villages. I feel that each of the states lists should be incorporated places regardless as to what type of municipality they are...so long as they are separate incorporated government municipalities (as opposed to CDPs). Would anyone else be willing to weigh in and see if we can get each of these pages to be consistent? I'd be willing to help in revamping some of these lists, as well! Thanks! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've been working on these lists for quite a while now. Many of these lists were incomplete stubs, but I managed to bring these up to featured list status:
I forget where I got this format from (maybe the California list originally?), but I really like the data they provide. I have a program that pulls these lists automatically from the US Census website, so the lists are automated. However they only pull from official censuses. So here is my opinion:
Every state should have two lists of local places, an incorporated list (be it cities, towns, whatever...) and an unincorporated list (this is usually CDPs). I believe we should only use official US census data, and not estimates. There is not enough people here to update all 50 lists for every estimate anyway, they would be a hodgepodge and you wouldn't be able to compare population growth. And I believe they should have the municipality type, county, latest 2 censuses, a %change column, land area, population density, and if possible the incorporation date. I also think there should be a gallery of images instead of down the side to help people with smaller monitors (like laptop screens). I found with this structure, they can be promoted to featured status, which has been my goal. Let me know what you think! Mattximus (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responding! I think that the automated program that pulls the Census data is a really good idea, but at the same time I worry that the 2010 Census data is a little too out of date and I think it would be a good idea to update each year as the new estimates are released. I know that it would require a lot of people to update the 50 states lists, but I'd be willing to take on maybe like 10 states. That way if 5 people took 10 states, then it could be done. Or 10 people to do 5 states. Either way, I think that the annual estimates would be a good idea because it would provide the most up-to-date information and that seems to me to be the purpose of an encyclopedia entry.
Do you know if there's a way or a source that updates annual land area as well? If not, we could just stick w/ the 2010 areas. I agree with everything else (the gallery, density, municipality type, etc). I have a question with the county column. If you go to the list of SD cities that I linked above, you'll see that I've included all of the counties for those municipalities that are in multiple counties. If you look in the talk page, I actually have a question in there for anyone (maybe you'd be able to help). Sioux Falls is in two counties, but it is the county seat for only one of those two counties. I would like just the top half of the county cell to be highlighted, but the bottom half not to be in order to reflect this. However, if we use the template that you have mentioned, it looks like the county cell isn't highlighted for the county seats...just the town. In the case that a municipality is in multiple counties, then I feel we should list the multiple counties and make a note like I did with Sioux Falls on the SD list. Also...how do you feel about listing them in order of population instead of alphabetically? I guess it doesn't matter since the tables would be sortable, but my preference is towards population order. That way we could eliminate the need on this infobox for the "by population" section which only has a handful of states.Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I'll try to address all your comments. First there simply is not the people power to update the lists every year (in fact some were not updated to 2010 for actual census results!). It's also not very encyclopedic to use estimates anyway, especially for a country like the USA who does semi-regular censuses. Even real encyclopedias will only use actual census numbers and not estimates for countries with regular censuses. If you take on a few lists, then only those will have certain year of data, and the others will be different years, making growth comparisons impossible, and rather messy. As for the order, it must be in the present alphabetical order as that is the one the US census uses. I'm not the only person who pulls data automatically from the census, so this would screw up every wikipedia editor who does this and discourage others from helping. Also ordering by population is extremely problematic when updating with new data, since you have to manually move them around. But you can just sort this list however you want. I do agree that the "by population" pages can probably be redirected to the main state page. As for the county column, I see your issue, but unfortunately don't have a solution. It does happen a lot too. Anyway, hope this opinion helps. Mattximus (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
