Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by population/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

In the column “2014 Estimated pop. per Congressional seat”, Row: “New Hampshire” please Change: 331.703 to 331,703 since 1326813 / 4 = 331703.25 NOT 331.703 Avtechx (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

2000 data?

I would like to propose removing both of the columns for 2000 census data (Census population, April 1, 2000 and 2000 Census pop. per House seat). These were useful before 2010 to compare the 2000 census with 200X estimates. Now we have the 2010 Census to compare with 201X estimates, so they are less useful as a comparison now. Also, it's somewhat arbitrary to have exactly two census populations (why not have 1990, 1980, etc?); let's just stick with the most recent full census. Finally (and most importantly), this table is bloated, and removing two columns would make it look much nicer and be more easily understood. kennethaw88 • talk 04:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no objection for one month, I have removed these columns. kennethaw88 • talk 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

overwrote "pop per house member" w/ "pop per congress member" if reverting PLEASE ELABORATE

I have no idea, nor have I ever seen, anyone talk, refer to, use, mention population per HOUSE seat. This metric is useless and misleading and the more commonly accepted, useful, talked about, refered to metric is population per CONGRESSIONAL seat. I merged the stupid "number of house seats" and "number of electors" columns into a new "number of congressional seats" column. And overwrote one of the THREE (YES THREE!!!) pop. per house seat columns (2014 est.) with pop per congressional seat (2014 est)

If you aren't clear why the house metric is pointless consider that it gives the impression that Wyoming, Utah, and the Dakotas have much less representation in Congress---that Wyoming has only one house member to represent over 1,000,000 people (it was ranked #1), this is extremely misleading to not mention Senators (and bizarre). Wyoming voters have 1 rep. per 194,000 people, compared to the average of 500,000. If you are reverting this edit please elaborate as to why pop per house seat is of any value and why it is better to have three columns for it.

Thanks.

FYI, this has been (partially) reverted by KSPoliticsGuy in these edits. kennethaw88 • talk 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Rank years?

Is there a particular reason why the "50 States" ranking and the "States and territories" rankings use different years? It seems mainly to make the data difficult to compare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.25.171 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Annual estimates (2011, 2012, etc) are only released for states, DC, and Puerto Rico (here's the list of available estimates). So the only way to include the other territories in any comparison is to use 2010 data. kennethaw88 • talk 04:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

64.237.229.182 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Arizona's population is 6,828,065 and Massachusetts's population is 6,794,422. However, Arizona appears to be ranked 15th and Massachusetts is 14th even though Arizona has a higher population. Arizona should be 14th and Massachusetts, 15th.

 Fixed. Thanks for noticing. There are several columns to be updated every year, and it seems no one ever fixes all of them at once. kennethaw88 • talk 16:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove comparable country

I would suggest removing the comparable country column on the table. It really doesn't provide any useful information (California is comparable to Poland?). Thanks for you consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fliestoomuch310 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @MB298:, who added the column. As this is a relatively recent and undiscussed addition, please add your input here. kennethaw88 • talk 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: @Fliestoomuch310: I added it several months ago to give readers a key on population (for example, perhaps a reader is from Ireland and knows how many people reside in his/her country, and can then have a more descriptive view of the population of Louisiana). MB298 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree, this column doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.37.76 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I support removing it. It's a little much to expect Wikipedia to explain every single number, and to try to do so makes things unwieldy. –Fitnr 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an extremely unpopular column. I want to see it removed as well, but I have no idea how to petition to remove a single column from a table, and due to my lack of history, such a major revision would be surely targeted as terrorism, coming from me. Does anyone have the authority to remove the column without instant reversal and ignorance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinataSoul (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of U.S. states by historical population

Topics are very similar, but List of U.S. states by historical population is data-centric and List of U.S. states and territories by population is prose-centric. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps even Demographic history of the United States?

Demographic history of the United States is probably more appropriate, since there's already a small table there of historical populations between 1620 and 1780, and List of U.S. states and territories by population documents the current population. Alcherin (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas and Kansas

there is something wrong in the article that is that Arkansas has more people than Kansas.174.44.64.225 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands, italics?

The Northern Mariana Islands is the only entry on the list in italics. Why the italics? No reason is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.195.123 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Station1 (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Colorado and Minnesota

Per the listed 2016 numbers, Colorado has passed Minnesota (in terms of population) by some 20 thousand. The 2016 population rankings do not currently reflect this (showing Colorado as 22nd and Minnesota as 21st), but the page does not allow me to make the relevant edit to correct this. (Locked to people not logged in maybe? I don't know, but there's no edit link that I can see.) (Also, the percent of total population for the two states are swapped.) 96.255.89.117 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Rare thing found in article!

This is impossible and untrue, possibly Rare thing. First of all, Arkansas has fewer people than Kansas 20 times less population. Second of all, Arkansas does not have bigger cities than Kansas. Wichita, Dodge City, and Overland Park, and Topeka and Manhattan a massive population in all but only one big city in Arkansas, Little Rock. Please edit this rare stuff. Census.gov. 2010 174.44.64.225 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)(EDT) |answered=

No one seems to have gotten back to you, but as of what the numbers show at the moment, it is consistent with what the Census Bureau shows at [1], which is the referenced source. Arkansas has a 2.2% higher population than Kansas. To argue the point, you'll need to find authoritative sources to the contrary, although I'm not sure anything is more authoritative than the census bureau on this particular subject. —Salton Finneger (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, maybe Arkansas, just has more medium-sized cities than Kansas.2601:2C1:C301:6350:1AD:C49D:616F:EF23 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

I think that there should be a column stating the annual population change rate of each state and territory. I'll let other Wikipedia users decide whether it should be in people or a percentage. 2601:2C1:C301:6350:1AD:C49D:616F:EF23 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm sorry, but this isn't an edit request and more of a proposal. If you wish, you can create a table yourself listing the population change (fully sourced) and paste it here and I'll copy it into the article. All the best, st170e 01:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Population Estimate percentages

Does anyone know how to calculate them? LiberatorLX (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind I did it. LiberatorLX (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Can somebody change the ranking for Nevada in the "Rank in all states and territories, 2010" column (second from left) from 35 to 36? Cbmsu01 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done YBG (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

Please update "Estimated pop. per House seat, 2016" and "Percent of Total U.S. pop., 2016" as they were never updated from the 2015 estimates. 73.219.250.247 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What do you want them to be changed to? —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

PA vs IL

The current data for Pennsylvania is incorrect. The 2016 population estimate is 12,784,227, which should rank it below Illinois. Check the Census website's quickfacts [2] and factfinder [3]. I would fix this myself but cannot edit as the page is edit-protected. The Pennsylvania and Illinois pages should be fixed as well, as they currently incorrectly state they are the fifth and sixth most populous, when it should be the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypondlane (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of U.S. states and territories by population. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100528123819/http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924015144/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn179.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn179.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101063104/https://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn180.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn180.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723145237/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn177.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn177.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223043232/http://www.oceandots.com/pacific/mariana/alamagan.php to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn178.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218204847/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The latest edit messed up Washington's population. Could someone able to please correct this to it's previous version (7,288,000)?

Already done — IVORK _Discuss 08:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect MA ranking for 2000

In "Population of states, territories, divisions and regions", the state of Massachusetts is mistakenly ranked as number 43 in the 2000 census. The correct ranking is 13, as stated in the 2000 census . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.113.9 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Iowa

How does Iowa's population in 2010 census be 3 million then suddenly balloon to a 11 million estimate in 2016? Iowa's state page only specifies 3.6 million as the estimated population, someone please make the correction. 96.255.29.67 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to have switched Illinois and Iowa. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.218.144 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Populations of California, Iowa, Illinois, and Texas

Someone drastically increased the population of Iowa in the table and decreased the population of Illinois. This needs to be corrected. 174.103.140.195 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone also listed Texas' population as 315,018,336 (which would be impressive, even for TX) and California's as 186,233,337 (There goes CA as the most populous).

It appears that MANY (ALMOST ALL) of the populations are significantly off. If you summed the populations in the 2016 estimate column would be 3.5 billion (vs 323 million). At the very top of this page on the Census site: https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=2016+population+estimates&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP&search.x=0&search.y=0 is a link to 2016 estimates. Versus the only thing that matches the data on this Wikipedia page is the 323,127,513 2016 population estimate which might be 50 states + DC. Cwadlington (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. states and territories by population. 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://web.archive.org/web/20151223044815/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2015/index.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2015/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

The population estimate for colorado is off by about 5 million, the population since 2010 has only grown 47.19.197.41 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

change population of Wyoming from 5,048,836 to 585,501 under 2016 estimate. The Wyoming Wikipedia page shows 2015 population as 586,107 and the 2016 estimate as 585,501. Wsolem (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done st170e 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Michigan

Not sure where this estimate of Michigan having over 10 million people in 2016 comes from...2602:306:CFEA:170:3C88:93D9:AC12:DAF4 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Contiguous United States

I would like to remove the Contiguous United States entry from the main table. I don't think it really serves a purpose, and just makes the already bloated table even larger. Are there any arguments for keeping it? kennethaw88 • talk 04:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason it appears in the list is that the Contiguous United States is a significant and non-subjective geographical concept in the government, commerce, education and industry of the US. I think outright deletion of the information is not a good idea. I would say don't delete it, but if you really want to delete it, please move the data to the Contiguous United States page. Thanks for your work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

State rankings table

As a non-American, I don't find the large State Rankings table very helpful. It gives great prominence to population changes between 2010 and 2017 – 5 columns. But it fails to demonstrate that the basic inequality of state representation is not due to that, but rather due to the inclusion of the number of senators in the electoral college, which is of course is 2 irrespective of state.

I would like to see the inclusion of a column "Population per Congressional Seat, 2010" and the dropping of several of the 2017 columns. This after all shows how the constitution is actually working and the numbers vary from 677,325 to 187,922, not very different to the 2017 figures. It's difficult to imagine the system being changed more often than every 10 years. Chris55 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As an American, while the skewed representation is notable, what you're asking for probably ought to go on the Electoral College's page. Maybe not a table, but a summary of the issue, with examples. But the fact is, the entire point of the Senate was that population would not factor into a state's representation. ShorinBJ (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

States' #s (Columns 1 & 2)

Pennsylvania's ranks Number 5 among the 50 States but Number 6 among the States & Territories. Is there a territory that has a population greater than Pennsylvania?Bayowolf (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rank in states & territories is for the official census count of 2010, while the Rank in the fifty states is for the population estimate in 2018. The Census Bureau does not provide yearly estimates for the territories (except Puerto Rico), so the only way to compare all the states and territories together is to use 2010 numbers, even though more recent estimates exist. In fact, the reference ([4]) for the 2018 numbers is titled "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico"; I'm not sure where the territory population estimates come from. Between 2010 and 2018, Pennsylvania surpassed Illinois in population. kennethaw88 • talk 07:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Way back in this version, the territories correctly had no population estimates, so there were actually two distinct rankings. kennethaw88 • talk 08:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

2019

I just noticed this list is a mess, particularly the most recent estimates. Here is the most recent - and last before the Census - estimates released today:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html

--Criticalthinker (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Population Mix-Up

It would appear that the population counts for West Virginia and Idaho are inaccurate.47.197.202.76 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y Verified you are correct: [5] and [6]. Fixed now.Gambling8nt (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Data Formatting on Wiki-- Comma Separate Files(csv) --Please!

I have tried to copy and paste data files from wiki though it is quite awkward. It would be a great improvement for all of us who might not be conversant in API interfaces to provide simple data download opportunties for all datasets on wiki. Perhaps csv, pdf, excel etc. files could be included for all data. This would be a great improvement. Providing the data without allowing for easy use, defeats the purpose of an open data initiative. Comments welcome.

When sorting by percent change the negatives sort wrong

Sorting by change rate puts -.02% followed by -14.3%, -3.3%, -0.3%, etc - its a small thing but that isn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5786:F100:492D:1B48:58C1:B83E (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Navajo Nation

Why is the Navajo Nation not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.95.198 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not there because it is not a state or federal district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemaster10 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorting percentages is broken

If I sort the "Change, 2010–2019" "Percent" column so that it's smallest to largest, the result is nonsensical: –1.2% (Illinois) –0.2% (Connecticut) –14.3% (Puerto Rico) –3.3% (West Virginia) –0.3% (Vermont) –1.6% (U.S. Virgin Islands) –4.55% (Northern Mariana Islands) –10.95% (American Samoa) (Places with positive percentages are in the correct order.) Also, if I sort from largest to smallest, these places are in the same order at the bottom of the chart, when you'd think they should be reversed. The correct order is Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, West Virginia, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, U.S. Virgin Islands.

How can they be made to sort the right way?

64.203.187.85 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the Flag

Can somebody change Mississippi's flag icon since they got a new design?

Estimated House reapportionment?

Is there any interest in adding a column for the estimated House seat reapportionment based on the latest population estimates? I don't think it'd qualify as WP:ORIGINAL since it's directly derived from information already provided. If anyone has interest, it is as follows:

• +2 seats: Florida (29), Texas (38)
• +1 seat: Arizona (10), Colorado (8), North Carolina (14), Oregon (6)
• -1 seat: California (52), Illinois (17), Michigan (13), Minnesota (7), New York (26), Pennsylvania (17), Rhode Island (1), West Virginia (2)

This is based on a mathematically optimized solution of each Rep representing 753,372 people.

And, just for fun, here's what it'd look like if DC and the US territories were included:

• Summary: Puerto Rico would gain 4 seats, while DC and the other four populated territories would gain 1 apiece. These nine seats would come from Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Oregon.
• +4 seats: Puerto Rico (4)
• +2 seats: Texas (38)
• +1 seat: Florida (28), North Carolina (14); each of DC, American Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands also would gain (1)
• -1 seat: Alabama (6), Michigan (13), Minnesota (7), Ohio (15), Pennsylvania (17), Rhode Island (1), West Virginia (2)
• -2 seats: California (51), Illinois (16), New York (25)

This is based on a mathematically optimized solution of each Rep representing 770,177 people. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Any interest in redoing this based on the just-updated 2020 populations? Or wait for the official? Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgia population statistics are incorrect

According to the Census Bureau's "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2020", Georgia has an estimated population of 10,710,017. In the table in the article, Georgia's population is currently listed as 11,610,017. This should be altered to the correct number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.225.55 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed. Vandalism fixed, thank you for spotting this.Gambling8nt (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

add population density

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd love to see the number of people per square mile here. Thanks! 2001:8F8:1623:27D8:D9D5:EB3D:DF1C:24BC (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)R.E.D

This seems to be a perennial request, and as such there is an argument to add it by popular demand if nothing else. However, the main list is already a bit full. Perhaps density could be tacked on to the regional list—what do people think? Strunkenwhite (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose merge - Oppose making this article larger than it is, density can be a separate article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Do we still need all the 2010 columns on the table? I’d suggest removing the majority (perhaps only keeping the two indicating gross and percent population change). Removing 5 columns would free sufficient room for a density column. I don’t think a separate article would have sufficient distinct material. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Keeping all the 2010s data is complete WP:RECENTISM. Unless we're also going to include historical data from all the other census years, we should delete it. That'll free up room to then add density information, which is both relevant and clearly desired. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 Census numbers

I see you guys are using apportionment numbers in the chart, but this is not usually the public number used in statistics and media. Apportionment includes both resident and overseas population; we've pretty consistently used resident population in this chart, right? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, on closer inspection, you are using resident population for the 2010 number and apportionment population for the 2020 number. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. One or the other must be chosen. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: I have noticed this too. We should ideally use the resident population for all numbers in this article, no? I'd think it best represents the proper population of a state and all the people living in it, as the apportionment numbers include overseas residents. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd use resident population. If we feel the need to keep the apportionment data in the chart, then a simple note can be added to that section that those calculations use apportionment numbers. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Any chance of getting this back on the featured list?

I really like this article, and from glancing back at the old version and the reasons for removal, I think the current version has not only addressed those reasons but is a much richer resource overall. I don't know that much about the editor side of Wikipedia; does it have decent odds of being accepted back into the ranks of the featured? It's a timely article given the recent Census results. Strunkenwhite (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Table orderings not functional

On the "State and territory rankings" table, the US House of Rep Number of Seats rank ordering is not working. It rearranges them with some order but it's not right--it seems like it orders two groups separately so a bunch of 1's wind up in the middle. Can anyone advise on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.45.52 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the updated House numbers were stripped of their sort functionality formatting. Fixed. Strunkenwhite (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed simplification

I propose the following changes:

• Remove the 2010 rank, 2010 population and 2010–2020 change (percentage and absolute) from the first table, and add the 2010–2020 change (absolute) to the second table. The 2010 rank, 2010 population and 2010–2020 change (percentage) are already in the second table. Also remove the 2000 population from the second table.
• Remove the 3 columns with the percentage of total US population. Add only one column with the percentage for 2020, right next to the column with the 2020 population.
• Keep the columns with the number of representatives per state and their percentages, but clarify that they refer to the next elections.
• Add columns with the number of electoral votes per state, and move the column with its percentages next to it. Clarify that they refer to the next elections.
• Keep only one column of population per representative, based on the 2020 population and representatives in the next election. Same for population per electoral vote.
• After the 2021 population is released, add it to the first table, replacing the 2020 population, and recalculate the populations per representative and electoral vote based on the 2021 population. The 2020 population will remain only in the second table.

Examples:

Rank	State or territory	Population (April 1, 2020)		House of Reps. (elections 2022–2030)		EVs (2024–2028)		Population per rep.	Population per EV
			%		%		%
1	California	39,538,223	11.80%	52	11.95%	54	10.04%	760,350	732,189

Subdivision	Population (April 1, 2020)		Population (April 1, 2010)		2010–2020 change			Geo. sort
	#		#		#		%
Massachusetts	15	7,029,917	14	6,547,629	21	482,288	7.4%	NEng

Any comments? Feel free to edit the examples above with your suggestions. Heitordp (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Using 2021 estimates or not

So, this page used to have the official 2021 population estimates, and I remember a lot of wiki pages using population estimates prior to 2020, so I think they should be here too --Ngfsmg (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Any reason we have only 2021 and 2010 on the table? That comparison doesn't make much sense to me and I don't see anyone here advocating it. 2021 and 2020 seems best to me: most recent official census count and most recent estimate. 2020 and 2010 seems second best: two most recent censuses. What's the point of having the most recent estimate and then only the second most recent official census count? 718Guy (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Heitordp's suggestion below would handle that concern by having the most recent estimate, the 2020 number, and the 2010 number, especially if the apportionment information is retained. If the apportionment bit is discarded, having just most recent estimate and 2020 makes the most sense as List of U.S. states and territories by historical population serves to provide the census-to-census comparisons. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, it tended to be updated with the annual estimates. There has been some change in the scope of the tables over time, so I guess the question is what is the goal of the article now and what information best achieves that? Below is the structure as it is now compared to 2017 and 2011. Is there too much trying to be done in this list now? Are there some bits where a Census to Census comparison makes more sense and others where an updated population estimate (alone or in comparison to past numbers) makes more sense?

Current

Rank		State or territory	Census population		Change, 2010–2020		House of Reps.		Pop. per elec. vote, 2020	Census pop. per seat		% of the total U.S. pop.			% of Elec. Coll.
'20	'10		April 1, 2020	April 1, 2010	%	Abs.	S.	%		'20	'10	Est. 2020	2010	Ch. 2010–2020
1	1	California	39,538,223	37,253,956	6.1%	2,284,267	52	11.95%	715,783	761,091	702,905	11.80%	11.91%	–0.11%	10.04%

October 2017

Rank in the fifty states, 2016	Rank in all states & territories, 2010	State or territory	Population estimate, July 1, 2016	Census population, April 1, 2010	Total seats in House of Representatives, 2013–2023	Estimated pop. per House seat, 2016	Census pop. per House seat, 2010	Percent of total U.S. pop., 2016
1	1	California	39,250,017	37,254,503	53	738,581	702,905	12.15%

August 2011

Rank in the Fifty States, 2010	Rank in all states & terri- tories, 2010	State or territory	Census population, April 1, 2010	Rank in the Fifty States, 2000	Census population, April 1, 2000	Census population, April 1, 1990	Seats in U.S. House, 2003–2013	Presi- dential Electors 2004– 2008	2010 Census Pop. per House seat	2000 Census Pop. per House seat	2000 Census Pop. per Pres. Elector	Percent of total U.S. pop., 2010
1	1	California	37,593,222	1	33,871,648	29,780,021	53	55	702,905	639,088	615,848	11.91%

References

Notes

—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough one for me. The 2020 Census again showed how unreliable the bureau's own estimates are. It tends to significantly underestimate the Rustbelt states, and often overestimates the Sunbelt states. Comparing the 2021 estimates to the actual 2020 Census count, they really just look ridiculous.

I guess to stay consistent we should keep the column and update it every year since they are official estimates. But I'd REALLY like us to keep the 2010 Census column for comparison to 2020. I think that should be the compromise. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The estimates may be unreliable, but it's also likely that the 2020 Census numbers are flawed due to the complications of trying to complete the task during the COVID pandemic and in the face of political meddling. Census-to-Census comparisons are available at List of U.S. states and territories by historical population, and the List of U.S. states and territories by population § Summary of population by region tables give Census 2020 to 2010 to 2000 values for comparison.

Right now, the current table is trying to show population totals, population change, representation, apportionment, and change in apportionment. In my mind, given this article is List of U.S. states and territories by population, having the current estimate as the main data that it's organized around makes sense. The apportionment/representation is based around the Census, so the 2020 (and 2010, if the % change is going to be shown) are relevant there; although, the same info, in a different format, is at United States congressional apportionment.

There're valid arguments for presenting the info in any number of ways/combinations, so the first question I have is what's the purpose/goal of the page? If we can agree on that, then the rest should be simpler to figure out. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'm going to offer my opinion on the actual substance, there isn't much of a question. Every decade, this chart resets, essentially. It should show the 2020 Census, and then whatever the recent estimate is. I'd love it to also include 2010 Census info, but it's not something I'd stop the change over.--Criticalthinker (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tcr25 and Criticalthinker: I think that this article should be only about population, and leave the information about congressional representation and apportionment for other articles. In the first table, I think that it's useful to show the most recent estimate (2021) and the most recent census count (2020), with the respective percentages and change, similar to the table in Metropolitan statistical area, but leave the counts of earlier years only for the second table and other articles. I also suggest clarifying and compacting the table headers, reordering the columns, and if the congressional information will be shown, calculate it only based on the most recent population estimate and put it as the last columns. So I propose the following format, with or without the last 6 columns:

Rank	State or territory	Population (estimated July 1, 2021)		Population (census April 1, 2020)		Change (2020–2021)		House of Reps. (elections 2022–2030)		EVs (2024–2028)		Population per rep.	Population per EV
			%		%		%		%		%
1	California	39,237,836	11.69%	39,538,223	11.80%	–300,387	–0.76%	52	11.95%	54	10.04%	754,574	726,627

Heitordp (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Table "est 2022”

The table still says “est 2022”. But since the census is complete, shouldn’t “est” be removed? Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)