Template talk:USLargestCities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Order

The order of this list is not accurate as it seems to be based on balance populations rather than city populations. Kaldari 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 figures are older than what's available

There are city population figures from 2003 that are obviously more current. Why can't we use the most current information? Louisville is the 26th largest as of the 2003 Census numbers, yet it's not in this list. Shouldn't the Wikipedia be reflecting the latest statistics? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree Stevie, so I reverted the change to reflect the latest census estimates data. I don't know why someone had drmatically changed articles without any previous discussion. --Moreau36; 1157, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Estimates

I recently updated the template to reflect List of United States cities by population which uses the new data. Also, I changed the placement of Louisville, Kentucky and Nashville, Tennessee to reflect that these are consolidated city-counties. Source for 2005 data: [1] Ufwuct 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows Louisville as the 16th largest city? A lot of people have been looking for an actual source for this from the Census Bureau. Without this, Louisville will need to be placed back at #26. I'm sure this affects Nashville as well. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It was corrected according to the link above. --Moreau36-comment; 1411, 22 June 1006 (UTC)
Louisville's 2005 estimated population is 699,827 according to the census bureau's full list (the list linked above doesn't include consolidated cities). That makes it the 16th largest incorporated city in the U.S. Kaldari 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Do you have proof of Louisville being ranked 16th by the U.S. Census Bureau? I have yet to see any evidence that Louisville is officially considered 16th in rank. I agree with you in an unofficial way, but we can't go off of unofficial assumptions in the Wikipedia. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no source showing Louisville being ranked as the 16th largest city by the Census Bureau, nor is there a source showing Louisville being ranked as the 26th largest city. The city of Louisville does not appear in the ranking linked to above, and even if it did, that is not a ranking of cities, it is a ranking of "incorporated places" which has a very specific and confusing definition unique to the Census Bureau. Kaldari 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link that is eluding you. It shows Louisville as 26th. Unless you can show a Census Bureau list with Louisville as the 16th, you're going on personal opinion rather than something that is referenced. I have no choice but to revert back. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That file shows nothing of the sort. That is a ranking of the largest census designated geographic areas classified as geographic level code 162. The word "cities" does not appear anywhere on that table. It just happens that most of the geographic areas listed in the table are cities. Geographic level code 162 consists of the following:
  1. most incorporated towns and cities (except all consolidated cities but Jacksonville)
  2. balances (which are neither incorporated nor cities)
What that table is ranking is not the same thing as what we are ranking here. We are ranking the 50 largest cities in the United States. Louisville, which is an incorporated city, belongs to geographic level code 170, which is not included in that table. I don't think ranking the cities ourselves (based on cited figures) is an "opinion" or original research, as it is a rather trivial mathematical task. Kaldari 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to show an official ranking list of the top cities, or you're not sourcing your position. It's as simple as that. Exercising math to show a ranking is tantamount to a personal opinion because there is still no indication anywhere of that being an official result. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I also contend that you need to show a ranking list of the top cities, or you are not sourcing your position either. Really neither of us can adequately source our positions. Thus this template should either be retitled or deleted as unsourced. Kaldari 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The link has already been provided to you. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You might as well be linking to a ranking of cows. I have already stated several times that that is not a ranking of cities. Can you demonstrate to me otherwise? Kaldari 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Your assertion is baseless. I have already given the full source, which is a 100% demonstration that everyone but you accepts. We are supposed to publish only sourced material here in the Wikipedia. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please stop using this straw man argument. I do not disagree that Wikipedia must use sources. My only contention is that the source you are citing is not a ranking of the largest cities in the United States. It just happens that 90% of the geographic areas in that ranking happen to be cities. If we changed the title of this template to USLargestCensusDesignatedIncorporatedPlaces I would have no disagreement with the source. Kaldari 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The template as-is is sourced. Over-parsing the source as you suggest creates no value. Please be aware that many people will revert your changes if you try to change it away from sourced materials. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, with a failure to produce a source for the recent changes, this discussion is over, unless and until a source for a different official ranked list is produced. All changes to this list that aren't sourced will be reverted by me or others (I'm sure). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for this template and related article

I believe that the source for this template and the list article should be the Census Bureau's full 2005 estimate list, rather than the incorporated places ranking, because of 2 problems with the incorporated places ranking:

  • It includes "balances" which are neither incorporated nor cities
  • It does not include consolidated cities (other than Jacksonville, which they do not consider a consolidated city for technical reasons)

Kaldari 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"I believe" is not considered an adequate source. We can only go by Census Bureau official ranking. If you can produce an official ranking list showing what you believe, then you will be able to get a consensus to make the template as you like it. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that my belief should be the source. I said I believe we are using the incorrect source. There's a big difference there. Kaldari 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In the United States, we go by U.S. Census Bureau ranking to determine the largest cities. Unless you have a link to such a list, you're skating on thin ice. Also, it's clear that you are wanting to puff up Nashville's position--you have the same bias I would have (vis-a-vis Louisville), but we have to go on *official* rank only. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no official ranking of cities. The Census Bureau neither ranks nor defines "cities". Kaldari 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect on both counts. Everything in the Wikipedia requires sources, and the template as shown before your changes is fully sourced. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the source is not a source for the largest cities in the US. The source was used incorrectly. I am not trying to "puff-up" Nashville, I am trying to correct a mistake. Kaldari 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It absolutely is a source for the largest cities. Absolutely. Don't be upset just because you cannot produce a source. Since my position is sourced and yours is not, you just need to accept that. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you believe that list is a ranking of the largest cities in the US? I have already explained why I believe it is not. Kaldari 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because that's how the U.S. Census Bureau ranks cities. It's clear from looking at it. Where's your alternative official ranking list? Your inability to produce that proves my position. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it clear from looking at it?? The title of the table is "Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places Over 100,000". It says nothing about cities. Furthermore, on closer inspection you will see that the ranking includes balances, which are neither incorporated nor cities. Perhaps you do not understand the difference between balances and cities, which may be the case since the article for Louisville-Jefferson (balance), Kentucky doesn't even exist and the article on Louisville, Kentucky incorrectly listed the balance population as the city population (until I corrected it). Please look at line 25202 of the Census Bureau's full list. You will see in black and white that the Census Bureau lists the population of "Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky" as "699827". "Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky" is the name of the consolidated goverment of the city of Louisville and the county of Jefferson. Kaldari 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at these two articles: Indianapolis (balance), Indiana, Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee. Balances are not the same thing as cities. Kaldari 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that your position is looking increasingly plausible. Thank you for all the research you have done, and for dealing with my high degree of skepticism. I hope it's defendable against those who will not like to see their cities slipping in rank in this template. Cheers! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all unreasonable for you to be skeptical. The Census Bureau's information is extremely confusing, as is the concept of consolidated cities in general. Kaldari 05:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Louisville Courier-Journal article may up-end recent changes

Check out the talk entry I created for the Louisville, Kentucky article. Due to the information in the C-J article, I updated the population and ranking content, although I tried very hard to maintain the integrity of what was recently placed there by Kaldari. I think the Louisville article now clarifies this messy situation well, but I do fear there are greater ramifications for this template. Maybe it would just affect the naming of this template? At any rate, I'm not going to challenge what's here one way or the other, but I just thought the C-J article might open some eyes. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 75?

What is the rationale to make this list the top 75 rather than the top 50? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I kind of like the expansion, just as long as it doesn't go too far I'll max out at 100 Bsides, there are templates within Wikipedia that are longer than this. --Moreau36-comment; 1252, 24 June 1006 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on whether I like or dislike it. It's just that the person who did it didn't say why they were changing it. I don't know the purpose of doing this, and why it is now cut off at 75. An explanation in talk would be appreciated. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I apologize for offending you Stevie, I just gave my opinion, that's all. If I have offended you tell me. --Moreau36-comment; 1545, 24 June 1006 (UTC)
No offense taken. See my talk. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for no rationale. Here it is: many of the cities in the U.S. considered major by Americans have fallen in population to land many in the fifties and sixties. Examples include Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Saint Louis. However, since 75 is an awkward number, I am planning to add #75-100 today. For my source, I used the link at the top of the third discussion above (the Census Bureau's 2005 estimates). Sorry, --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project".

Expanded to 100.--- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
Good point. As mentioned above, Although St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Newark, N.J. had fallen out of the top 50 since the 1980 census, they are still major cities according to Americans in general, thus should be mentioned. --Moreau36-comment; 1841, 24 June 1006 (UTC)
I'm not going to stick an iron in the fire of what size the template should be, but I just had wanted the changes to be explained, and they were. Thank you! But I would hope that we would at least stick to even numbers, like 50 or 100. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Buffalo and Pittsburgh are no longer major cities, that is why people are running away from them. Or as the joke goes, will the last person out of Detroit (or Buffalo or Pittsburgh) please turn out the lights?
On a more serious note, I believe the template is getting WAY TOO BIG and is beginning to include cities that are not "large" under any serious objective standard, like Akron, Chula Vista, Lubbock, Modesto, Fremont, Montgomery, and Shreveport. I believe a cut-off at 50 is more reasonable.
Seriously, do any of the cities in the 50-100 range make it into Asahi Shimbun or the Times of London or Le Monde or even the New York Times on a regular basis? NO. Is their attitude going to be: "how interesting! I'll click on these at random!" Of course not! They have better things to do then click on what N.Y. people call "flyover" cities! They're going to click on the few cities at the top which they recognize (N.Y., L.A., S.F., and so on). Basically, the vast majority of Wikipedia users who don't live in those midsize and obscure cities are NOT GOING to click on all those links.
So there's no reason to provide grossly redundant links which already duplicate what is easily accessible through Google search and Wikipedia search and categories and lists and the U.S. state articles on Wikipedia. Plus the presence of those links lengthens and clutters every article in which this template is used, and I'm already seeing many editors drop this template from city articles because it's making them way too long. --Coolcaesar 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's your POV, quite frankly. I understand the list is getting larger and that can clutter a page (I'm not too crazy for templates myself, they dilute the article, in my opinion), but the personal attacks has to stop. Please be more objective. --Moreau36-comment; 0152, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
POV in what sense? Okay, so maybe I took the disparaging tone over the top, but I stand by my factual assertions as basically correct. I see no need for the template to be so long as to include aging "Rust Belt" cities with stagnant population numbers and awful weather.
Again: Is anyone who has never heard of those cities going to click on those links? No. Casual users who see this template are going to focus on the cities that ring a bell because those names actually appear on a daily basis in the international press. Everyone needs to get over their egos and simplify the template to the things people actually will click on. It's a matter of basic user interface design. Otherwise you end up with a giant piece of clutter no one will read. Then it's just totally useless. Then what's the point?--Coolcaesar 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the best solution is to bring this up as a Template for deletion then, because as you said, it's just clutter. If this solution doesn't answer for a comprimise then I have no other choice. If "The Rust Belt" cities (ie Detroit, Cleveland, NYC) shouldn't be mentioned then, what's the use for the template? You'll have to delete Detroit, Philadelphia, NYC, Cleveland, Boston, Columbus, OH; and Indianapolis (all in the top 50) Just for South-Central or West Coast Cities? If that isn't slanted, I don't know what is. I will consider tagging this as "tfd" to settle this for both parties.

If this solution or my response doesn't answer your question, then I can't help you..

P.S. Again, watch the personal attacks (about someone's ego), it's not tolerated in Wikipedia, period. --Moreau36-comment; 0334, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I don't see any personal attacks in what Coolcaesar said. Describing people's behavior in general (like asking people to keep egos in check) isn't much of a personal attack, even if intended. That said, I find the argument about "rust belt" / "flyover" cities unconvincing, but the argument about undue size and whether people would ordinarily click between cities of small stature sounds right. I still am not staking a position on the size, but the idea of a tfd is revolting and sad, as it's crystal clear this template is useful--it's not just for navigation... it conveys useful information about relative sizes. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, do whatever you guys want to the template, I'm offically out of this. I have other articles of interests to edit. If it goes one way, it goes one way, if it goes the other, fine. Calling my actions revolting when all I want to do is to have a comprimise. I don't apriciate (sp) the attack at all Stevie. I'm not going to waste my time or my health arguing over this. No offense. . --Moreau36; 0600, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to attack you, so I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm attacking an idea, an idea I find revolting. Seeking a compromise is fine, but instead you suggested a tfd. A recommendation of tfd isn't really a compromise, but rather kind of a threat. I would suggest that maybe you take a break for a while... it would seem you're getting very upset over what you perceive as attacks against you but really aren't. Disagreement contains all sorts of "attacks" on ideas, but that's the nature of discussing disputed things. Proclaiming natural disagreement as personal attacks is disingenous and doesn't help any argument. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for making yourself clear, but as I stated in my prior statement, I'm out of this totally. That's all I have to say about the subject. --Moreau36 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting too big

Its important to keep in mind that this template is being placed on some of the "more important" pages on the Wikipedia. It would be wise to keep it as unannoying as possible.. fellow editors (e.g. @ Dallas, Texas) are getting a little peaved about the size of this thing. Is it really necessary that it be a template in the first place? The concept is mentioned in the lead.. its sort of like having 'Major US Cities with airports' or 'Major US Cities with a transport system' templates.

But beyond that, there is a way to get rid of the, ah, "inconvenience" of this template. I cannot find one an example to steal code from and I am too tired to continue searching right now, but there needs to be a "show/hide" function on this thing.. defaulted at hidden. drumguy8800 - speak 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that bad, and there's there's far thicker templates in use without complaints. I say "Get used to it". —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Further, I would think if there's a consensus of editors for a particular city that says "we want to exclude this template", that would seem all right to me. If they want to give up useful information, that should be their choice. And certainly, this information is not as esoteric as "Major US Cities with airports"; a ranking by population is actually something that many visitors might expect to see. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
But the other templates in use of larger size tend to link to a far more diverse variety of information that would be awkward to navigate through via the category system or through a long bulleted list. This template simply duplicates what is already available in list articles, and is actually less useful than a list (because it lacks the population numbers that justify its ordering). Furthermore, if editors for many, many cities (particularly the large ones with gigantic articles) begin excluding this template on the basis that it is too long, then the template becomes just another useless hunk of code that no one actually clicks on because no sensible editor wants it clogging up the footer of "his" or "her" city article. Which is the problem I have been trying to expose all along. In user interface design, the goal is to design things people will actually read and click through. The template should be trimmed to the 50 largest cities, nearly all of which are of national and international prominence. --Coolcaesar 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

How big should this list be?

50 cities - This template is pretty pointless anyway. I don't think it should take up more room than it did before. Kaldari 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

50 cities - I agree with Kadari. Besides, if you judge the urban behavior of today, then metropolitan areas will be more useful than just municipalities due to the fact that many more people in a particular metropolitan area live in suburbs than int the "central city" itself. Unlike prior to 1970, when main municipalities counted for the average of 70-80% of the metro's population. Tampa, Florida, for example, ranked 57th nationally within the city limits, but when suburbs are added in, it ranks 20th of all U.S. metro areas. --Moreau36 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Amazing position ("pointless") given all the work you have put into it. (??) —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm fine with 50 top cities or 50 top metro areas either way, but if you want to do metro areas, the template should be renamed accordingly. But that's another issue. --Coolcaesar 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
A top metro area template should be a separate template that's placed on metro area articles, all of which haven't been written yet as far as I can tell. In fact, I just recently wrote the Louisville metro area article. It would be a mismatch to place metro area population comparisons on city articles. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

50 cities - For the reasons I have stated above. --Coolcaesar 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

25 cities with Top 10 metros & Hide/show feature. drumguy8800 - speak 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

50 cities - I don't mind it being 100, but I would be inclined to support 50. Further, it's not pointless to compare cities by population--on the contrary, this kind of thing is an expected encyclopedic feature and it's useful comparative information. I am bitterly opposed to a hide/show feature--Javascript-based features (from a readership POV) in a textual encyclopedia is an inane concept--A 50 city list should be rather flat and thus there's no need to even consider such a measure anyway. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that it belongs in its own article. Each city included on the list shouldn't have *every other* city listed on its own page... drumguy8800 - speak 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

50 or fewer. This template is not particularly useful, in my opinion, and the larger it is the less useful. It could easily be replaced with a link to a list. However, short of deleting it, keep it short. -Will Beback 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. After much thought and looking and studying through other state/county/city templates throughout wikipedia, this one is not that impressive and just takes up more article space. --Moreau36 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix

Vdavisson, do you have a more up to date or more reliable source than [2] or [3]? This information came out on 6-21-2006 and it's from the U.S. Census Bureau. If you have a source that says Phoenix now has more people than Philadelphia, please include it. If I were to guess, based on population growth rates in those two cities, Phoenix probably does have more people now (now almost 12 months later), but my guess would not be acceptable as a source and neither would the guess of anyone else on Wikipedia; only the estimates of a qualified body will do here. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] San Diego, San Antonio

Copied from user talk page

Moreau, regarding your request for a source from User:66.74.215.225:

On San Diego, a source[4] is given for a January 2005 San Diego population estimate that is higher than the Census Bureau's July 2005 estimate for San Antonio. However, this source is from a planning agency. My opinion is that we at Wikipedia should defer to U.S. Census Bureau's estimate over a regional planning agency. I think the San Diego article should reflect this preference too. At the very least, we should use a consistent source for the template (U.S. Census Bureau). I'd like to hear your thoughts. Ufwuct 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The list should be consistent from one source (the United States Census Bureau for comparison purposes), not any others, which leads to incosistencey. I'm not disputing the numbers, but I'm just asking for consistency. --Moreau36 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that we're in agreement, Moreau36. Any type of body or agency could derive (or simply create) an estimate. Maybe in the future, city-level or metro area-level agencies will prove to be reliable. In the meantime, the U.S. Census Bureau seems to be the most logical source for the template and also for mentions of ranking within the articles. Ufwuct 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denoting population

I propose we denote population groups on the template: over 1,000,000 people, 500,000-1,000,000 people, and under 500,000 people. --Kitch 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:LargestUSMetros?

I think that this template should list the largest U.S. Metro areas, not cities. Actual cities in the U.S. can be small, but surrounded by vast suburbs (such as St. Louis, Missouri]). These cities are more likely to be recognizable to the common citizen than the sprawling boom cities of the west. Many people looking at this template will be confused, and wonder why Arlington, Long Beach, and Colorado Springs are listed, while St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo are left off. For a reputable source, see United States metropolitan area. Any suggestions? --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

I agree. Metros are more comphrehensive given today's urban behavior and the fact that more people are moving to the suburbs. --Moreau36 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a separate template be established to go with metro area articles. A city is not a metro area. This template should stay as is, although the number of cities it includes could be reduced (as discussed above). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pointless

this template is pointless. sure, city boundaries mean _something_, but to most people and for most things they mean nothing. metro areas are what actually matter. the metro template should not only be created (as stated above), it should then lead to the deletion of this one.

[edit] What the fuck??!!!

Why is it that this includes Arlington, Texas, but not St. Louis, Missouri???

The population of Saint Louis is 352,572 and the population of Arlington is 362,805 (as of 2005). Kaldari 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just caught some vandalism

ShreveNewsMan did an unexplained edit on 14 December reverting this back to 100 largest cities even though we had already agreed this was to be limited at 50 largest cities. But no one caught it since we are all too busy fighting vandalism in other articles. I am reverting ShreveNewsMan's edit immediately. It appears that ShreveNewsMan's motive for extending the list may be to ensure the broader mention of minor cities like Shreveport, Louisiana. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. See core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useage

The template reads "50 Largest US Cities". Why is this on cities which are not in the top 50 (e.g., St. Louis and Wichita). I question that the template should be on those pages if the cities aren't in the top 50.Squad51 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably because ShreveNewsMan put them there. Thank you for raising the issue. If I see this template in a city article where it shouldn't be, I'll delete it. --Coolcaesar 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed four so far but this is so time-consuming since my Internet link is so slow. I have raised the issue on the Village pump so hopefully one of the admins can fix this faster. --Coolcaesar 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NavigationBox

Here is hoping that changing to Navigation from NavigationBox caused no problems for anyone just now. I put a note in the edit history too that reverting is fine with me in advance. For the pages I checked (not all 50) a collapsible table seemed okay and in the case for which I did it, a big help. Does it look OK? -Susanlesch 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is San Juan PR included?

I would like to suggest that San Juan be removed from the template. In the referenced parent article, it is not included in the main list; it is included in a separate list of places in Puerto Rico. On the basis that Puerto Rico is not a state (it is an independent commonwealth), it makes sense to exclude it. What say the Wikimmunity? Truthanado (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that. PR is not a state, either change the name of the template or remove San Juan.thanks Astuishin (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is part of the US. Puerto Ricans have fully participated in all U.S. Wars since 1898, and became United States Citizens in 1917. The statement that Puerto Rico is independent is completely incorrect.

Puerto Rico currently has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate, and the current Congress had returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.[6] Puerto Rico has elections on the US Presidential Primary or Caucus of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to select delegates to the respective parties national conventions although presidential electors are not granted on the United States Electoral College.

Contrary to common misconception, residents of Puerto Rico pay some U.S. federal taxes: import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc. Most residents do not pay federal income tax but pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). But federal employees, or those who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S. and others also pay federal income taxes. Puerto Ricans may enlist in the U.S. military. Puerto Ricans have fully participated in all U.S. wars since 1898, and became United States citizens in 1917. President George H.W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992, to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all Federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State insofar as doing so would not disrupt Federal programs or operations. On December 23, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed executive Order 13183, which established the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status and the rules for its membership. Section 4 of executive Order 13183 (as amended by executive Order 13319) directs the Task Force to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status." President George W. Bush signed an additional amendment to Executive Order 13183 on December 3, 2003, which established the current co-chairs and instructed the Task Force to issue reports as needed, but no less than once every two years.[3][4]

The statehood position is carried by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico. Both major United States political parties have expressed their position on their respective party platforms. The following are the appropriate section from the respective 2004 party platforms: The Republican Party 2004 Platform indicate the following: "We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the Constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government.[7] The Democratic Party 2004 Platform indicates the following: "We believe that four million disenfranchised American citizens residing in Puerto Rico have the right to the permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. The White House and Congress will clarify the realistic status options for Puerto Rico and enable Puerto Ricans to choose among them".[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.100.57 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:USLargestCities"
Personal tools