![]() | United States Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Historical populations on 18 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
Moverton ( t c), 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)
There are no longer any U.S. articles that use {{ Histpop}}! All articles have been switched to {{ USCensusPop}}. / Timneu22 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
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)
Nice template, but bad grammar-- It's "historical population," not "historical populations."
Can the definition for the abbreviations be given at the bottom of the template? SriMesh | talk 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The table of population by decade in the New Hampshire entry (Sec. 3, Demographics) is done by the {{USCensusPop}} 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)
Don't know when it happened, but it's fixed now; thanks. -- Spike-from-NH ( talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
I propose to add the following {{ H:title}} to the 2nd row of this table, as can be seen in the example to the right.
{{H:title|Population|Pop.}} {{H:title|Percent change|%±}}
Historical populations | |||
---|---|---|---|
Census | Pop. | %± |
68.101.219.116 ( talk) 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template currently uses {{ H:title}} to expand abbreviations inside the table header. I propose the more appropriate {{ abbr}} be used instead:
{{H:title|Population|Pop.}}
→ {{abbr|Pop.|Population}}
{{H:title|Percent change|%±}}
→ {{abbr|%±|Percent change}}
(Note: The template parameters are inverted.)
Cosmetically, {{abbr}} displays a help cursor when expanding an abbreviation ( e.g.).
More importantly, {{abbr}} ensures the expanded form remains accessible to screen reader users. For this reason, the documentation of {{H:title}} specifically recommends using {{abbr}} to mark abbreviations.
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:H:title reveals {{H:title}} to be used primarily to annotate pronunciation as part of the IPA template family. — Cheng ✍ 06:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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 {{abbr|%±|Percent change}}
with {{abbr|±%|Percent change}}
.
I was going to do that, but the template is locked.
Thanks,
-- Nnemo ( talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a bug with the way the percent change is calculated for estimated populations. If an estyear of 2010 or later is entered into the table following a 2010 Census value, the resulting percent change shown for the estimate will be calculated based on the 2000 Census value, not the 2010 Census value as would be appropriate. For an example, see Cavalier County, North Dakota#Demographics. The percent change for the 2010 population estimate should be 0% rather than the -17.4% that actually shows up. The similar template {{ Historical populations}} currently does not have this problem. Mwmnp ( talk) 05:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, the problem described by the original edit request above was not actually fixed. To solve the problem, the following changes to this template must be made in the code a few lines from the bottom:
<tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2000|}}}|{{{2000}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2000}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
to
<tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2010|}}}|{{{2010}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2010}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
In other words, the three appearances of the number 2000 have to be changed to 2010. Having tested this change in the template's sandbox, I can confirm that this will correct the problem that editors have been experiencing. -- Mwmnp ( talk) 04:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
}}{{#if:{{{estimate|}}} | <tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2000|}}}|{{{2000}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2000}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
to:
}}{{#if:{{{estimate|}}} | <tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2010|}}}|{{{2010}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2010}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
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)
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)
Also, just noted the other Template:Historical populations, which, though its title uses the plural, shows as "Historical population", I mention this, for consistency's sake, as an add'l reason to possibly adopt this proposal... Roberticus ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There has been no comment to my proposal from January 8th, so I'd like to formally edit request what I'd mentioned above, namely, that this template be revised to display as "Historical population", dropping the s from what is currently "populations", which will also make it consistent with Template:Historical populations Roberticus ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This template needs a means of displaying an alternate title at the top other than just "historical population". p b p 05:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Koavf and Nyttend: 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)
@ Nyttend and DocWatson42: let me know if you have feedback or can improve the sandbox. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.)". Sounder Bruce 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, would someone please add 2020 now that the population totals have been released? Thank you. JohnMcButts ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
|2020=
and |2020n=
. The estimate line is still based on |2010=
, 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)What is a "formatting error", and why does this template cause a problem at Energy, Illinois ? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
|1960n=
might be a good option. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Lots of pages have 2020 and an estimate for 2021. The template says one or the other. I think this needs to be both now. Lots of pages have both, so it's messing up the percentage increase from 2020 to 2021. For example United_States#Demographics CTF83! 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC){{
rfc}}
tag and the next valid timestamp (optionally preceded by a signature). Above, the {{
rfc}}
tag is followed directly by your signature; therefore, you have given no statement at all. Have a look at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture and compare the entry for this page with the others there - they all have statements that are brief (more or less) and describe the issue to be addressed. The entry for this page does nothing of the kind. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Is this a matter of making sure all other pages using this template have 2020 up to date, or is there another change that needs to be made? 12.42.50.52 ( talk) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)@ Jonesey95: I've seen that you have edited this page in the past. I don't mean to annoy you or drag you into this conversation, but I was wondering if you had any insight on how we could get the estimations to be based on 2020 instead of 2010 up and running. Any thoughts? 12.42.50.52 ( talk) 17:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
|estyear=
are post-2020, which I suspect has not been done yet. As far as I can tell, the code right now needs to say "If 2020 has a value and estyear is after 2020, use 2020 for the calculations. Otherwise, use 2010 for the calculations." It does not currently do that. I have asked for help adding a TemplateData section to the template documentation, which will give us a report in a couple of weeks that will show us the values of |estyear=
. We could also use a tracking category to find articles that need 2020 updates and/or updated estyear values. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
|estimate=
but do not have a value for |2020=
. The best way to fix this problem is to insert a value for the 2020 population of the place listed in the template, including a reference to the 2020 census. If the estimate in the template is dated prior to 2020, it should be removed or updated to a post-2020 estimate. It is acceptable for places, such as places that are no longer inhabited or listed in the US Census, to lack a 2020 population value as long as they do not have a recent population estimate in the template.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)
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)
|inactive=yes
and |active=no
tend to confuse people. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
05:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|deleted=
with an alias of |extinct=
. 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)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)
Short articles with a lengthy historical population would benefit from a horizontal layout. See:
Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | United States Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Historical populations on 18 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
Moverton ( t c), 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)
There are no longer any U.S. articles that use {{ Histpop}}! All articles have been switched to {{ USCensusPop}}. / Timneu22 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
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)
Nice template, but bad grammar-- It's "historical population," not "historical populations."
Can the definition for the abbreviations be given at the bottom of the template? SriMesh | talk 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The table of population by decade in the New Hampshire entry (Sec. 3, Demographics) is done by the {{USCensusPop}} 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)
Don't know when it happened, but it's fixed now; thanks. -- Spike-from-NH ( talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
editprotected}}
I propose to add the following {{ H:title}} to the 2nd row of this table, as can be seen in the example to the right.
{{H:title|Population|Pop.}} {{H:title|Percent change|%±}}
Historical populations | |||
---|---|---|---|
Census | Pop. | %± |
68.101.219.116 ( talk) 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template currently uses {{ H:title}} to expand abbreviations inside the table header. I propose the more appropriate {{ abbr}} be used instead:
{{H:title|Population|Pop.}}
→ {{abbr|Pop.|Population}}
{{H:title|Percent change|%±}}
→ {{abbr|%±|Percent change}}
(Note: The template parameters are inverted.)
Cosmetically, {{abbr}} displays a help cursor when expanding an abbreviation ( e.g.).
More importantly, {{abbr}} ensures the expanded form remains accessible to screen reader users. For this reason, the documentation of {{H:title}} specifically recommends using {{abbr}} to mark abbreviations.
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:H:title reveals {{H:title}} to be used primarily to annotate pronunciation as part of the IPA template family. — Cheng ✍ 06:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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 {{abbr|%±|Percent change}}
with {{abbr|±%|Percent change}}
.
I was going to do that, but the template is locked.
Thanks,
-- Nnemo ( talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a bug with the way the percent change is calculated for estimated populations. If an estyear of 2010 or later is entered into the table following a 2010 Census value, the resulting percent change shown for the estimate will be calculated based on the 2000 Census value, not the 2010 Census value as would be appropriate. For an example, see Cavalier County, North Dakota#Demographics. The percent change for the 2010 population estimate should be 0% rather than the -17.4% that actually shows up. The similar template {{ Historical populations}} currently does not have this problem. Mwmnp ( talk) 05:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, the problem described by the original edit request above was not actually fixed. To solve the problem, the following changes to this template must be made in the code a few lines from the bottom:
<tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2000|}}}|{{{2000}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2000}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
to
<tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2010|}}}|{{{2010}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2010}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
In other words, the three appearances of the number 2000 have to be changed to 2010. Having tested this change in the template's sandbox, I can confirm that this will correct the problem that editors have been experiencing. -- Mwmnp ( talk) 04:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
}}{{#if:{{{estimate|}}} | <tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2000|}}}|{{{2000}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2000}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
to:
}}{{#if:{{{estimate|}}} | <tr><td style="text-align:center">'''Est. {{{estyear}}}'''</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{formatnum: {{{estimate}}} }}</td><td>{{{estref|}}}</td><td style="padding-left:8px">{{#ifexpr: {{#if:{{{2010|}}}|{{{2010}}}|0}} | {{Val|{{Decimals| (100 * {{{estimate}}}/{{{2010}}} - 100) | 1}}}}% |}}</td></tr>
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)
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)
Also, just noted the other Template:Historical populations, which, though its title uses the plural, shows as "Historical population", I mention this, for consistency's sake, as an add'l reason to possibly adopt this proposal... Roberticus ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There has been no comment to my proposal from January 8th, so I'd like to formally edit request what I'd mentioned above, namely, that this template be revised to display as "Historical population", dropping the s from what is currently "populations", which will also make it consistent with Template:Historical populations Roberticus ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This template needs a means of displaying an alternate title at the top other than just "historical population". p b p 05:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Koavf and Nyttend: 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)
@ Nyttend and DocWatson42: let me know if you have feedback or can improve the sandbox. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.)". Sounder Bruce 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, would someone please add 2020 now that the population totals have been released? Thank you. JohnMcButts ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
|2020=
and |2020n=
. The estimate line is still based on |2010=
, 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)What is a "formatting error", and why does this template cause a problem at Energy, Illinois ? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
|1960n=
might be a good option. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Lots of pages have 2020 and an estimate for 2021. The template says one or the other. I think this needs to be both now. Lots of pages have both, so it's messing up the percentage increase from 2020 to 2021. For example United_States#Demographics CTF83! 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC){{
rfc}}
tag and the next valid timestamp (optionally preceded by a signature). Above, the {{
rfc}}
tag is followed directly by your signature; therefore, you have given no statement at all. Have a look at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture and compare the entry for this page with the others there - they all have statements that are brief (more or less) and describe the issue to be addressed. The entry for this page does nothing of the kind. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Is this a matter of making sure all other pages using this template have 2020 up to date, or is there another change that needs to be made? 12.42.50.52 ( talk) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)@ Jonesey95: I've seen that you have edited this page in the past. I don't mean to annoy you or drag you into this conversation, but I was wondering if you had any insight on how we could get the estimations to be based on 2020 instead of 2010 up and running. Any thoughts? 12.42.50.52 ( talk) 17:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
|estyear=
are post-2020, which I suspect has not been done yet. As far as I can tell, the code right now needs to say "If 2020 has a value and estyear is after 2020, use 2020 for the calculations. Otherwise, use 2010 for the calculations." It does not currently do that. I have asked for help adding a TemplateData section to the template documentation, which will give us a report in a couple of weeks that will show us the values of |estyear=
. We could also use a tracking category to find articles that need 2020 updates and/or updated estyear values. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
|estimate=
but do not have a value for |2020=
. The best way to fix this problem is to insert a value for the 2020 population of the place listed in the template, including a reference to the 2020 census. If the estimate in the template is dated prior to 2020, it should be removed or updated to a post-2020 estimate. It is acceptable for places, such as places that are no longer inhabited or listed in the US Census, to lack a 2020 population value as long as they do not have a recent population estimate in the template.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)
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)
|inactive=yes
and |active=no
tend to confuse people. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
05:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|deleted=
with an alias of |extinct=
. 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)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)
Short articles with a lengthy historical population would benefit from a horizontal layout. See:
Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)