Talk:List of North American cities by population

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Santo Domingo?[edit]

This page lists a population of 2.9+ million, but the page on Santo Domingo says "Its metropolitan population was 2,084,852 in 2003, and estimated at 2,253,437 in 2006". Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonlove2006 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is North America?[edit]

The list contains cities from Central and South Americas. Those are not North American cities. Should be List of Americas cities by population. preceding unsigned comment by 205.151.116.140 at 04:45, 26 August 2011

This list does not contain cities of South America, though it does have cities of Central America as Central America is part of North America. 08OceanBeachS.D. 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... no. North America, Central America and South America are three distinct regions - Central America is not "part of North America".
Central America is in fact part of North America. Read the article on it. Central America is the southernmost region of the North American continent. It is part of the same continental landmass, it is merely the isthmus region which connects the North American continental landmass to the South American continental landmass. One region can be part of another region, as (for instance), Eastern Ontario is also part of Southern Ontario, both of which are part of Ontario.
I will also add to the original post that Havana is in this list, and Cuba is a carribean country, therefore Havana should not be in this list. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★

There are only two continents in the Americas: North America and South America. There is no continent called Central America; it is simply a region of North America (and, yes, that includes Cuba). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.105.208 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Domingo population is wrong[edit]

the CIA factbook says "SANTO DOMINGO (capital) 2.138 million (2009)" Jonlove2006 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver missing[edit]

66.203.207.66 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Vancouver, Canada is missing.[reply]

Vancouver, Canada, with a city population of less than 600000, is too small to be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.91.154 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats Canada indicates the population of Vancouver is 2,135,201 - http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=0973&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1 and Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area as 2,313,328 - http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=933&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

Seems like it should be on the list 99.233.128.211 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Scott[reply]

That refers to the "population centre", not the city. See List of population centres in British Columbia for a better explanation of the term. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the list of "municipalities", "Urban areas", or "Metropolitan areas"? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_the_100_largest_cities_in_Canada_by_population - As a municipality, Vancouver is fairly small, while as an urban area, what most Canadians think about our cities, is the third largest.

As with Calgary, there seems to be an error on what constitutes the numbers. If you specify the municipal city then Calgary's number should be much smaller and less then Vancouver. Now by looking at Montreal and Toronto, these should be the figures. Vancouver is 2,3 million metro area as Montreal is a 4.5 million metro area. I suggest that the city of Vancouver stats be verified from correct sources, meaning governments making proper census.

See May 10, 2015 thread below. Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NAFTA Juarez.JPG nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:NAFTA Juarez.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Vancouver from the list of cities[edit]

137.183.232.25 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Vancouver has a population of 2,336,200 as of 2011 Cdn Census. Vancouver is missing from all your NA cities or CMA lists.[reply]

No, the 2011 census shows Vancouver (city) with a population of 603,502 [1]. This places it 8th on the list of Canadian municipalities by population [2]. Mathew5000 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....Not comparing apples with apples.......These are urban or metropolitan areas under one name... you have to include greater Vancouver in such a list, metro Winnipeg, Québec City, and Hamilton.

Vancouver urban 2.1 million Vancouver metro 2.3 million

Winnipeg urban 671,000 Winnipeg metro 730,000

Québec urban 696,000 Québec metro 765,000

Hamilton urban 670,000 Hamilton metro 721,000

Ignoring these larger populations in the greater city areas because of nomenclature is just an exercise in semantics and does not reflect reality.....These cities obviously belong on the list.

Shaun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.42.146 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Vancouver is in the table but not in the list of pictures. Which should it be? In or out? MatttK (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states it focuses on cities proper, so the populations it lists are of municipalities, not metro areas. The population figures in the chart reflect this. For instance, Toronto's metro population as of the 2011 census is 5,583,064, but the city's population is only 2.7 million. There is a page for metro's, and Vancouver does not make the top 50 in that either.142.161.57.87 (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See May 10, 2015 thread below. Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Vancouver?[edit]

Vancouver, British Columbia is Canada's third largest city. Larger than Calgary but it is no where on the list. Can someone please correct this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.221.20 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See May 10, 2015 thread below. Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver is now on this list[edit]

Okay folks. It appears someone before my time made the magic arbitrary population of 600,000 (or 620,000) the minimum threshold for inclusion on this list. Well the City of Vancouver (yes city, not urban area/population centre, not metro area) now has a population over 600,000 and is now on this list. Other cities within the US and Mexico over the 600,000 threshold that were missing are now also on this list. Let's move on. I'm inclined to make the minimum threshold for this list 500,000, which is a more logical milestone (being half a million) than the current, less logical 600,000. Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources for estimates[edit]

Further to this edit summary, where we are relying on estimates instead of actual census counts, I suggest we do our best to avoid estimates published by the cities themselves and instead rely on estimates published by third parties such as federal and provincial/state government departments and statistical agencies. The cities themselves may publish the most aggressive among a range of estimate scenarios and could therefore be biased and favourable population estimates for economic development, political and other purposes. Hwy43 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Census results are just as prone to manipulation, whether they're reported by the municipality itself or the government of a higher-level administrative division. I'd prefer to publish data that is most comparable with the other figures in the table, and since all the other figures are from 2015, I prefer to publish Edmonton's offical 2015 figure even if it's a rounded-off estimate rather than a census result. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how census results are prone to manipulation in your experience. Perhaps you could indulge me here or on my talk page so us fellow population junkies can exchange our research? However, in the Alberta municipal census context, the province legislates the door-to-door enumeration methodology used by municipalities through a regulation and supporting manual. If not done in accordance (i.e., the methodology is manipulated) the province does not accept the results. As for everything currently being from the same year, 2016 figures are due for Calgary in the next two weeks and Edmonton at the end of August, so are we going to disallow adding their results because the rest are 2015? This article has gone through numerous periods of differing years without concerns expressed. Hwy43 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best recent example of alleged census manipulation in the Americas I'm aware of is the 2012 Bolivian census. See this paper for example. There's also the case of Chile bungling its 2012 census. I wasn't aware of how Alberta managed its municipal censuses (thank you for showing me that article, although some of the links are dead) and I don't have any specific reason to question their results, but in general I would not consider a census figure more reliable just because it's a census figure. It's not even simply a matter of data collection; not every statistical agency processes and presents census data the same way either.
I believe that Wikipedia's core task is to provide readers with encyclopedic information and therefore continue to maintain this article along with List of North American metropolitan areas by population, List of cities in South America, List of South American metropolitan areas by population, Largest cities in the Americas, List of metropolitan areas in the Americas, etc. I'm also aware that by treating figures obtained via different means and published by different organizations as being comparable, these ranked lists fail WP:ORSYNTH. Nevertheless, they and articles like them continue to exist, presumably because this is indeed the kind of information one would expect an encyclopedia to have, original synthesis or not.
If we're going to sacrifice Wikipedia's core policies for the sake of keeping these rankings, I'd like to make sure they're as meaningful as they can be. I think there are two ways of going about this: either we maximize comparability and present reliable figures that are all from the most recent year possible, or we maximize timeliness and present the latest reliable figures available for every city, regardless of year. I personally regard comparability as the more important objective but won't insist on doing it one way or the other without some sort of consensus being established. Your thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see merit in both approaches, and frankly think a blend of the two approaches is necessary (especially now that we have our first 2016 entry available, which I'm about to add). There is regularly going to be lags every year where there will be results from the current and previous years. Further, I maintain that third-party sources should be a minimum requirement for population estimates for cities. Hwy43 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "blending" the two approaches. Can you explain what the list would be ranking if we did that? Also I'll point out that Mexico, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic have published long-term projections for their municipalities, as has Cuba for its provinces, including Havana. If you insist on updating Calgary, feel free to update the rest of these entries as well – the numbers have long been available in the cited sources. (Personally, I suspect that timely 2016 estimates won't be available for several countries and I was going to leave this list as is until 2017 if not 2018.) Is "third-party" confirmation available for Winnipeg's estimates, or do we have to go back to quoting the 2011 census figure? And does the "Peel Data Centre" count as a "third-party" source for Mississauga and Brampton? Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've started contributing to this article there have been population count lags of up to five years without controversy. The lack of controversy presumably is because our readers recognize that every country with cities on this list has different census schedules, and there are different population estimate schedules as well. We cannot avoid this until some reliable solution comes available (e.g., an international statistical organization starts publishing annual population estimates for North American cities). Given how this article has evolved over time without any controversy, I don't see an issue with continuing to accept that there are lags. A properly worded lead will set the context of the article and the readers' expectations.

I'm not familiar with the projections for the other countries you mentioned. Are the projections updated annually, or are they stale (e.g., prepared in 2010, not in 2014)? As you may know, the adage in population forecasts and projections are they are out of date the moment they are released. The more long in he tooth they are, the less reliable they are, so annually updated estimates would be preferred first over something published a few years ago.

Anticipating a question about Winnipeg, I researched alternate sources for it last night. I found this published by the Government of Manitoba. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority portion is at the end of the report, though it has been parsed out into a separate PDF here. Problem is there are at least three other municipalities included in the projections for the Winnipeg RHA and then the balance is disaggregated into portions of the city.

I'll take a peek at the Peel Data Centre source an get back to you later today when I have a few more spare minutes. Hwy43 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The projections are not updated annually, although some were more recently published than others. I've only used them in cases where annual population estimates are not available – very few countries report annual estimates at the municipal level. The biggest issue is Mexico, whose projections were done back in 2010 and AFAIK have not yet been updated to reflect the results of the 2015 population survey. (Also I don't know when and how Guatemala's projections were done.)

A list that's both up-to-date-ish and perfectly synchronized is impossible (Cuba only publishes end-of-year estimates of municipal populations and Albertan municipal censuses use April 1 as their reference point) but if we continue to allow estimates from different years to be mixed like we have in the past, IMO we're only introducing systematic bias into the rankings. I could be updating 2017 Mexican population projections on January 1, 2017, while 2016 estimates for US cities don't come out till May 2017. If I did that, I'd be systematically inflating the population of Mexican cities, and this would distort the rankings especially in the lower half of the list. (Queretaro jumps two spots in the rankings if I use its 2016 projection right now, and would pass Edmonton as well when I update it again in 2017 before Edmonton runs its census.) I don't think that's acceptable from an NPOV standpoint. It's not a minor issue either – the US and Mexico account for 75% of the cities on the list. Just because nobody has cared enough about this page in the past to bring up issues like this doesn't make them go away: "lies, damned lies, and statistics" was said over a century ago. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've since observed that this article has evolved from rankings based on last census results and estimates to also be inclusive of projections (without discussion). Population projections and forecasts are speculative guesses about the future based on a set of assumptions. They are quickly out of date. Population estimates, in my observations, are based on information that has unfolded in recent history (e.g., last year's recorded births and deaths, building permits, etc.). Thus they are more defensible, reliable and accurate as they are informed by actual events and observations while projections and forecasts are less as they are based on visions of future events.

This article should not be perpetuating crystal ball visions of the future from a two to a few years ago, with the projected or forecasted populations for last year given the same weight and credibility as population estimates for the same year. All projected and forecasted populations should be removed in my opinion unless there is consensus otherwise to include them. As for reconciling latest census counts with estimates, that is another issue that can be addressed by including the most recent of both in the table.

You are correct that publishing a list that is as up-to-date and synchronized is not possible. It is what it is, and has not been a controversial issue in the history of this article. Let's not try to bandage that fact with fitting square pegs into round holes.

As a tangential point of order, Alberta municipalities have a window to conduct a municipal census anytime between April 1 and June 30. You must have been referring to the table at Alberta municipal censuses, 2016 where the four known municipal census dates are all April 1 by coincidence (unless exceptions are granted by the minister). Look at Alberta municipal censuses, 2015 that has the census dates for all municipalities that reported (including four that had exceptions). Hwy43 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the brief population projection article sums it up nicely. Intercensal estimates and censuses "usually involve some sort of field data gathering" while population projections are "estimate(s) of a future population" that "usually involve mathematical models". Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, census results, estimates and projections are obtained in different ways; but the fact remains that they're all guesses of one kind or another. A projection done by one statistical agency may be more reliable than a census result reported by another. (I've already quoted you one study of how census data collection was manipulated in Bolivia; Pakistan's 2011 census is a much less subtle example.) I have no problem with us making it more clear to the reader what kind of methodology went into producing each figure on the table, and I like the idea of supplying the latest census figures as a reference point to complement later estimates and am perfectly willing to do this myself. (Wouldn't mind some help either.) But to arbitrarily exclude all figures of one particular type doesn't solve any problems (if you disagree, I'm all ears) and only creates more of them, as far as I can see. I don't understand why you're bringing up WP:CRYSTALBALL when that page's concern is about WP:V and WP:OR at a basic level – note how it explicitly states that "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" and that is absolutely the case here.
I'm happy to talk about WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV; I'm less interested in speculating about the integrity of one agency's results without some grounds for doing so. For example, unless you had specific evidence of Edmonton's stats people being dirty lying scoundrels, I don't see why you would automatically assume their population forecast for 2015 (which presumably took into account their 2014 census results) would be less reflective of Edmonton's actual population in 2015 than, say, BC Stats's estimate of Vancouver's population in 2015 (whose primary reference point AFAIK was the 2011 census result.) (Edmonton and Calgary are the only Albertan municipalities relevant to this page and their most recent census days were April 1.) Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened in Bolivia, Chile and Pakistan censuses is of no consequence to the scope of this list of North American cities. To paint countries in North America with the same brush could be seen as the same as speculating about the integrity of one agency's results without some grounds for doing so. The quote from CRYSTALBALL is helpful. If projections and forecasts are eligible for inclusion, it comes back to my original point about unbiased third-party sources vs. potential biased first-party sources.

At this time I don't know if we are going to come to a resolution on the usage of projections/forecasts. It will take some more churning, and we may need to seek a RfC to flesh that out further as no one else is piping up.

However, I propose revisiting the table in this article as it relates to the latest census counts and population estimates in the meantime. I suggest doing away with the rank column due to SYNTH. This truly only should be included if all countries administered their censuses or intercensal estimates on the same years, using the same methodologies, the same reference days if we want to get really granular, etc. Let the readers form their own conclusions using the sortable fields. Hwy43 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Country Image Latest
census
population 		Census
year 		Latest
population
estimate 		Estimate
year
Mexico City  Mexico 8,851,080 2010 8,854,600 2015
New York City  United States 8,175,133 2010 8,550,405 2015
Los Angeles  United States 3,792,621 2010 3,971,883 2015
Toronto  Canada 2,615,060 2011 2,826,498 2015
I don't see many complaints about Wikipedia citing a national statistical agency on that country's population estimates, so while I understand where you're coming from, it still surprises me that you're so caught up over citing Edmonton's government on its own population estimates.
Let me take some time to digest your proposed revamp. I support adding the census figures. However, I think removing the rankings will be controversial – I think there will be those who would argue that they're not actually WP:SYNTH, and I think there will also be those who would argue that even if it was, this is a place where it might make sense to apply WP:IAR. (Having left this list and others in the current state they're in, that's basically where I am right now.) Besides, removing the rankings while still leaving the list ordered by population only obfuscates the implied WP:SYNTH instead of removing it. I've also stated my preference for the second-last column heading to be "Population estimate as of 201x" rather than "Latest population estimate." Cobblet (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take some more time as well to digest, especially now that my holiday is over and I'm back to the grind tomorrow. In the meantime, I've began reviewing the list in prep for a version that features census figures in addition to estimates. I'll share some observations in a new thread below. Hwy43 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy reconciliation[edit]

This is an inventory of discrepancies that need to be reconciled. I'll note and explain them here by country. Once done, I'll spend some time assisting in reconciling these, but if others are interested in the meantime, by all means please assist. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba[edit]

The references in support of Santiago de Cuba and Havana are dead. [www.citypopulation.de] is quite helpful in compiling and publishing latest city populations from censuses, estimates, etc. all in one place. Its page for Cuba shows a 2015 estimate of 433,527 for Santiago de Cuba and 2,125,320 for Havana. The source is a population estimate with the reference date of December 31, 2015 published by Cuba's Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas. Unfortunately no link is provided to take us to the source. On the other hand, this article is reporting 510,665 and 2,117,625 respectively. There are discrepancies for both, but it is much more significant for Santiago de Cuba, which is nearly 20% higher than 433,527. Hwy43 (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website of Cuba's statistical office is down, so I've provided links to archives of the cited sources. I'd be quite interested to know where citypopulation's figure for Santiago comes from – the figure we quote is for the entire municipio which also covers a large rural area surrounding Santiago, but I know of no official definition of Santiago proper or an official population estimate for it. Cobblet (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and likewise interested. It is evident they are not using the urban population as they are publishing 433,527 instead of 456,543, with the same reference date no less. Puzzling. Hwy43 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ONE's website is back up and I was able to find the source (p. 21 in the document's numbering; p. 29 of the pdf file) for the 433,527 figure, and have removed Santiago from the list as a result. I have however left in the current figure for Havana as it refers to Havana's mid-year as opposed to its year-end population. Cobblet (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of North American cities 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:

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) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of North American cities 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:

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) 17:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philly image[edit]

Why does Philadelphia get to have a panorama as it's image in this list when every other city gets a small rectangular image. It's messing up the whole table >:(

Afschuld (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Largest cities in the Americas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone changed the city names as a joke[edit]

All the city names seem to have been changed to place name + “City” 73.141.170.254 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing[edit]

There are a whole lot of missing cities like Panama City, San Jose (Costa Rica), and Port-au-Prince. Is somebody gonna do something about that? Hfjhjoiijklij2 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_North_American_cities_by_population&oldid=1208275062"