Talk:List of United States counties and county equivalents/Archive 1

Archive 1

A request

This article's sortable table was created directly from the following two official documents:

1. OMB Bulletin No. 13-01: Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas issued by the United States Office of Management and Budget on February 28, 2013, and
2. County Totals Datasets: Population, Population Change and Estimated Components of Population Change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 issued by the United States Census Bureau on March 15, 2013.

Please do not alter this table until these documents are officially superceded. Thanks,  Buaidh  13:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

County government in the United States

Hello, county mavens! To defuse the edit war that has started at Category:County government in the United States, I'd appreciate some additional input on the topic of whether U.S. counties are (1) a level of local government or (2) an arm of state government. Discussion thus far is on my User talk page at User_talk:Orlady#County_government, but we could move it to a content-oriented talk page if desired. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello folks, I am the other side of the edit war. My claim is that although county officials may be elected or appointed locally (i.e. not statewide), the actual county government itself is an arm of the state government. This is consistent with the powers they exercise (elections, law enforcement, etc.). If we could have some academically informed input, I would appreciate it, because the general impression and intuition that people have is that county government is "local government," but to those who actually study political science formally, the difference is known. The compromise that I propose is the persons should be categorized under "local politicians" while the offices should be categorized under "state government." Greg Bard (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this issue to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. Please take your input to one or the other so I don't have to have 50 discussions. Greg Bard (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gregbard started discussion of this matter at User_talk:Orlady#County_government. Please don't start a whole new discussion at some WikiProject page. If there is a desire to move the discussion, let's copy the pre-existing discussion to the new location. --Orlady (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

just asking

isnt this the longest article in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.81.9 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps List of The Simpsons episodes would take that honor. It has been pushing the limits of template transclusion for some time, and thus takes a long time to load. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Petersburg Borough, Alaska

First off, today I dealt with Alaska boroughs and US county-equivalents quite a lot (well, not really that much, but enough anyway), so what I'm saying might not make complete sense. But the table currently includes the Petersburg Census Area (as one of the 11 Alaska census areas), but does not include Petersburg Borough, which was created January 2013. If I'm correct, Petersburg Borough should be added to the table, which should mean the total number of counties and county-equivalents should be 3144 and not 3143.

Oh, silly me! The Petersburg Census Area ceased to exist (or at least its article says so), so the counties and county-equivalents would still be 3143. So, PCA should be replaced by Petersburg Borough in the table.

But on the other hand, not the whole territory of PCA was included in the borough (according to this). So, does it still exist or not?

I don't even know why I care so much. I live nowhere close to Alaska, I'm from Eastern Europe. Enough Wikipedia for today... 77.70.30.216 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Petersburg incorporates as Alaska's 19th borough on January 4, 2013, which predates this article's 22 March 2013 creation. However, the original article included Petersburg Census Area, Alaska, as it was taken from a US government database which apparently had not yet been updated. That was corrected with this edit, which would have been easier for me to track down if they had left an edit summary. Anyhow, the net effect on the total count is no change. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Petersburg Census Area, Petersburg Census Area ceased to exist in 2013 when Petersburg incorporated as a borough, although Kake and several other parts of the former census area, including Tracy Arm, remain unorganized. The map you linked to seems to support that. Perhaps it still exists, albeit in shrunken size, as one of Alaska's Unorganized Boroughs. Indeed, if it still exists, it should be added back into the list. Better sourcing needs to be found. However, one component of this list is the population rank, and that number would need to be increased by one for each list element with a smaller population than that of the tiny remaining Petersburg Census Area, if it's still there. Oh, I see it appears that Kake joined the Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area, per this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have confirmed that the Petersburg Census Area has ceased to exist. Tracy Arm is now part of Hoonah–Angoon Census Area, Alaska, and Kake and Port Alexander, Alaska are now part of Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area, Alaska. Bottom line, we're good here, in this article, regarding Alaska. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that the population figures reflect the old census areas. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

City of Bedford, VA

Bedford hasn't been an independent city of Virginia since 2011 (see its Wikipedia article). The total needs to be updated to 3,142 and City of Bedford removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, someone removed Bedford with this edit. It was ranked 2762 by population. If you sort the sortable table on Pop Rank, you'll see a gap between 2761 and 2763. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And both Hancock County, Ohio and Bedford County, VA rank number 725. No county is ranked 763 in population anymore. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

3,142

Copy the list table and paste it into Excel. Note that the number of rows is 3142. (Not 3143.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.1.10 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who removed Bedford (see the section above) seems to have gotten confused and second-guessed their edit here.

Buaidh, it seems that folks haven't noticed your request. Any chance the govt. data has been updated yet? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating 2014 Estimate

Hi, New 2014 Estimate is http://www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/totals/2014/CO-EST2014-01.html Thank you. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Unorganized Borough of Alaska

This article states that it is divided into ten census areas, but in Unorganized Borough, Alaska it says eleven, likewise in County (United States). Also, this article claims 3142 in total vs 3144 in County (United States). Lewis Goudy (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC) OK I see that the Petersburg Borough has changed status and there seem to be some snapshots as of different dates but it would be good if the several related articles could be harmonized. I'm just a copy editor so that's out of my pay grade. Lewis Goudy (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States counties and county equivalents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130417063950/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Overview.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Overview.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319014514/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/article_5dcbc886-e1e9-11e2-a412-001a4bcf6878.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Page length

At 672,316 bytes, this page is too long; how should it be sub-divided? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have brought the matter up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#List_of_United_States_counties_and_county_equivalents, I would really like to subdivide this page by state.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 18:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We already have state lists. This list is important because it, unlike the state lists, allows comparison across states. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That can be accomplished via scraping Wikidata. We can't have a page this big as it's inaccessible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A genuine question as i'm not a computer specialist or technician but how is it inaccessible? I've not got a fast computer but the mainly text page has always loaded instantaneously. Are there any statistics to support this claim that show that a page this size has any issues loading to 99% of the worlds computer users. We've not seen a raft of complaints by Wiki users that they have been having difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItNotBrokeDoNotFixIt (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just use the {{Main article}} template with a link to the appropriate page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This is some nonsense. Here's a thing I can do with a full list that I can't do with this garbage list of lists: sort the damned list to look at counties nationwide comparatively. The idea that a long article, which I've looked at on a pretty shitty DSL connection numerous times, is inaccessible but "scraping Wikidata" (whatever the hell that means) is somehow accessible, is absurd. I also don't see any consensus. john k (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Like, legitimately, what good does deleting this information do? The state pages already exist! People can look at them if they want to already. If this page is too long for people with dial-up connections, then that's too bad, but removing it doesn't help those people in any way, since the articles we're guiding people to already exist. What problem does removing basically all information from this page actually solve? Who is helped by it? How does it make Wikipedia more useful for anybody? john k (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@John K: So if what you say is correct and the table itself is not the issue, then most certainly the size would be the issue here. My Plan B here is to convert the table into a template that we can easily transclude onto this page. Still provides for minimal editing of the main page when the counties or the census data changes; those changes can be made to the template itself, and yet you can still make the comparisons you mentioned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can transclude to create an apparent overarching list, that seems fine, but why delete the current article before doing so? (I'm also genuinely not sure what the problem is. As I said, I've loaded the page just fine on a not especially fast internet connection.) I also don't appreciate you opening a (completely unwarranted) sock puppet investigation against me just because another user and I both disagreed with you. john k (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm apparently in the same boat as yourself and i'm stunned. Because i was so alarmed at the proposed change to a superb Wikipage, i set up my Wiki account last night and i made my first and only post ever on Wikipedia. To be accused of 'Sockpuppetry', a word i had never heard of, to me clearly appears to a brazen and wanton attack on two people who share the same opposing view. What a nasty unwelcome first visit to Talk this is for me. ItNotBrokeDoNotFixIt (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It means Jalen is accusing me of pretending to be another person (you) to create the appearance of support for my position. This is one of the innumerable ways people can be dicks to newcomers on Wikipedia talk pages! Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure this page is superb. I think it should be updated with the 2016 census estimates, and could also include, at least, area and population density information for each county. Maybe also a column for the 2010 census data, so we can compare population growth. If this article can be done in a way so all the data displays here, and can be sorted here, but is formally contained in separate wikipedia pages (a back-end issue that doesn't affect users) that seems fine to me. But deleting all the information on this page does nobody any good. john k (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, please and please again do not do this. I can't even begin to list so many great uses having all of the counties in a single table enables. Only having (already in existence surely?) single state lists means one would end up with the impossible task of going to every state page and somehow collating and sorting into one table. I and many others i know simply would like to have left alone the ability to do many sorts and information seeking with a single click of a button, and to be able to scroll through the list on a nationwide ranking. For those who want a specific state page then they already exist, if not then add those pages in their own right. Also what computer or internet connection from the last goodness knows how many years would even half blink at the size of the page? I've seen so many pages on Wiki in recent years altered for the sake of fixing something that isn't broke or the layout changed to suit a personal whim of one person or a small handful. How can you not see how a sortable single table of data covering the whole of the USA has a myriad of practical uses. Please reconsider, this is a shocker. Why must everything nowadays have some Twitter form of limitation on size, computers and connections can cope. ItNotBrokeDoNotFixIt (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose deleting this article, which would be the de facto accomplishment of "splitting" it. Orser67 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New estimate?

Using the 2013 estimate is perverse. Could somebody who can make a bot update this for the 2016 estimates? (I'd suggest two population columns, one for 2010 Census and one for most recent estimate). john k (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, especially as one of the article's major sources is presently a dead link, which I've removed via generic citations needed. This gives the article "exposure" in the sense that large chunks of its data depend upon the 2013 read. I'll see about an update complaint template, and the bot thing is a good idea for a competent editor. In the meantime, I intend to rewrite the lead and other bits using a live table based upon a live link, the 2010 census data as represented here: https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tallies/all_tallies.html#HowTo A few counties/cities have changed in Alaska/Virginia between then and now, but this should at least update the lead-again, the problem is the old 2013 pop. data and other stuff which would seem to stand without a source at the moment. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

After a little digging, I've (re-)discovered the link justifying the 2013 data presently on the article. I post bare links here, for illustration: https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2013/PEPANNRES/0100000US.05000.004 . This is a dynamic table with annual pop. estimates up through 2017. Further, this same tool is the thing to use for updating the article, or any other state county lists for that matter. Any editor wishing to work on updating the article's population data can use the 2017 data at this instance of the table (notice the year change in the raw url): https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2017/PEPANNRES/0100000US.05000.004 Caution: past estimates are revised again in later instances. For example, Autauga County, Alabama's estimated 2013 pop (as of 2013), 55,246, is later revised (2013 est, revised as of 2017) to 54,695 in the 2017 look, and so on. The point being that an exact link a la the above is important for justifying any data entry.MinnesotanUser (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

FIPS codes

Is there any reason these should be in the article? They don't appear to be particularly notable as a main feature of any county. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They should be in the article because each code is used as a unique identifier (for each county) by the federal government. So instead of the government using the term "Autauga county, Alabama", the number "01001" is used instead. See also this link: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/codes/cou.html LumaP15 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that could be included here, but this is already a very large article. Since these codes are used in the census though, I'll make another article for a list of these codes by county. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New article has a column named FIPS, while this one had INCITS codes. While there are similarities, they are different standards and FIPS is discontinued Glubar (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I took the column for FIPS straight from this article, so if that is INCITS, then all that needs to happen is the name of the article changed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Core-Based Statistical Areas

Is it really necessary to include the core-based statistical area that each county is a part of? It does not seem entirely relevant to the purpose of the article, and surely information on which counties are in what CBSA can be found in the article for each respective CBSA. SamIsMe31 21:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sheet in excel format?

Hey, has anyone got the spreadsheet in xlsx format?

Cheers IslandUnity (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Excel

Data entry in excel sheet 39.46.124.32 (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Data from 2020 Census

New editor here so excuse me if I'm missing something basic. In looking at the column for 2020 population data on the counties, I'm finding that for many states the data doesn't line up with what is at the US Census Bureau site for county populations (such as here). For example, all of the counties in Arizona and California don't match (though Alabama and Arkansas do). Is there some other source these are coming from or should this page be edited to line up with what the Census Bureau lists? Dkary (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The Core-Based statistical area data seems out-of-date as well. Just going down the list for Alabama I found 10 discrepancies with the current information from the Census Bureau. Dkary (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Table

It seems like the table and sorting it is broken, at least for mobile users. 2601:243:A02:FD90:B56A:3422:F05E:C12B (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, sorting it by population organizes it by their first digits instead of by the total number 2601:243:A02:FD90:B56A:3422:F05E:C12B (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)