Talk:List of North American settlements by year of foundation

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus (keep).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

North America Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

The majority of participants seemed to support the idea of the page being moved, but were split equally between List of earliest European North American settlements and List of North American cities by founding year. Y'all might find it useful to discuss the possibility of a new title on this talkpage; the current title is grammatically incorrect, and confusing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some Viking, French and Spanish settlements to the list to try to counter the Anglo-centric bias of the list, but much more needs to done if this article is not simply deleted. - Dalbury^(Talk) 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Marks, Florida was not founded in 1528. The Narvaez expedition stopped there that year to build boats to return to where-ever they started from. I would not call it a settlement. While spanish expeditions passed through there and used the harbor, there was no attempt to establish a permanent population. The source at [1] says that St. Marks appeared on a list of towns in 1639, so we can't be sure when it was established, but I don't think we can say it was established in the 16th Century. - Dalbury^(Talk) 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is still highly Euro-centric. The Haida Gwaii has been populated for as long as there have been fixed "White" settlements in Europe. I added Nanu to the list to reflect this. --WAvegetarian 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Unfortunately, there are no current sites in Florida with continuous occupation since pre-Colombian times. There are sites that were evidently occupied for thousands of years, and I can put a name on a very few such sites, but we still know very little about them. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no consensus on deleting this article, I intend to periodically remove any claims that are not documented, or for which the documentation cited is wrong. And I will be looking for pre-Colombian towns to add to the list. - Dalbury^(Talk) 11:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move abandoned settlements out

I support the move to the new title, List of North American cities by founding year, but we should remove the failed European settlements as they are not cities, maybe to a new article on List of abandoned European settlements in North America. What do others think? Also, there are some questionable entries at the end, such as Virginia Beach, which are simply administrative reorganization of long established settlements. Luigizanasi 04:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for deleting this mess. Part of the argument for deleting this list was a POV problem of listing only European-founded cities. If we eliminated sites that are no longer occupied, that would make this a List of currently occupied North American cities by founding year. Let's see if any kind of consensus can develop, but I suspect that some of the contributers to this list won't want to see any restrictions on what they can add to it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 04:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to removing some of the abandoned sites (Jamestown and Fort Caroline were never cities and no longer even exist), most of the claims and other qualifiers should also be deleted. -Acjelen 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you are refering to the tag lines following the city names in most entries? Given the frequency with which founding dates are influenced by civic boosterism rather than scholarship, I think any claims need to be carefully documented. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

Present cities should be listed at the first settlement, not at the date of the latest or most current incorporation. Thus, New York City is at 1625 and not 1898. -Acjelen 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does settlement mean? Does a strictly military establishment count as a settlement? As a prime example, St. Augustine, Florida was a military post for much of its history, with no civilian European men living there as late as the end of the 17th century. What about continuity? Some places were occupied for a while, often as a military post, and then abandoned and resettled later. Do we count any settlement within the current boundaries of a city, or only the core from which the city grew? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think any city that grew out of a military post without breaks in occupation should date its founding with the military post. In the same way, any cities that began as businesses, theocracies, etc. should also be dated with the foundational entity. Fort Worth in Texas is named for an earlier fort, but settlement was not continuous. It should be dated with the city's founding, not the fort's. -Acjelen 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Albany is listed as founded in 1664, but that is merely the date when the English took over and renamed Fort Orange as Albany. Fort Orange was founded in 1624, I believe. Pfly 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale removal of items in list

If the user on IP address 216.174.53.27 looks in here, please do not remove a whole category of entries without discussin it in here. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford, CT

"1849: Hartford, Connecticut" There is no way this is correct. It does not even square up to the article on Hartford to which it is linked.

Qualifiers

The article needs to list qualifiers because "year of foundation" is meaningless without context, as is the word "city". Most of them were not cities when "founded", although some were, so you have important places like St. Mary's City, Maryland (1634) in the same rank as Greenbay, WI (1634) - one was the 4th permanent settlement in British North America, the other was a single-man French trading post. What's needed are multiple column qualifiers:

Other column considerations:

| Nationality = British North America, French North America, Spanish North America etc..

This would provide meaningful rankings. -- Stbalbach 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Domingo?

It's the oldest European city in the Americas, nowhere on the list.

Original research

This article is almost entirely Original Research and unverifiable. Something as nebulous as a cities founding date is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Every entry needs a source saying who stated the founding year. There may be, and probably are, conflicting claims for most of these. Please add sources or eventually this will mostly get deleted. -- Stbalbach 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term settlement needs more clarity. Some of the early "settlements" seem to be just outposts for trade or the military with no civilian population. For comparison, Antarctica has had continuous human occupation at scientific outposts for decades, but I wouldn't say these constitute Antarctic "settlements." HISTORBUFF (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of this article should be done, see List of people known as father or mother of something. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many are sourced on the wikipedia pages linked to. Does that count? Pfly 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it should be easy to copy the source information over, and save readers the trouble of tracking down the source. -- Donald Albury 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think for verification purposes the reference should be in the article here, since the other articles can change and articles are supposed to be standalone. If there was a main article link pointing to the article that contained the reference, then it would not matter, but this entire article should not be built on references contained elsewhere. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some references doesn't fit throughout wikipedia. For example, St Johns established date is 1541 here and it's 1583 on the St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.88.239 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several duplicate entries in this list (Kamloops and Victoria BC, to name two), and lacking source references it's impossible to know which entries to delete (or modify), without further research. -- Jakaloke (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

Stop now. The idea of making a sortable table was sound. However it doesn't differentiate between AD and BC dates. They may need two seperate tables. Kevlar67 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply follow the advice given on date sorting at Help:Sorting? Here is an example taken from the first few entries in the table as of today that contains 3 BC year entries and 4 AD year entries that seems to be numerically sortable in the chronological (not lexical) manner one would hope for: 69.126.127.193 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year	City	State or province	Country	Notes
!9299 700 BC	Ticul	Yucatán	Mexico
!9499 500 BC	Cholula	Puebla	Mexico
!9699 300 BC	Teotihuacan	México	Mexico	In the Valley of Mexico
0200 200	Mitla	Oaxaca	Mexico
0650 650	Cahokia	Illinois	United States
1000 1000	Acoma Pueblo and Taos Pueblo	New Mexico	United States	Oldest continuously occupied communities in the United States. The Acoma Pueblo today is known as Sky City.
1003 1003	L'Anse aux Meadows	Newfoundland & Labrador	Canada	The Norse explorer Leif Ericson established a settlement at 51°N on this site in 1003. This is considered to the first European contact with North America.

Brazil not in North America

Last I checked, Brazil was not in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.116.57 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty dumbass move, I agree. I'll remove it. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this list need some sort of limit?

This list seems rather silly to me. While the title says "cities," many of these places are towns, and the coverage for my region, New England, is spotty at best. For example, three inconsequential (at a national level) towns, Billerica, Chelmsford, and Groton, in my immediate area were all founded May 29, 1655. The largest, Billerica, is about 40k residents today and remains incorporated as a town. It seems wrong to me to add these, but they are on equal footing with many of the seemingly random New Hampshire entries someone has put in. How do we constrain this list? I'm going to tag for cleanup to bring attention to this because I feel it's not all that useful as it stands. Thanks, CSZero (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit premature. It really only looks like (from what I could tell) that New Hampshire was guilty of adding small towns without national (or international) historical influence. Maybe it's ok now? My criteria would be: A city, A capital, A superlative, or Nationally significant. CSZero (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Arizona 700 AD

I am somewhat not familiar with how to post references so I posted links when I put in Phoenix (I will also provide some links here). The name "Phoenix" was picked because a new civilization rose out of the ruins of ancient one (the Hohokams). If we are going to go with "year incorporated" then many cities need redone in this article. Chicago was not founded in 1803 but 1837 for just one example.

"Streams of sweat rolled down Mark Hackbarth's face.

The archaeologist and his crew dug with shovels and hand trowels. Nearby, bulldozers rumbled under the hot summer sun on another corner of the downtown construction site for the new Phoenix Convention Center.

Because of tight construction schedules, Hackbarth had 30 days to excavate the remains of a prehistoric Hohokam village that had been preserved under the old Phoenix Civic Plaza. advertisement

When Hackbarth was called to the site at the end of July, he expected to find Hohokam ruins. But even after 20 years of archaeological work in the Valley, he never imagined the immensity of what he found.

Hackbarth uncovered three of the earliest known pithouses in the Phoenix metropolitan area, houses that were 3,000 years old. And as he dug, he kept finding more traces of the ancient civilization."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1015cultureunderground.html?&wired —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there was a big gap between the ancient Indian settlement and the City of Phoenix. They are not the same thing. It's misleading to say Phoenix was founded in 700 AD. Also, plenty of cities were founded on the ruins, or even living settlements of Native Americans. Ancient Indian villages continued to exist in Seattle for years after the city was "founded"--they weren't just ruins as with Phoenix, but occupied villages. Should Seattle's founding be said to be "circa 500 AD"? I'd say no--this only invites confusion. I'd say yes if the settlement in question was still today a Native American settlement (for example Taos Pueblo, which note is not the same as Taos, New Mexico), or special cases like Tenochtitlan/Mexico City). Pfly (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for debating this with some other members of the community then. If we are to go by "founding" then like I said Chicago and many others need to be changed. Was Fort Dearborn Chicago? No it was not. The Hohokams were not just a tribe but were a ancient civilization. The big canals built by the Hohokam gave the founders of Phoenix the water they needed, they also used their buildings. This ancient past is directly linked to what Phoenix is today. If we wish to have only "founding" such as incorporation then fine. But some changes need to be made to other cities on here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree it's a problem, and probably part of why this page was almost deleted some time back. The easiest solution is to just cite a reliable source that says exactly what one is claiming--eg, "The City of Phoenix was founded about 700 AD." But even then there will be problems, as many reliable sources contradict each other on the vague concept of when a settlement was founded. Does an early military fort count? What if the fort was destroyed and the site abandoned for some years (as seems to be the case with Chicago)? Does a fur trading depot count? A single cabin? Does the place have to have been continually occupied from the founding date? Pensacola, for example, is listed here as founded in 1559, but it was tiny, destroyed almost immediately, and the site abandoned for about 130 years. Perhaps it ought to be listed as founded in 1698 with a comment about the earlier short-lived settlement. Quebec City is listed in that style: Founded in 1608; "original settlement on this site established...1535 but abandoned in 1536.." etc.

The page is rather a mess, really. I've added a few things to it, trying to use common sense, citing of good sources, and, if there is something unusual, mention it in the "Notes" field. Natchez is listed as founded in 1716, with a note saying it dates to Fort Rosalie, with a source cited saying so. The site of Unalaska was used by Russians during the 1760s but only permanently occupied in 1774, so its founding is listed as 1774. Kodiak, Alaska, grew from a Russian post founded in 1792, and is listed under that date, even though the Russian post was originally founded in 1784 but moved to a better location on Kodiak Island in 1792. The note describes this. Basically my take is a settlement should be permanently occupied since its listed founded date (short gaps of say a year or less early on might be alright though) and have a cultural continuity of some kind (Mexico City "transformed" from Native to "Mexican", for example, while Seattle was basically founded "on top of" some native villages, overwhelming them). Anyway, I guess it's up to you. Citing a source would help--one that says the Hohokam settlement "grew into" Phoenix would be nice. Personally, I'd list Phoenix under 1857 (if I have it right), with a note about it being founded upon the Hohokam ruins--even building irrigation canals that followed the traces of the ruined Hohokam canals; something about the name Phoenix deriving from all this. Perhaps I'd also add the Hohokam Pueblo site under whatever its founding date is estimated as, with a note saying its ruins were later used to found Phoenix. But that's just me. The page is kind of a mess, with conflicting methods of determining founding dates, so do whatever seems right! I'm not about to fight over it or anything. If you need help with citing references I can help with that. Pfly (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on many things you said. I think we are looking at this from different points of view. You point is being inhabited the whole time which is fine then maybe we should make this clear on this page. My point was that unlike Seattle or Chicago where Natives did also inhabit the Hohokams had a direct impact on the future of Phoenix where Seattle and Chicago they did not. Jack Swilling, Darrell Duppa and the early phoenicians were able to make it there in the 1800s because of the remains of the hohokams (such as their canals and buildings). I will provide some more sources below on this but I am also contacting the City of Phoenix archaeologist in hopes one of them can provide a better and even more thorough answer then me.

I do also see your point as well though. Downtown Phoenix is on top of a ancient hohokam village (as seen in the previous link from azcentral) but there were also other villages in the area. But I also know that this ancient people had a direct impact on the future building of Phoenix and that too is not something that can be overlooked. I put the article back the way you had it but I would like a further debate on this. I think at least there should be a note near Phoenix in the article explaining this.

"Hundreds of years before any of the cities in the eastern part of our country were so much as clearings in the wilderness, a well established, civilized community occupied the land we know as Phoenix. The Pueblo Grande ruins, which were occupied between 700 A.D. and 1400 A.D., testify to our city's ancient roots." http://phoenix.gov/CITYGOV/history.html

"The greatest prehistoric farming civilization in the Americas was located where Phoenix now stands. Dozens of Hohokam villages and farmsteads once dotted the landscape." http://www.aaanativearts.com/ancient-indians/hohokam-ruins.htm?name=News&file=article&sid=611

"As early as 300 BC, the Hohokams were the first to farm in Phoenix, building an elaborate canal system that brought water from the Salt River. Whites didn't start settling the area until after the Civil War and the formation of Camp McDowell in 1865. The city was founded by Jack Swilling, a Confederate Soldier, and the town was named by Phillip Darrel Duppa who named it because the city's irrigation system was developed from the Hohokam ruins." http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/phoenix.html

"Nomadic groups roamed across the region in seasonal cycles for thousands of years before learning to cultivate the land. Around 200-300 B.C., a tribe we know as the Hohokam settled in the Gila and Salt River valleys. They may have had the most sophisticated ancient culture that ever developed north of Mexico. Industrious agriculturalists, the Hohokam dug more than 300 miles of irrigation canals in the Salt River Valley alone. The larger canals measured more than 15 feet wide and 10 feet deep. Using water from the canals, the Hohokam grew corn—the staple of their diet—as well as beans and squash. They also hunted game and gathered wild plants. For most of their history the Hohokam lived in pithouses built of brush and mud over shallow pits. Later, some built rectangular adobe houses. Larger towns had houses by the hundreds and ball courts—large walled fields likely made for games played with hard rubber balls. The Hohokam made pottery, clay figurines, stone bowls, shell jewelry, paint palettes, and cotton cloth. At their peak around A.D. 1100, their settlements contained a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. The civilization disappeared by about A.D. 1450; much mystery surrounds their origin and demise. Pima, who likely descended from these people, described their predecessors as Hohokam—a word meaning "all used up" or "departed." Today you can see Hohokam artifacts and two of their most impressive ruins at Pueblo Grande Museum in Phoenix and at Casa Grande National Monument about 50 miles to the southeast." http://www.arizonahandbook.com/AZ_SC.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why no mention on the list of early Colonial settlements now towns like York, or Wells Maine ?

Wells and York Maine have been continuously occupied since the early 17th century and Wells, Maine was for a time the Northernmost British colonial settlement in the Region of New England. Portland , Maine as well albeit under the name Falmouth was incorporated long before the date given which is the date the name was officially changed, not the date of incorporation. I think the scope of the list should be either strictly enforced as a city continuously occupied with a certain number of people from a fixed date, or give equal recognition to any settlement continuously settled since a fixed date. This would certainly help to include certain Native-American settlements, while not actually cities in the traditional sense have been occupied for thousands of years. The Indian reservations in Maine for instance may be some of the oldest such sites, for the reservations were created of land that had been occupied since well before pre-Columbian times. In any case the list is incomplete, and is in no way a true, hard and fast guide to the actual founding date for any settlement.- Ryan Collins, Historian of the Dolloff Family and keeper of the family archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.244.9 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has thought to add them. Feel free to do so. Remember to cite references. I agree the page is much lacking and not very trustworthy (thus the need for references!) Pfly (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's, Canada was not founded in 1497.

I'd just like to point out that the article lists St. John's as inhabited since 1497. This is based on a (rather sketchy) claim that it was named by explorer John Cabot when he made landfall there that year.

Because of Cabot's shoddy records, though, it is far from certain that he even sighted Newfoundland at all. (He could just as likely have sighted Nova Scotia, Cape Cod, or even Long Island.)

It is certain, however, that St. John's was already inhabited year-round by 1610, and likely preceeded the founding of Jamestown, Virginia. I propose that the date on the article be changed to 1605, (which is far more probable.) Pine (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potosi, Missouri. Austin, Texas

From the article.."1799 Potosi Missouri United States Town was founded by Moses Austin, the same person which founded Austin, Texas and was the sight of many small battles during the American Civil War" Austin, TX was NOT founded by Moses Austin. Moses Austin died in 1821, some 18 years prior to its actual founding. The little village of Waterloo on the Colorado River, was chosen by the Texas government, Mirabeau B. Lamar in particular, and planning for the town was done by Edwin Waller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.33.15 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

I reverted the addition of flag icons to some of the cities in this list. Adding the flag icons goes against the recommendations of the guideline at WP:Icons. Among other things, very few (none?) of the flags were correct for the date of foundation of the city. Many of the cities have been under a number of flags (I count at least five for St. Augustine), which would be very awkward to represent in this list. This is already a long list, and adding flag icons makes it visually longer. The flag icons do not add any information to the list, and are purely decorative. -- Donald Albury 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First european settlement in present day USA

Wich one is correct?

San Miguel de Gualdape 1526

Fort Caroline 1564

--88.13.102.5 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the Ayllón expeditions were simply slave raids. San Miguel da Gualdape lasted three months, Fort Caroline lasted a year, neither was city. IMO, neither belongs on this list, but I'm not going to try to remove Fort Caroline. I wish we could move all those short lived colonies to a List of failed settlements. -- Donald Albury 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed these comments. Neither San Miguel nor Fort Caroline were "cities", and neither are still around, so I removed them. An additional list of failed colonies would be fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Buenaventura

Should San Buenaventura, California (1782) be included in this list? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/San_Buenaventura,_California LorenzoB (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

Victoria, BC is in the list twice, with two separate dates. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pfly (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cities or Settlements?

Many in the list are not cities. Should they not be removed or the title not changed to settlements?

Rectipaedia (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax

If you're going to list Halifax as being founded in 1749, you might list Dartmouth as being founded in 1750. if you're not going to list Dartmouth on the grounds that it ceased to exists in 1996, then don't list Halifax either, but rather the Halifax Regional Municipality, 1996. just thoughts. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus favors keeping the page at the current title. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American settlements by year of foundation → List of North American cities by year of foundation – I haven't noticed until now that the name had been changed without discussion. Changing this to 'settlements' makes this an impossible list - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of North American cities founded in chronological order - there may be better alternative titles, but this one is far too wide-ranging. IMHO of course. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "city"-status is in the eye of the beholder, and varies by jurisdiction and time period, so "settlement" is a better name. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and oppose. "Municipalities" may be a better option so as to exclude most of the countless smaller ones; NB "city" in Alaska is nearly any settlement, even one with only 50 people.Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many in the list have never been called cities. Also, "city" is so ill-defined that it is being used to describe very small settlements. Thus, the proposed title change does not deal with the problem of its being "too wide-ranging". Rectipaedia (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Separation by centuries?

It would be nice if this article would be separated out century-wise, as, it would make it easier to browse.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of North American settlements by year of foundation. 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/20150202023405/http://www.lexingtonchamber.org/history.html to http://www.lexingtonchamber.org/history.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) 23:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of North American settlements by year of foundation. 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: 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) 06:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria does a city have to fit to get on this list?

I noticed Seattle and Olympia, founded in 1851 and 1859 respectively, both are on the list and Rochester, NY (my city) and Syracuse, NY, founded in 1817 and 1825 respectively, both are not on the list. Then there’s Schenectady on the list, which makes me think it’s not a insufficient population issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddmkm122 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]