Talk:List of states and territories of the United States by population density

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of states and territories of the United States by population density article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: 1

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who divided residents with km²?

I just checked the german article for New Jersey where was mentioned its the state with most density (389/km²), and here I see something like 480 or so... but 22,608km² and 8,791,894 Population (2010 census) makes = 388,8842002830856334041047416843 which makes the german 389/km² correct, so the whole article is false because Rhode Island is stated here with 389.1 for example... but that's impossible until NJ is at first place with 388,8. I know you Americans use square miles, but that doesn't matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilon22 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version you're referring to, which I won't even bother to check the math for, is based on 2007 estimates. I was just checking the talk page in order to replace these with numbers from the more accurate 2010 Census. Seems like a good idea so I should have them up sometime this weekend when I have time to input the numbers and double-check everything. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Wikipolicy on angry emoticons? I'm gonna have to redo the 2000 side as well ... someone decided to make 1 mile equal ~2.6 kilometers instead of ~1.6 .... ARGH! 70.15.11.44 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... also, the totals are conventionally calculated for the land area, not the total area. Just be aware of that. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, 1 sq mi is equal ~2.6 km2. Next time use your brain. I put Template:Disputed into the article until someone normal fixes the values.--Giornorosso (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 days 6 hours 51 minutes. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the density per square kilometer column, the result in the square miles column, which is correct, has been multiplied by .62 squared. It should’ve been divided by .62 squared. This would yield the correct number of residents per square kilometer. Mcmatt7585 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lista should be sortable

Sortable lists make it easier to easily distinguish important information. 83.250.128.97 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seattle downtown.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map scaled by population density?

If New Jersey has 5x the population density of California, why is it less than half the size of California on the map? Are we saying each states actual size is multiplied by a factor of density? That's some interesting math 2601:600:8780:70E0:C13E:C645:9081:5184 (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scaling is based on 2013 population and I would argue it's a bad picture to include. Mercator projection is also a factor at play. – The Grid (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The caption was incorrect. The states are scaled by population, which is perfectly meaningful and relevant. I suppose you could say that the area is multiplied by the density, because area * (population/area) = population, but that's a pretty perverse way to explain it. Mercator projection is irrelevant here. --Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rank columns

The table currently has 4 rank columns. It only needs one, for density. If somebody needs the ranks for population or area, they can visit those tables.

Which density rank should be kept? Country lists tend to de-number territories, but somebody might want the overall rank. I think they're probably equally interesting, but lean towards following the country lists. Wizmut (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 4 lists are sufficient. Density = population / area. There's not one approach to this. This list includes states and territories and seems to show the case of overall, states only, square miles, square kilometers. – The Grid (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's many approaches not currently on this list. Including/excluding coastal waters, federal land, reservations. The reason there's not as many as possible is for readability and pertinence.

See List of countries and dependencies by population density, which has only ever had the one rank.

Big tables are harder to read. Any more than four data columns and the eye and mind begin to wander. As WP is not a database, lists should be just like prose articles - meant to be read, perhaps in their entirety. Wizmut (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list you provided is the same size as this one. It even provides the same type of data minus the ranks. I really don't see a sound argument here when somehow 3 additional columns becomes a readability issue. Also, list articles are lists. – The Grid (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> It even provides the same type of data minus the ranks

That's what I'm suggesting we put here.

edit: something like this:

	Jurisdiction	Density mi2	Density km2	Population	Area mi2	Area km2
1	District of Columbia	11295	4361	689,545	61	158
2	New Jersey	1263	488	9,288,994	7,354	19,047
3	Rhode Island	1061	410	1,097,379	1,034	2,678
4	Puerto Rico	960	371	3,285,874	3,515	9,104
5	Massachusetts	901	348	7,029,917	7,800	20,202

Wizmut (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

datata in this table doesn't seem to correlate with this article(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density ) which lists overall U.S population density at 91 per square mile. Wiki-efm (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is because different sources are used, which have different definitions. The big density list uses UN data which defines a country's outline by its coastline, while this list uses US data which defines the US by the area it territorially controls, which extends into the ocean. When that water area is taken away, the insular water area is also taken away. While the same definition of total insular area (land and water) could be arrived at, it's not what the source is directly saying.Wizmut (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math is wrong 'km vs. mi'

My google search shows 1 mile equals 1.62 kilometers. The math is making it more like 1 mile equals 2.5 kilometers roughly. Nodollarvalue (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 mi = 1.60934 km

1 mi² = 2.58999 km² Wizmut (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]