Talk:Spring Hill, Tennessee

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Spring Hill, Tennessee is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
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 articles

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Changes in census figures[edit]

Per www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/4770580,00 provided by Abcdefghij12345trfgh in this edit sum, it appears the census figures in the "Geography" and "Demographics" sections may be outdated. This probably can simply resolved by changing the relevant content and then the corresponding numbers in the infobox. The "population" numbers are from 2015 and the "land area" numbers are from 2010, so this distinction should also be made in the article. @John from Idegon: Do you have any problem with the reliability of this source or the accuracy of the information? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to update the information as soon as soon as acceptable. While I understand having to ask the other party, there should be no issues with the reliability of this source as they are the benchmark for any data pertaining to the population of the United States. Thanks for your help in resolving this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghij12345trfgh (talk • contribs) 05:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific ideas as to how you want to change the content in the relevant sections? To me it looks like it might be able to be done by simply replacing the older figures with the more recent ones and then adding a citation, but you may something else in mind. Do you know how to format a citation? If not someone else can do that for you or you can check WP:REFB to find out how. Anyway, I did ping John from Idegon, so it won't kill us to wait a bit to give him a chance to respond. Remember editors are from all over the world and everyone's clock is not the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of keeping it simple and just replacing the old figures with the new and adding a citation. I'll check the WP:REFB to ensure I'm doing it right. Sounds good to me, I'm ready whenever. Abcdefghij12345trfgh (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with changing the population estimate. Don't you think tho that the change in size should either be explained in the text with sources or wait until the actual Census? John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the previous citation (Census Bureau) given for the information states that the area of the city is 27.07 square miles, not 17.7 square miles. However, the government website for this city indicates that the city is, "roughly 17 square miles" in area. A decision should be made on which source to go with. If we decide to keep the current information we should change the citation to accurately reflect that it came from the city government's website. Abcdefghij12345trfgh (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]