List of municipalities in Louisiana is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 6, 2017 Featured list candidate Promoted

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Top-importance). 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 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.

Am I the only one who thinks this article looks 300% better with the column listing format instead of the one excessivley long scroll listing? Sf46 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the page with the list of cities or towns they do not list Algiers. Algiers is on the west bank (across the river from the French Quater)of New Orleans, south of Gretna. It has a Orleans Parish zip code, but those of us born there have allways called it Algiers. You can even put Algiers, La. as the mailing address and you will get your mail. Please add Algiers to the list of cities or towns list. carlgiordano@ymail.com

Algiers is part of New Orleans, not an separate city and therefore should not be one this list. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not it's own incorporated city/town, then it should not be listed separately. Unincorporated communities that are not located inside of an already incorporated town could be listed under unincorporated communities, etc. Carrollton used to be it's own town, but it is now inside the city limits of New Orleans. The community of Carville used to be its own area, but it is now within the city limits of St. Gabriel. You can address a letter to Carville or Carrollton, and it will get to where it should go, but both are within the limits of another incorporated city. This happens in other states too, for instance Brooklyn used to be its own city complete with its own police department, but it is now part of New York City. An example of an unincorporated community that is not within the city limits of some other town would be Jarreau, Louisiana. Sf46 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article purports to be about "incorporated" municipalities. Thus it correctly declines to list Metairie as one of the cities. Metairie is not incorporated. But, inconsistently, the ensuing table does list Metairie. Does anyone have a logical way to handle this situation? Rammer (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has been corrected. When I reorganized the page, Metairie was not in the table. I guess someone came along and changed it, but I removed unincorporated Metairie and restored New Iberia as the 10th largest incorporated city. --Acntx (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Can someone please clarify the difference in the article? Thanks. - Ruodyssey (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be self-explanatory within the lead paragraph of each articles listed. Theses places are incorporated under their certain titles in accordance to their related charters. A good example is located here, where the place name is located and the type (e.g. Baton Rouge city). The only places not incorporated on the list are "CDPs", which stands for Census-designated places. Hopefully this helps. --Moreau36--Discuss 15:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the list by adding a table listing every incorporated place and CDP according to the 2010 U.S. Census, and it seems that new CDP were created from incorporated areas (increasing from 96 in 2000 to 169 CDP in 2010), that's why some articles don't exist. And if someone is interested, I've been updating every list of places in the Spanish Wikipedia once new data comes out for each state, so feel free to copy and paste each table, we used the same format for every title like "New Orleans, Louisiana" to "Nueva Orleans (Luisiana)" or "New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana" to "Nueva Orleans (parroquia de Orleans, Luisiana)", that way you don't have to modify every title, all you have to use is the "search and replace" tool to translate it into English.--Vrysxy! (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um there's no such thing as the 2012 Census.... US Censuses are taken every 10 years with the latest in 2010. So is this a mistake and is it supposed to read 2010 Census or are these 2012 estimations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.190.156 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft is listed as having a population of "1.630". I don't want to assume this is a typo of "1,630", especially since it doesn't look like any residential structures are there (based on satellite maps of the area). Still, I can't seem to find population data for Kraft, which is an "unincorporated community" and not a city as listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odelay.b (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the unincorporated parts of East Baton Rouge Parish are governed by the City of Baton Rouge, the Census does not include the unincorporated parts of the parish in the city's total population and the Census numbers are the ones that should be put in the table. The source linked on the table leads to the Census already, so the numbers in the table and in the table's source should be consistent. Lafayette and Houma (Terrebonne Parish) also fall under this and should be changed back. I don't know why the Census doesn't include the entire consolidated areas in their populations, but it doesn't. I think it's fine if the consolidation information is mentioned on the page, but it shouldn't be on the table. A note at the end or a paragraph in the beginning would be more suitable. Fruitianslip (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the debate here. I just have one question... if (and you agree) "the unincorporated parts of East Baton Rouge Parish are governed by the City of Baton Rouge" why should they not be included in the city population table? I see what you are saying, but you haven't said why that would be more accurate. For example, if I lived just outside of the city limits but still governed by the city of Baton Rouge, why shouldn't I count as part of the population? Just because the census divided the city into different census units? That's odd, isn't it? Mattximus (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just checked and there is a note explaining the discrepancy between the US census figure "Baton Rouge consolidated with East Baton Rouge Parish in 1947, which combined the City of Baton Rouge government with the rural areas of the parish. Population and area figures reflect the exclusion of Baker, Central, and Zachary from East Baton Rouge Parish." Is that not acceptable? Mattximus (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't more accurate/They shouldn't be included in the city population table, because Baton Rouge still has separate city limits within the parish and anyone who doesn't live within those city limits does not count towards Baton Rouge's population. Baton Rouge's borders and East Baton Rouge Parish's borders aren't necessarily coterminous (excluding the other cities) like New Orleans and Orleans Parish are. The Baton Rouge government website mentions in its about page that when the city and parish were originally consolidated, the city of Baton Rouge only took in the highly populated unincorporated residential areas (which made the city grow from 5 to 30 sq mi), meaning that the city recognized at the time that the city limits were separate from the rest of the parish even after they consolidated. This separation is why the city of Baton Rouge has been able to annex land around it recently (a lot of the recent annexations have to do with the St. George incorporation movement). The city would not be able to annex any land if the city and parish borders were coterminous. If you lived just outside of the city limits of Baton Rouge but were still governed by the city, neither the Census nor the city of Baton Rouge would say you lived in the city/include you as part of the population. The city didn't annex the rest of the unincorporated areas of the parish when they consolidated (the city only annexed some areas). Both the city and the Census agree that Baton Rouge is a different census unit from the rest of the unincorporated areas. It is odd that the city and parish borders aren't coterminous, but that's how it is.

I assumed you had written that note, but I guess it's been there for a while. It's not entirely acceptable, because that note assumes that the city limits of Baton Rouge include the unincorporated areas of the parish, which they don't as I explained above. Just because the unincorporated areas are governed by the city, doesn't mean those areas are in the city. If you look at my previous edit on the main page, you'll notice that I did change the information in the notes near the bottom to include population and land area information for the consolidated areas of Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Houma. Lafayette and Houma also govern the unincorporated areas of their parishes, but are not coterminous with them. Again, I don't know why the city and parish aren't coterminous and am not against that information being on the page, but the table should reflect the source linked (the Census) in order to be consistent.

tl;dr The city of Baton Rouge is separated from the unincorporated areas of the East Baton Rouge Parish despite the city providing services to the unincorporated areas. The source of the information on the table reflects this separation. The table and its source should be consistent in order to keep this article accurate and reliable to people reading it. Good articles have good/reliable/factual/trustworthy/etc. sources to back up the information. I haven't seen any trustworthy sources saying that the population of the city of Baton Rouge was 384,452 at the 2010 Census. Fruitianslip (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, that makes sense. Sorry to have the mini-edit war but I encounter many people who change things without a source or explanation. Let's do it your way, but do we have all situations like this accounted for? I'm sure it's more than just Baton Rouge that has this strange situation. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry for the mini-edit war. I was mostly doing it to communicate with you in the summary area. I also hate when people change things without a source or explanation. That behavior is why Wikipedia has a bad rep with some people (especially teachers in school). The only weird consolidated city-counties in Louisiana are Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Houma (there are other weird ones in other states; New Orleans and Orleans Parish are one and the same). It really is a strange situation and I don't know why the cities and the unincorporated areas haven't merged into one area. Thank you for keeping this civil. Feel free to edit the consolidation information in the notes however you see fit. Fruitianslip (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thanks. I'm trying to bring these lists all up to featured status, and any corrections are greatly appreciated. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]