Remove rightmost column "encompassing areas"[edit]

Some of the cells in the rightmost column contain 5-10 lines, and that makes the table dfficult to read. I propose that the rightmost column is deleted. (The information is available on the wikipages for the individual metropolitan areas)


This list is 100% INCORRECT[edit]

The correct information can be found at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/ Someone has moved Denver way up the list for some reason. A lot of smaller cities have been moved up the list also. Someone please correct this and add a moderator to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.255.235 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20141020 Yes.. it is surely substantially in error. Needs to be fixed and is misleading the CSA populations for both Phila and Dallas Fort Worth are way high for 2012. There is new 2013 data and it needs to be added (which would correct the erroneous data in the article). Signed: Concerned about accuracy

Vandalism Cleveland should be 29 not 17[edit]

Someone screwed up the rankings and data on this page. Please compare it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas and correct it. Thanks 66.116.62.178 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Metropolitan and micropolitan area titles[edit]

I updated the titles of all 929 metropolitan and micropolitan area of the United States and Puerto Rico to bring them into compliance with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names). The titles of the linked articles may differ from these conforming metropolitan and micropolitan area titles. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Francisco[edit]

What's the deal with there being two San Franciscos...one of which is a broken link, the other of which isn't numbered (Riverside also isn't numbered). Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area is the fifth most populous primary statistical area in the U.S. The component Core Based Statistical Areas (including the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area) are secondary statistical areas and are not ranked on this list. See the List of Core Based Statistical Areas for component rankings.  Buaidh  02:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know San Jose has more people than San Francisco due to it's much larger land area, but it is not the First Principal City of the Bay Area by any stretch. San Francisco is four times as dense, has more jobs, more commuters, more visitors, the region's major airport, and is the core city of the much larger Core Based Statistical Area within the region. Listing San Jose as the First Principal City of the Bay Area is like listing Queens as the First Principal Burough of New York. You could argue the point since it has more people than Manhattan, but it still wouldn't be correct on the merits. Either San Francisco should be listed as First Principal City of the area or both SF and San Jose should be listed as has been done with DC and Baltimore. I'm going to make this second change and we can discuss in more detail if someone has a serious problem with it. Cowboywizard (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other erroneous data.[edit]

Phoenix metro seems to be missing. Elsewhere wikipedia says it should be 12th in size... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spspinella (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC) This list has the Fargo-Moorhead metro as being larger than Sioux Falls...but the following link shows otherwise (the official link to US Census Bureau estimates). [1] What other data is being used here? If it's the Fargo-Moorhead CSA, then there is a separate page for CSAs.Reply[reply]

This list includes both Combined Statistical Areas and Core Based Statistical Areas. The Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area had an estimated 2012 population of 237,251, while the Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area had 216,312. However, the Fargo-Wahpeton, ND-MN Combined Statistical Area, which comprises both the Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Wahpeton, ND-MN Micropolitan Statistical Area, had an estimated population of 239,114, slightly more than Sioux Falls. If you want a comparison of only the Core Based Statistical Areas, see the List of Core Based Statistical Areas.  Buaidh  03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Should state names be included in article titles?[edit]

No. Several of those !voting "no" below claim that WP:USPLACE does not address metropolitan areas, and none of the "yes" !votes mooted strong counterarguments for that point. Thus, the arguments that USPLACE should not override WP:COMMONNAME are given weight. Consensus from both sides seems to be that in the cases where there is ambiguity, state names should be used to disambiguate - I didn't see disagreement on that point. None of the "yes" !votes had any strong arguments against the case of metro areas that span multiple states, which would lead to bizarre names. Most of the "yes" !votes also supported the argument of User:Buaidh, which argued that eliminating the state names would create inconsistency in article titling, but I didn't see any policy- or guidance-based reason mooted as to why such inconsistency must be avoided. It was not brought up, but Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes notes that consistency is not required.
Some google tests were done, which suggested that in some cases, use of the state after the metro area name might be just as common, which means, we're back to WP:COMMONNAME. Taking my review of the arguments from both sides into account, I am closing this as no to the question asked in the RFC - the state name does not have to be placed in the article title for a metropolitan area. Nonetheless, there are cases where this may make sense - either for disambiguation reasons, or if for example it is really much more COMMON to have the state name following the metro name - in which case, we should follow the sources and WP:COMMONNAME. In cases where the reliable sources are not clear, the only way to settle this is as an RM discussion on the relevant pages - there doesn't seem to be any consensus for a global rule (either excluding state names for metro areas, or obliging them). M --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent discussions at Talk:Pensacola metropolitan area and Talk:Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area have highlighted the fact that there's no agreed-upon naming convention for articles about US metropolitan areas; the focus of the debate is whether or not these article titles should include the state name, for disambiguation purposes. That is, to take Brunswick as an example, should the article be titled:

Usually, disambiguation tags are only necessary when two or more articles share the same name, but articles on US settlements are a long-standing exception to this rule (see WP:USPLACE). This is one of the main arguments in favour of including the state name; another is that the un-disambiguated title may confuse readers outside the US. Arguments against the state name are that it's an awkward and clunky addition, and results in a name used by few, if any, third-party sources. (I'm trying to summarise past discussions fairly, let me know if anyone feels misrepresented). So, the question is...

Should US metropolitan area article titles include a state name, even when no disambiguation is strictly necessary? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment I have been asked to comment here by RFCBot. From what I can see, the question is around the treatment of metropolitan areas where there is no need to disambiguate. Therefore surely the case above would not occur? Or have I misunderstood? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, let's try the Google test, taking Miami and Milwaukee as semi-random examples (bearing in mind that Google always claims to have found thousands of results; you have to click through to the last page to see the real figure).

I'd call that clear evidence in favour of omitting the state name. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've said, the numbers that Google gives you are misleading. You have to click through to the last page of results to see the true figure. In the case of Joplin, there's actually 202 results for "Joplin metropolitan area" and 132 for "Joplin, Missouri metropolitan area". And that's web results, which aren't terribly helpful given the number of Wikipedia mirrors. Google Books gives me ten legitimate results (minus books scraped from WP) for Joplin, and three legitimate results for Joplin, Missouri. Google News: 23 for Joplin, 0 for Joplin, Missouri. I can't be bothered doing this for Elmira as well, but I bet it would follow the same pattern. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. In looking more carefully, I actually spotted a problem with both of our Google tests: state can be included in multiple forms. When you allow for things like abbreviated state (e.g., Joplin, MO metropolitan area) and appended state (e.g., Joplin metropolitan area, Missouri), you actually get remarkably balanced results. To reuse the above examples:
One obviously can't rule out the possibility that some sources present the area in multiple ways (both with and without the state, say, or with the state in multiple forms), so numbers on all sides may not be terribly accurate for various reasons; however, I think it does suggest that usage including the state name is at least similarly common. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It would be erroneous (and a bit absurd) to title the Kansas City metropolitan area as the "Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area", because the metro area spans the state line to include Kansas City, Kansas, and other places in Kansas. It would be less erroneous, but still absurd, to call the article "Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, metropolitan area".
  • Charlotte metropolitan area is another one that spans a state line. While Charlotte, North Carolina, is the main city in the metro area, the metro area also includes parts of South Carolina. Because of that, it would be at best misleading to call the article "Charlotte, North Carolina, metropolitan area", because that title excludes South Carolina. However, calling it "Charlotte, North Carolina and South Carolina, metropolitan area" is even worse, because it puts Charlotte into a state where it isn't. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portland[edit]

Numbers here (2.9) don't match the subpages (2.2).

Why does it use CSAs and not MSAs?[edit]

I noticed that this article uses CSAs to rank the metro areas. I wonder why this decision was made? I have a slight bit of experience with the Sun Belt article, which has a ranking of largest metro areas in the sun belt that now uses MSAs and not CSAs. I question whether this is optimal because I live in SF and it seems to me that virtually everyone here would consider SF and San Jose to be in the same metro area, even though they're in different MSAs. I feel like there might be other metro areas where the MSA is under inclusive, too. But someone at the Sun Belt article said it's weird to put Baltimore and DC in the same metro area, which is what the CSA does. But I can't seem to really find any wiki-guidance on which statistical measure (a different one altogether?) should be used for general metro-area-ranking purposes. AgnosticAphid talk 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems this page was intended to compare CSAs, while List of Core Based Statistical Areas was intended to compare MSAs. -- Jevanyn talk 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 needed[edit]

The US Census Bureau has updated the numbers for 2014 for all metro areas. (link) Table needs to be updated. 24.248.216.135 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this update was completed recently. Can the table column header(s) that currently read "2012" be updated to read "2014"? -- Jevanyn talk 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Marilyn¥Manson*[edit]

/The beautiful peoples +ty pips 8Dirtdevil8 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputed[edit]

This is a list of Combined Statistical Areas, MSAs and muSAs are different lists. MSAs (and muSAs occasionally) are apart of CSAs.

Update: User Vmanjr removed disputed tag with following explanation, "metropolitan areas are defined by the US Census Bureau, which is the definition used in this article; further discussion on the talk page as warranted"

Response by jleipold: You are correct however the information here is not. For example, the "New York metropolitan area" is listed with the 2012 CSA population of 23,723,696 while the US Government lists New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ 2012 MSA as 13,866,159. This article has nothing to do with the MSAs and only repeats what is already listed in the CSAs. [1] Jleipold (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jleipold. If you look closely, the article does not actually repeat what is listed in the CSA article. It lists out metropolitan areas by using the largest encompassing body with the name of the primary city. For example, the New York City area has both an MSA and a CSA. This article uses the CSA, since New York City has an influence over both areas. For an MSA that belongs within a CSA but is not the primary city (e.g., East Stroudsburg), the MSA is listed separately in the article (see #260 for East Stroudsburg). This is the objective written in #9 of the list.
I believe the objective of the article was to use the broadest possible definition of metropolitan area, as CSAs, MSAs, and uSAs can all be considered metropolitan areas. While the US Census Bureau defines a Metropolitan Statistical Area, this definition is not the same used by many other governments around the world, which in many cases use definitions closer to the CSA. There are already separate articles that list Combined Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Now, I'm not sure if this is the best approach either, though it seems like a reasonable attempt at better parity with global definitions. However, I don't think the disputed tag is appropriate - as the WP:DISPUTED page says, the tag is meant to be used for statements that are verifiably false. That is not the case here. If you can find a reliable source that states that this combination of CSAs and MSAs is an incorrect definition to use, then the tag seems appropriate (it can't simply be our interpretation that MSA is more important/reliable than CSA - the source must directly contradict). Otherwise, while we can continue to discuss the correct granularity to use for the page and fix it as necessary, the dispute tag should really be removed.
P.S. - I moved this section to the bottom of the discussion page. All new discussion sections should be started at the bottom of talk pages, to maintain chronological order (see WP:TALKNEW).
Vmanjr (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for moving to bottom of page since I was unaware.

I believe the information I referenced does provide the verification. The MSA definition and population is what the US government has published. The rest of the population figures Core, Combined, Primary, etc. are as the US government has defined and published. This page is the deviation. Also note:

1. The information on this page is merely a repeat of the information provided in the Combined Statistical Area page.

2. The MSA populations are not published elsewhere.
3. The comments here in talk reflect that others have noticed the discrepancies: "This list is 100% INCORRECT," "Vandalism Cleveland should be 29 not 17," "Other erroneous data.," "Why does it use CSAs and not MSAs?"

So we are missing the MSA populations as published and we have duplicated the CSAs.

This is our list of MSAs and relevant populations top 10 ranked:

New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area.....................................23,076,664
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Combined Statistical Area..........................................17,877,006
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area..............................................9,840,929
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area.........9,051,961
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area..............................8,153,696
Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT Combined Statistical Area...................7,893,376
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK Combined Statistical Area..................................................6,817,483
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD Combined Statistical Area....................7,067,807
Houston-The Woodlands, TX Combined Statistical Area.............................................6,114,562
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL Combined Statistical Area...........................6,166,766

This is the actual list of MSAs and population top 10 ranked:

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA..............................................19,567,410
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA..................................................12,828,837
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI..............................................................9,461,105
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX.................................................................6,426,214
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD........................................5,965,343
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX.................................................5,920,416
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV...................................5,636,232
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL............................................5,564,635
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA.........................................................5,286,728
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH..........................................................4,552,402

Jleipold (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's just not true. In order of your points:
1. If you read my example above about East Stroudsburg, you'll see one of many places where this list is different than the list of CSAs. There are only 166 CSAs in the US, but this page lists 915 metropolitan areas, including a combination of CSAs, MSAs, and uSAs.
2. MSAs are published here: List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
3. The disagreement on definition is definitely up for debate. However, this is not the same as disputed facts, as defined by Wikipedia. The beliefs of individual Wikipedians, nor Wikipedia itself, count as verifiable sources (see WP:CIRC, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RELIABLE.
I also don't agree that this is in deviation of what the US Census Bureau has defined. We have pages covering each of the government's definitions on Wikipedia, including MSAs, CSAs, uSAs, core based areas, etc. This page seems to be aiming for a combination of those definitions, to have a consolidated list that might better represent what aligns with other countries. Again, I didn't come up with this system, and have been editing this page only recently. However, I do see the value in using this system, and clearly some other editors seem to agree.
Like I said before, I'm not sure myself if the approach used for this page is the best definition to use, but that means we don't have consensus, not that there are disputed facts that are verifiably false. If you can find a source that explicitly says that (1) only MSAs count as metropolitan areas, or (2) CSAs do not count as metropolitan areas, then the disputed tag should remain. Otherwise, the tag should be removed, and we should continue a discussion on here about the right standard to use for the page.
Vmanjr (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to "I also don't agree that this is in deviation of what the US Census Bureau has defined."

"OMB has been responsible for the official metropolitan areas since they were first delineated, except for the period 1977 to 1981, when they were the responsibility of the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, Department of Commerce. The standards for delineating metropolitan areas were modified in 1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010....
The largest city in each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is designated a "principal city." Additional cities qualify if specified requirements are met concerning population size and employment. The title of each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area consists of the names of up to three of its principal cities and the name of each state into which the metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area extends....
Because of these historical changes in geographic delineations, users must be cautious in comparing data for these statistical areas from different dates. For some purposes, comparisons of data for areas as delineated at given dates may be appropriate; for other purposes, it may be preferable to maintain consistent area delineations."[2]

This is not ambiguous and I am unsure how they could more clearly indicate that this term is carefully defined and refers to a specific area and population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleipold (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/tables/CBSA-EST2012-01.csv
  2. ^ "Metropolitan and Micropolitan". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved December 9, 2016.
Categories