Template talk:USLargestMetros
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Stupid question
Since this navbox appears to be intended to link together metropolitan areas, why is it being applied to the articles for the central cities instead of articles for the metro areas? - EurekaLott (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ranking selection
Combined Statistical Areas are far more accurate definitions of an "urban area" in this country than a Metropolitan Statistical Area. For example, Riverside, San Jose and Baltimore are all clearly part of another urban agglomeration. Thus, this has been reverted. MojaveNC (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is incorrect. See United States urban area for actual urban areas. Also, if you read the technical details of Combined Statistical Areas, one is not supposed to rank CSAs and MSAs together. There is some discussion about that at Talk:Combined Statistical Area. CSAs contain multiple metropolitan areas and multiple urban areas and are more similar to multi-centric regions. --Polaron | Talk 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the technical definitions, real-world situations dictate that America's largest metropolitan areas are best defined first by CSAs, then by MSAs when CSAs are not available. Only someone at a desk in Washington, D.C. would argue that Riverside-San Bernardino is not part of Greater Los Angeles (where is the dividing line? The county line? The division between river basins? The 57 Freeway?) or that Winston-Salem and Greensboro are not the same animal. This table does not claim to offer any proper nouns, just the largest urban areas (note lowercase) in the United States. If you disagree with that assessment, I encourage you to create a template of the largest metropolitan areas in America. MojaveNC (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? Under what basis can you say that CSAs are a better match for urban areas than MSAs. How about we switch to actual urban areas which are independent of administrative boundaries? --Polaron | Talk 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I say that because both definitions clearly devalue certain cities' regional importance while at the same time overhyping others'. For example, using the MSA defintions, Riverside-San Bernardino is the 14th largest city in America. This clearly is overstating its place in the national business and social landscape. The Inland Empire is part of Los Angeles. Many of its residents work there, they watch their evening news from there, they attend baseball games there and often fly out of there. It's a clear case where a CSA is a better descriptor. Another example is the PIedmont Triad, which has about 1.5 million residents. Under the MSA definition, Greensboro has 670,000 people, Winston-Salem has 450,000 people and there's a couple hundred thousand dispersed about. This, despite the cities' center being just 28 miles apart and the edges of the suburbs being less than 10 miles apart. Using the urban areas definition, this region is also skewed – Greensboro reduced to just 267,000! A combined ranking of CSA and MSA represents the most accurate way of ranking the relative significance of America's cities. Using the city limits gives you skewed results such as San Antonio's 7th-place ranking; using the MSAs doesn't account for the close intertwinings of many megaplexes such as the Bay Area, Balto-Wash and Seattle-Tacoma; and urban areas also skews (i.e. Miami ranked fifth). MojaveNC (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- But Riverside is a distinct urban area. While the Los Angeles and Riverside areas are closely tied because they share suburbs, you can't deny the fact that Riverside is a strong employment attractor on its own. Using CSAs means that you are excluding certain large cities from standing alone. Who are we to decide when a CSA applied and when it does not. Are you saying that Boston and Providence belong to the same city? Providence is not a mere suburb but has its own metropolitan area. All a CSA means is that adjacent metro areas share suburbs. --Polaron | Talk 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Riverside is not its own distinct urban area, as any resident of the Inland Empire can attest. In this ranking, we are saying that the CSA is the BEST criteria, and when it's not available, an MSA is the best. I'm done discussing this at this point.MojaveNC (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.120.169 (talk)
- But Riverside is a distinct urban area. While the Los Angeles and Riverside areas are closely tied because they share suburbs, you can't deny the fact that Riverside is a strong employment attractor on its own. Using CSAs means that you are excluding certain large cities from standing alone. Who are we to decide when a CSA applied and when it does not. Are you saying that Boston and Providence belong to the same city? Providence is not a mere suburb but has its own metropolitan area. All a CSA means is that adjacent metro areas share suburbs. --Polaron | Talk 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I say that because both definitions clearly devalue certain cities' regional importance while at the same time overhyping others'. For example, using the MSA defintions, Riverside-San Bernardino is the 14th largest city in America. This clearly is overstating its place in the national business and social landscape. The Inland Empire is part of Los Angeles. Many of its residents work there, they watch their evening news from there, they attend baseball games there and often fly out of there. It's a clear case where a CSA is a better descriptor. Another example is the PIedmont Triad, which has about 1.5 million residents. Under the MSA definition, Greensboro has 670,000 people, Winston-Salem has 450,000 people and there's a couple hundred thousand dispersed about. This, despite the cities' center being just 28 miles apart and the edges of the suburbs being less than 10 miles apart. Using the urban areas definition, this region is also skewed – Greensboro reduced to just 267,000! A combined ranking of CSA and MSA represents the most accurate way of ranking the relative significance of America's cities. Using the city limits gives you skewed results such as San Antonio's 7th-place ranking; using the MSAs doesn't account for the close intertwinings of many megaplexes such as the Bay Area, Balto-Wash and Seattle-Tacoma; and urban areas also skews (i.e. Miami ranked fifth). MojaveNC (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? Under what basis can you say that CSAs are a better match for urban areas than MSAs. How about we switch to actual urban areas which are independent of administrative boundaries? --Polaron | Talk 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the technical definitions, real-world situations dictate that America's largest metropolitan areas are best defined first by CSAs, then by MSAs when CSAs are not available. Only someone at a desk in Washington, D.C. would argue that Riverside-San Bernardino is not part of Greater Los Angeles (where is the dividing line? The county line? The division between river basins? The 57 Freeway?) or that Winston-Salem and Greensboro are not the same animal. This table does not claim to offer any proper nouns, just the largest urban areas (note lowercase) in the United States. If you disagree with that assessment, I encourage you to create a template of the largest metropolitan areas in America. MojaveNC (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, who are we to determine why the CSA is the best here. Why is the MSA or urban area not good? Because you say so? How do you know Riverside is not a separate urban area? Have you checked the urban area data from the Census Bureau? Do you know better than the Census Bureau? If you read how CSAs are delineated, it is quite obvious that it involves multiple metropolitan areas. Let us not mislead people into thinking that CSAs are centered on a single urban area. --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- CSAs absolutely are one single urban area! There's no arguing that San Francisco-San Jose, Baltimore-Washington, Los Angeles-Riverside, Seattle-Tacoma, the Piedmont Triad, et al, are not single urban areas! MojaveNC (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, they're not or they would have been MSAs rather than CSAs. By its very definition CSAs mesn they're composed of multiple CBSAs and a CBSA corresponds to the territory closely associated to anone urban area. Please try and look up how urban areas and MSAs and CSAs are delineated. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- CSAs absolutely are one single urban area! There's no arguing that San Francisco-San Jose, Baltimore-Washington, Los Angeles-Riverside, Seattle-Tacoma, the Piedmont Triad, et al, are not single urban areas! MojaveNC (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Whoever protected this page, please can they surround the protection template with <noinclude> tags so that it doesn't appear when the template is actually included on a page? Kidburla2002 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC: Using CSAs as primary ranking mechanism, followed by MSAs for cities where CSAs were not established by the Census Bureau
This is a dispute about whether Combined Statistical Areas make better ranking mechanisms for urban areas than Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
- Uninvolved Is there a reason why you cannot leave it out altogether? Is there a reason why you cannot do both?Aatomic1 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request
Could an administrator change the link to Minneapolis-Saint Paul to show both of the Twin Cities (Saint Paul) and not just Minneapolis? The Twin Cities and how they are referred to are different than most urban areas in the United States. 70.57.146.73 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The multi-city nature of the template seems to be the issue that caused the edit war in the first place, so I think a change like that should be discussed here first. Kafziel Talk 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Could this also apply to Virginia Beach-Norfolk as these are the primary cities in the area? I have rarely seen it as Virginia Beach and usually see it more as Norfolk or Virginia Beach-Norfolk. Chrisfortier (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
