| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phoenix metropolitan area article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
(carried on from edit summary discussion)
The statistics are referring to the MSA, yes. That's because there's no available statistics for what is generally accepted as the metro area.
Are *all* places in Maricopa and Pinal county part of the metro area? Definitely not. Sentinel, for example, is in Maricopa County, but is not in the metro area. Also, parts of Peoria are in Yavapai County, and Peoria is, by all accounts, part of the metro area.
Circle City has over 10k people? Really? Look at it on a map. It's relatively small. It's a small retirement community. I'm pretty sure it has well under 10k, though I may be wrong. But please cite. -- Node 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Per the US Census Bureau, the Population for Zip Code 85342 ( Morristown, Arizona) is 1,402. Circle City is part of the Morristown Zip Code, and is not counted for population separately. It is, however, a separate Geographic Place. The population of Circle City cannot be no where near the 10,000 Plus as is suggested in the article. Cascadia 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Bell Road becomes FLW Blvd at it's crossing with Scottsdale Road after diving south from it's normal alignment. Bell road continues it's normal alignment just north of this intersection. While it may be a source of confusion, this portion of the article needs to be rewritten to remove personal opinions, and if decided to be kept, written to demonstrate the actual geography of this area. Cascadia 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Per US Census Bureau figures, the Tonopah area (area code 85354) has the following information: "The Census 2000 population for Zip Code Tabulation Area 85354 is 2,966." Tonopah has been moved to the correct population category. Cascadia 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the list of cities and towns to reflect the technical definition of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA as provided by the Census Bureau, as this is the most official definition that exists for the Metro Area and helps to avoid POV definitions. As a matter of compromise I have bolded cities that exist in what is generally considered the Metro Area.
I have also removed the "Unknown Population" category and replaced it with a more technical seperation between established census designated places and other unincorporated areas. I feel that doing so is a more academic method of categorization that follows established precedent from the Census as opposed to the pick-and-choose method from the previous list.
This is the best compromise I can come up with, since the accepted defintions for the Phoenix Metro Area and the Valley of the Sun do not agree. One is specifically defined by a government entity and the other is informal. It is my understanding that an encyclopedia should conform to verifiable definitions and not informal conceptions.
Since this change is essentially a reversion of a reversion, I'm bringing the discussion here. I've also mentioned it on the talk page of the user who had previously reverted the list to the old form. I'm hoping to avoid a revert war, it just feels to me the old list is subjective. Please tell me if I am in the wrong. Arkyan 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Before accusing me of reverting your changes, please see [1].
- While some inclusions or exclusions may seem subjective, they are I think certainly much more logical than the definitions from the Census Bureau. The use of county boundaries to define urban areas works well in states where counties are geographically small, but it doesn't work well in Arizona. Black Canyon City is closer to the suburban sprawl of Phoenix (-> New River and/or Anthem) than is, say, Oracle (which is more often considered part of the greater Tucson area), but your definition would not include Black Canyon City because it is in Yavapai County.
- While the list you used may be entirely based on definitions from the Census Bureau, those seem relatively subjective too. The divisions between counties in Arizona are mostly not based on any sort of geographical or demographic reality, they are subjective too. (I say "mostly" because there's at least one exception, that being Gila County). The distinction between what is a CDP and what is simply an "unincorporated community" is also subjective, and has little relevance to daily life (there is no difference politically or as far as government is concerned, except that a CDP will generally find it easier to incorporate). Just because it was decided by some committee or somebody in Washington, DC does not make it any less subjective, it just makes it more authoritative. -- Node 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will concede that the list based on Census data could be considered more authoritative rather than subjective. My concern with the list as it existed is that it didn't seem to have any rigorous definition of what went where, and communities could be placed rather arbitrarily in one section or another. For example, the inclusion of Anthem in the 10,000+ category when technically it's population is 'unknown' as no authoritative figures for the population of the community exist.
- My second issue with the list as it stands is the whole 'Unknown Population' category. Without any clarification on the subject it implies that no one knows due either to a lack of research on the part of the subject editors or something like that, rather than the fact that they are indeterminate due to their nature as unincorporated communities. A rewording of the category title or some kind of defining text to clarify would be helpful, but if we are going to include Anthem in the 10,000+ category based on the common-sense approach that the community obviously has that many residents, I'd prefer to see the entire 'Unknown' category removed and those communities moved to the 'Under 10,000' category. I don't think anyone would argue that those communities come close to breaching that mark.
- Combining the below suggestion of removing communities that have been fully annexed in to a city with the idea of moving the remainder from an 'Unknown' designation to simply 'Under 10,000' would present a cleaner and easier to understand list. If we're not going to use the Census definition for the metro area, we should at least put our heads together to come up with an agreeable definition on which areas should be kept in the list and which should be excised. Arkyan 15:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think "unknown" means that no sources can be found for it, not that the census bureau has no comment. You can find many sources that will confirm that the population of Anthem is greater than 10,000. The reason for the 3 sections is that someone earlier separated the incorporated communities from the unincorporated communities. I agree that the "unknown" ones can easily be moved to "under 10,000" -- if they had more than that, we would certainly know. -- Node 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is a great improvement. I actually think that some of the annexed places can be merged with their respective cities, IMHO. Tonopah, Whittmann, and a few others are actual villages that are actually in unincorporated Maricopa County. Some of the others are annexed, and I believe they should also be 'annexed' on Wikipedia.
Cascadia
TALK|
HISTORY 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly agree about the annexed ones. I knew that Cashion was annexed, it's a fairly small area so it's easy to check. I'm not so clear however about Higley and Laveen -- it seems that both have been almost entirely annexed, but it seems like a recent annexation, so I'd want to confirm it before removing them from the list. I'm sure there's more (has Waddell been annexed to anywhere yet?), but I don't know which for sure. Octave? Ocotillo? Ironwood Flats? Hmm. --
Node 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not 100% sure. I'll have to check some maps. Most of these I'm not 100% sure even truely exist, as I do not recall ever seeing Octave on a map. Ocotillo is also an intersting one... which Ocotillo? There is the Ocotillo power plant in Tempe (right off of the Salt River), but there also is an Ocotillo neighborhood in the south end of Chandler (annexed), I lean towards the latter but again, it is not 100% clear. Some of these I begin to think sound like modern development names.
Cascadia
TALK|
HISTORY 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Higley and Laveen have been mostly annexed, but there are some county islands that remain. Waddell has been partially annexed by Surprise but not completely yet. Chandler Heights and Ocotillo I would consider pretty much fully annexed. Octave is a little ghost town north of Wickenburg, and I've never heard of - nor can I find any reference to - La Palma. Otherwise the rest I would say are independent enough to maintain their own listing.
Arkyan 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking La Palma is located somewhere near Central Arizona College. I know that the name of the highway through 11 Mile Corner is, iirc, the "Casa Grande-La Palma Highway". -- Node 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Higley and Laveen have been mostly annexed, but there are some county islands that remain. Waddell has been partially annexed by Surprise but not completely yet. Chandler Heights and Ocotillo I would consider pretty much fully annexed. Octave is a little ghost town north of Wickenburg, and I've never heard of - nor can I find any reference to - La Palma. Otherwise the rest I would say are independent enough to maintain their own listing.
Arkyan 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not 100% sure. I'll have to check some maps. Most of these I'm not 100% sure even truely exist, as I do not recall ever seeing Octave on a map. Ocotillo is also an intersting one... which Ocotillo? There is the Ocotillo power plant in Tempe (right off of the Salt River), but there also is an Ocotillo neighborhood in the south end of Chandler (annexed), I lean towards the latter but again, it is not 100% clear. Some of these I begin to think sound like modern development names.
Cascadia
TALK|
HISTORY 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly agree about the annexed ones. I knew that Cashion was annexed, it's a fairly small area so it's easy to check. I'm not so clear however about Higley and Laveen -- it seems that both have been almost entirely annexed, but it seems like a recent annexation, so I'd want to confirm it before removing them from the list. I'm sure there's more (has Waddell been annexed to anywhere yet?), but I don't know which for sure. Octave? Ocotillo? Ironwood Flats? Hmm. --
Node 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've listed here places that I'm pretty sure have been annexed to neighboring municipal entities. I'd like to make sure everyone agrees that these places have been annexed to the other places before I remove them. Most have exceptions, but I think now they'd just be considered county islands.
- Laveen -- annexed to Phoenix?
- Chandler Heights -- annexed to Chandler?
- Higley -- annexed to Gilbert and Mesa?
- Liberty -- not sure at all about this one. maybe to Goodyear or to Buckeye; it may still be county land
- Ocotillo -- to Chandler?
- Octave -- a privately-owned ghost town, it seems.
- Palo Verde -- not sure, has it been annexed to Buckeye yet?
- Rock Springs -- annexed to Black Canyon City yet??
- Roosevelt -- should it be included, considering it's seprated from the metro area by a really long drive and a relatively large geographic barrier?
- Valley Farms -- maybe to Coolidge?
- Waddell -- to various West Valley communities, possibly?
-- Node 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ocotillo I can state from having been through this area is pretty much fully annexed, but I'll check my thomas guide. Laveen is partially annexed, as there is a Laveen village of Phoenix, but also some Unincorporated land that is still Laveen.
- I think we really need to define what is a place, and what is the Phoenix Metro Area.
Cascadia
TALK|
HISTORY 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- My takes on your list :
- Laveen -- annexed to Phoenix? - Yes.
- Chandler Heights -- annexed to Chandler? Yes.
- Higley -- annexed to Gilbert and Mesa? Yes.
- Liberty -- not sure at all about this one. maybe to Goodyear or to Buckeye; it may still be county land - A little tougher, though it may be safe to say it's annexed by Buckeye. It's mostly a school district, I believe.
- Ocotillo -- to Chandler? - Yes.
- Octave -- a privately-owned ghost town, it seems. - It is.
- Palo Verde -- not sure, has it been annexed to Buckeye yet? - I'm not sure if they've annexed it yet but it's in the process so it might be safe to consider it done.
- Rock Springs -- annexed to Black Canyon City yet?? - Black Canyon City is not an incorporated city itself.
- Roosevelt -- should it be included, considering it's seprated from the metro area by a really long drive and a relatively large geographic barrier? - Probably safe to drop it from the list.
- Valley Farms -- maybe to Coolidge? - Don't know on this one.
- Waddell -- to various West Valley communities, possibly? - Partly annexed by Surprise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
- My takes on your list :
Hey, all. Just made a minor change to the population information on here. The article stated that the MSA has an estimated 2010 population of 5,979,427. There were a couple problems with this figure. First, it is not verifiable. I checked into the US Census Bureau's page and found nothing to support this figure. Secondly, figures for future populations are referred to as "projections" vice "estimates" as defined by the Census Bureau. If the figure is a legitimate projection, please site the source from which this figure is drawn. Unless these requirements are satisfied, it is safest to stick with the Census' most recent count from 2006 of 4,179,427.-- Mustang1966 ( talk) 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The "core" of a metropolitan area can be difficult to define. There was no concrete definition used for which cities and towns should be bolded; it seemed to be mostly subjective. Well, conveniently for us, the Census Bureau has already done all of the work, and it is based in numbers and statistics: [2]
That is a map of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, excluding all peripheral suburbs. The way it is defined is this: a line can be made between each of those cities with houses or businesses or whatnot, without breaking for several acres of open space.
How does this affect the list? Most prominent among the unbolded places were peripheral West Valley cities - Buckeye, Goodyear, and Litchfield Park in particular. Only a tiny part of Avondale is within the core area, so it gets to stay. In fact, the heart of the far West Valley has its own Urban Cluster, the Avondale UC, which includes most of Avondale, Litchfield Park, and a large portion of Goodyear.
Also excluded were parts of the far North Valley - New River and Anthem, in particular. Cave Creek and Carefree only have tiny portions within the urban core, but I'm trying to be objective so they were included based on the fact that part of them, no matter how small, is located within the Census Bureau-defined urban core.
Among East Valley communities, Queen Creek, Gold Canyon, and Santan were also removed.
Although these communities are certainly urbanized and are part of the Phoenix area, they are not quite part of the core area, although that might have changed by the 2010 census (I'm predicting that by then, the Avondale UC will have grown into the Phoenix--Mesa UA). -- Node ( talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How is it a valley? i looked at a physical map of Arizona and i'm not seeing any valleys..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.243.53 ( talk) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- thats what im saying! if anything Tucson should be called Valley of the Sun as it is completely surrounded by mountains and nestled in a actual valley. Phoenix is just a vast flat desert that has mountains to the far north east of it. Valley? pfft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.179.200 ( talk) 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Correction, I live in this great city. While there technically is no Valley surrounding the city, it has been traditionally referred to as a Valley. The eastern part of the metro area, which includes: Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Apache Junction is called the East Valley, while cities west of Phoenix including Peoria, Litchfield Park, Buckeye, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, or any other city west of Interstate 10 from the east side is considered West Valley. VDisney785 ( talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
|
An image used in this article,
File:Phoenix Metropolitan Area from Google Earth.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
We need some wording in this article delineating what areas are considered East Valley and what are considered West Valley. Also should Salt River Valley be merged into this article? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The East Valley is the defined region around the Loop 202 and East of the most eastern part of Interstate 10. They are Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert, and Apache Junction. The West Valley includes any cities north of that and west, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Litchfield Park, Buckeye, etc. VDisney785 ( talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Phoenix metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160107064837/http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Demographics/HistoricalPopulation.html to http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Demographics/HistoricalPopulation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phoenix metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305164937/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)