The way some Americans rate city populations is weird to my (Australian) sensibilities. We assume the metro area in the city population - because the city is referred to as a whole. If I go to visit a friend in the metro areas of Sydney, I'm still 'going to Sydney', not 'the Sydney metro area'.
Actually, not some Americans, but some (or all) Australians. It all depends on the pov. :)
Europe is the same as is most of the first world as far as bigger cities go (bigger meaning >=1 million inhabitants).
There is "city population" and "metro area population" (outside the well-defined boundaries of the city). In the 3rd world this data granularity often isn't available.
In Australia, I guess it may be available but the distinction simply isn't made (which also helps making you feel bit more "important" when comparing Aussie city sizes to other big cities in the world, I guess). ;)
When I lived in Australia I wondered why Sydney felt so small, smaller even than my home town Hamburg, in Germany. Even though it was supposed to have 4.5 million inhabitants while Hamburg barely has 2 million.
After understanding this it all made sense. Hamburg has 1.75 million city + 3.25 metro area = 5 million ... in 3rd world/Aussie city population math. :)
Check Wolftram Alpha; you'll find there is no metro population area data for most 3rd world/Australian cities, but it is there is for most big cities in the rest of the first world.
"We assume the metro area in the city population - because the city is referred to as a whole. If I go to visit a friend in the metro areas of Sydney, I'm still 'going to Sydney', not 'the Sydney metro area'."
Generally it's more the people in the US metro areas who make that distinction, the persons who visit and live in the outlying areas and suburbs do not.
