![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Population of Osaka urban area is wrong with 17,514,959, its Nagoya is 8,764,837, and there is not it. Please do not change it without permission.
Population of Fukuokaー Kitakyusyu urban area (Japan) is 4,990,000 people (2006).
I think that we should make the other pages agree with each other. The value in
List of metropolitan areas in Japan by population should agree with the value in this document for Keihanshin (Osaka).
Please comment
Paullb 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IS THIS JUST A SELF-RANKED FIGURES OUT OF RAW DATA FROM THE 2003 UN STUDY?
THE STUDY WASNT INTENDED TO DEFINED OR ASSIGNED A STANDARDISED METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE WORLD. THE STUDY IS SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE TRENDS AND PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN AREA IN THE WORLD.
NEVERTHELESS THAT IS WHY MANY GROUPINGS OR THE "AGGLOMERATION" OF THE U.N. ARE QUITE DEBATABLE ON THE DEFENING OF WHAT ARE THE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE WORLD OF TODAY. BEC THEY CANNOT SIMPLY STANDARDIZE SUCH THINGS, IT CAN ONLY BE DONE IN A LOCAL LEVEL.
ONE EXAMPLE IS THE SAN FRANCISCO-SAN JOSE AREA WAS SPLIT INTO TWO IN THE STUDY.
SAN JOSE AND SAN FRANCISCO WERE 2 SEPERATE METRO AREAS BACK THEN BUT THROUGH THE YEARS THE TWO URBANISED AREAS HAVE ALREADY MERGED PHYSICALLY AND CREATED A WHOLE NEW BIGGER AGGLOMERATION.
SINCE THE STUDY IS FOR ON HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF METRO AREA IT WOULD BE HARD TO COMPARE 2 SEPERATE METROS BACK THEN (LIKE SF & SJ) AND COMPARE IT TO THIER RECENT COMBINED STATISTICAL DATA OF TODAY. THAT IS WHY THE U.N. KEPT THEM SEPERATE ON THE STUDY.
THIS CASE IS ALSO TRUE TO MANY MORE METRO AREAS AROUND THE WORLD SOME EXAMPLE ALSO INCLUDE D.C., BOSTON, DALLAS, SEOUL, MOSCOW, KUALA LUMPUR, TAIPEI, ETC. ETC. WHICH HAS EXPERIENCED Conurbation TRHOUGH THE YEARS.
THAT IS WHY WE SHOULD USE A MUCH COMPREHENSIVE LIST THAT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THE STANDARDS OF EACH LOCAL NATION ON WHICH A METRO AREA BELONGS TO.
WE SHOULD USE THE "Citypopulation.de: The Principal Agglomerations of the World" WHICH LOOK MORE PROFFESIONALLY MADE AND MOST OF ALL UPDATED FOR 2005. ITS VERY RELIABLE WEBSITE USING DIFFERENT SOURCES FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL LOCAL NATION. Edits by 71.107.251.137 around 07:50, October 15, 2005
I don't respond to anons writing in all caps. DirectorStratton 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The "Citypopulation.de:" source is a Public Domain so it can be use as long you cite the source. Again I want you to know that the 2003 UN figures has a lot of problems in what we are representing here. first it is already out dated, secondly I already adressed this that many of the metropolitan areas are fragmented bec. it was only use for hitorical comparison. Third you should not rank them all by yourself beccause it can cause multiple errors.
2005 "Citypopulation.de:" source, Im not saying it is perfectly accurate but its certainly reflects the closest of defining each metropolitan areas around the world today. It was proffesionally made and they used reliable sources from each individual country to create the rankings.
P.S. your reply to my first comment seems like childish. Just because Im "annonymous", that Im not important enough to be responded to. You seem like belittling people here I hope the editors would notice this. Edits by 71.107.251.137
Maybe you're not aware, but writing in all caps is typically used only by vandals, trolls, "drive-by insulters" and other miscreants. Being an anon further increases that likelihood. Why not register an account? As for citypopulation.de, it is not public domain. Every page says "Copyright Thomas Brinkoff"; although the Agglomerations page does allow distribution with citation, we can only use works if they are placed in the public domain or are licensed under the GFDL (eg the article must say that it is placed in the public domain). Also, I haven't found any information as to the methodology used in the rankings anywhere on the website, which makes it hard to determine neutrality. Although there are problems with the UN report as you mention, it satisfies some important conditions:
Yes, generating a self-ranking can produce errors, but that's why anyone can edit Wikipedia. If someone feels that the page has an error, they can correct it. That isn't an argument for not incorporating a set of data. DirectorStratton 20:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all the UN study was a 2003 Data and not 2005 as your own article claims. it was published in 2004 or 2005 but the figures are all from 2003 figures. beyond this are just propectives.
But that was not really the point here
The thing is the problem is not on the UN study itself but its on your own self imposed methodology.
I already brought up this--- many Metropolitan Areas was misrepresented in the study. they didnt actually intetionally misrepresent them bec. The study wasnt INTENDED TO DEFINED OR ASSIGNED A STANDARDISED METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE WORLD. THE STUDY IS SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE TRENDS AND PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT/GROWTH OF URBAN AREA IN THE WORLD.
Let me give you an example again Seoul should have been a lot higher on the rank so as San Francisco so as Tapei and Washinston DC. because these metro has already merged with another metro. I already explained this so I wont do it again.
You said you "haven't found any information as to the methodology used in the rankings anywhere on the website, which makes it hard to determine neutrality."
On the overview section of the website its sates clearly
"If you require explanations concerning the data, the abbreviations or the usage of the interactive maps, please click on Info. There exists also a page showing answers to frequently asked questions. Under Refs, you will find links to other web sites and the references."
consider this:
The website Uses "MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES" from Each Individual nation and used a proffesional methodology by proffesional people. So it is very objective, neutral and stadardise.
vs.
You only using outdated raw data from a single source that you self ranked.
Let me give you an anaolgy. If we are buying a Television what would you rather buy a "complete and assembled one" or "raw materials of TV (bits and parts)" that you have to assemble from scratch?
You are doing the start from the scartch thing, you are really not sure what you are doing making it prone to error. Because of this expect a massive amount of editing, complaints and it a lot of dispute. Or would we rather have use a "complete product" to avoid many objection.
Since the Agglomerations page does allow distribution with citation why not just use it?
I uderstand you put some work on this but be reasonable. You even admitted that you have not found the Morroco or North Korea figures. so where did you find them eventually? from other sources? If it is I guess the "netrality" and "objectivity" of your work is really questinable
I STRONGLY suggest that you do not continue what you have been doing and just use the more updated complete figures, because I know many people will just challenge you. Edits by 71.107.251.137
Many arguments you have made (UN survey as estimate, not a definition) are apparent filibusters, as the arguments apply equal to cp.de or any other survey.
I find the cp methodolgy rather vague with only one paragraph of explanation:
Official censuses and estimations are mostly the basis of the population figures presented on this web site; the definition of agglomerations is sometimes based on unofficial or own estimates. Please note that the data of such statistics are all of varying, and some of suspect accuracy. There are several reasons: the varying relevance and accuracy of the base data, the poor comparability of the definitions of agglomerations, errors in the projections and so on.
The UN report is very specific, starting on page 123 of the report, with over 40 pages of references and information on the difficulties and flaws with specific data in the report.
Again, cp.de is not public domain so it can't be used. Do you run this site? If so, I can help you make it compatible with US public domain or the GFDL.
Also, I could not find the flag templates for Morocco and North Korea; the statistics are per the UN report. DirectorStratton 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The references for the cited UN report indicate that different types of areas are being reported for the different countries. In the Top 10, for example, Tokyo, Mexico City and Sao Paolo (and possibly Buenos Aires) are official metropolitan areas defined by the countries themselves. Jakarta, New York City, and the three big cities of India are all defined as the urbanised area (typically smaller than the metro area). Shanghai, on the other hand is defined as the municipality (province) of Shanghai which includes a large area of primarily rural counties under the administration of the Shanghai local government. The UN relies on official statistics that each country compiles, which are not always comparable across different countries. What if we put the areas that these populations refer to so that people get an idea of how big a given area is? This makes this list a little more useful for comparisons across different countries. (68.85.39.28)
On a more thorough reading, the UN report cited is basically tracking population growth in urban areas so if this list is used, the article title should probably be changed to "list of urban agglomerations". Metropolitan areas typically include suburban and sometimes rural areas that are economically tied to the core city. (68.85.39.28)
Any population figure must be accompanied by 3 things: a date, a surface area, and a definition of the boundaries. Also, figures must be verifiable from primary sources. So, how would you choose the criteria for a locality to be included or excluded in a specific metropolitan area? Now what the UN WUP report does is exclude rural area from its figures. If it has to choose between two available figures, it uses the smaller figure. If you were to include rural areas, which would you include and which would you exclude and why? Would your criteria be applicable worldwide? Would you be able to defend your system against people wanting to make their cities figures bigger?
Polaron
13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Are people willing to go back to the citypopulation.de figures or not? Are we going to change the title to urban areas? At the moment the article is riddled with anomalies so we have to agree on some course of action! Jameswilson 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The heading for this page should be Urban Areas, not Metropolitan Areas. These figures are for the city proper and the immediate built-up suburbs. The exception is Seoul - the figure is for the greater metropolitan area. If we're going to use figures like the one used for Seoul, then please be consistent and use sources that reflect greater metropolitan areas, e.g. CityPopulation.de, PopulationData.net, etc.
For example, estimates of Mexico City's metro area range from 22.8 million (CityPopulation.de) to 27.6 million (Harm de Blij in his Geography: Realms, Regions, & Concepts textbook), while New York's metro area estimates range from 21.9 million (CityPopulation.de & U.S. Census) to 24 million (PopulationData.net). Similiar examples of much higher metro populations can also be given for just about every other city on this list. [[User:BillZav] 11;45, 22 March 2006 (EST)
I have posted this debate on WP:RFC/HIST so that other people can comment. Polaron 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of Options 1 & 2, if just for consistency. Not everyone will be satisfied no matter which list you use. Another alternative might be to list the largest metropolitan areas by range, e.g. Tokyo 30-40 million, Mexico City 18-26 million, etc. [BillZav 12:06, 27 March 2006 (EST)
I prefer option 1 at least for the sake of consistency. Option 2 relies on Consolidated Statistical Area figures for the U.S. CSAs are not to be understood as metro areas as in many cases they combine metro areas. Part of the problem rests in the fact that prior to having CSAs, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) used the term Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA) rather than CSA. In any case option 2, like option 3, makes American metro areas ridiculously large in the spatial sense while adding little in terms of population. chazman 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Greater London is the term used to describe the city-limits of London.
The population of London within the city limits is around 7,500,000. This figure is the one used for the table, and is grossly incorrect.
On the London page, the metro population is specified at between 12,000,000 and 14,000,000.
Many websites support this figure:
demographia.com - 13,945,000.
emporis - london page - 11,850,000
http://www.answers.com/topic/london-commuter-belt - "As of the 2001 census the London Metropolitan Area had a population of 13,945,000"
Suggested edit - As this article details metropolitan areas, surely it would be more accurate to post the 14m figure, and the 8m figure in the article concerning cities, as this number only relates to those living inside the boroughs of Greater London, i.e. within the city boundaries. Polaron is right in saying that the figure for metropolitan areas is grossly incorrect - James
The Greater London Authority, the authority headed by the Mayor of London, said that the metropolitan population of London was 18,400,000.
demographia.com - showing GLA's figures
experts.com - showing GLA's figures
Exile 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The figure given in that list is the one of Paris urban area (INSEE unité urbaine), Paris metropolitan area (INSEE aire urbaine) as defined officially represents 11,174,743 inhabitants on 14,518 km² as of the census of 1999. For more informations, please check Paris wikipedia page. If you are looking for an official link, you can find here a list of French aire urbaine on the INSEE website, the official body organizing census in France. Metropolitan 05:36, 13 March 2006 (CET)
There are a number of contradictions between this page and the respective pages of the cities on wikipedia. For example, Cairo lists itself as having 15.2 million inhabitants. This page lists it closer to 11.
Shouldn't this list be remotely close in numbers to the list of Most Populous Cities by Population List_of_cities_by_population?
On the list of city populations Shanghai has a population of 15 million, yet on the list of metro areas Shanghai has 12 million. So the Shanghai area (including the city of Shanghai) has less people than the city of Shanghai? Someone needs to fix this.
NO, NOT AT ALL, particularly. Cities are easily and well defined within given borders. metro areas are not. Some cities CAN ALSO be their metro area, some can't. Prime example: Los Angeles, city 3.7 million; metro (depending on the list) 12 to 18 million.
NO, they needn't and shouldn't be the same. 75.3.234.103 12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC) rick
Q:"San Francisco is more often considered to be part of a combined metropolitan area with the city of San Jose. The total population of the combined area is 7,154,350 (2003 estimate)."
If San Jose is more often included, why should it be excluded here? Thus I think it should be included and San Francisco data should be fixed. Oumnique 13:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
City lines, heck all SUPERFICIAL lines have become TOTALLY obsolete. Including (in America) some county lines, even state lines. If you live in the Bay area, you would know that the WHOLE region is interrelated. Forget lines, think inter-relations. Look where transportation links are inter connected, TV-radio stations and newspapers cover a REGION. The Bay area is a region, Greater LA (including ALL 5 counties) is a region.
IN ADDITION: the written report had Hong Kong and Shenzhen together and (in essence) they are different countries. Hong Kong doesn’t officially revert to China for another 44 years. But living in Shenzhen I'd take the subway to the border, the train to the (Hong Kong) island; ALL within 40-50 minutes.
AND, while we are talking China, how can there possibly be NO mention of the Chongqing Municipal area. China reports its population at 30 million.
P.S.: I know this it a tough situation. You guys are doing a good job trying to decipher. I just say, avoid lines, they are obsolete. Look at regions and inter relations. With the growth of the world, what you guys are doing is nothing short of re-defining the new POPULATION paradigm. Keep up the good work
Just look at this, all this urbanized land facing the bay, and you tell me this isn't one contiguous area!! Sparsefarce 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(DNF, 11/12/06)I agree, the Bay Area is ONE continuous metropolitan area. It is pretty much a fact that all the officials in northern California still categorizing the Bay as broken up, have personal reasons to downplay urban sprawl in the area. If San Jose-San Francisco and Oakland are not one, then what is Newark and Northern New Jersey doing in the same metro as New York?!
Polaron, I prefer the other list, as mentioned on March 29th, 2006. However, numbers indicate that The Randstad in The Netherlands has at least 7.5 million people, and if the conurbations bordering The Randstad are also counted, that number will rise up to at least 10.5 million people. If those conurbations are not selected to be part of The Randstad, then the names and figures of the biggest conurbations in The Netherlands are the following: Randstad-7.5 million people, Brabantse Stedenrij (or Brabant-stad)-2.3 million, Betuwestad-around one million people.
added new population of Urban Area of Milan in the year 2006 by Italian Governement, the Demographia Group and World Gazzetter.
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
The wikipedia article on Melbourne says it has "a population of approximately 3.8 million (2006 estimate)"
The population given on this page is 3,663,000
I dont know how to edit the page so can someone else do it for me. Thankyou
PS. It was reported in a major Australian newspaper that the population infact burst the 4,000,000 seam a few months ago, but I would need to find a source and cant be bothered.
Polaron, I have read many messages above, and I think everybody agree that the current list mixes different things (metropolitan areas, urban areas, municipalities). There is actually a much better list than the UN list you published here. It's a list updated every 10 years by the Geopolis research group at the University of Avignon, in France. These guys make a list of the 1000+ most populated urban areas in the world (read URBAN AREAS, the Geopolis list is not a list of metropolitan areas). They use the international definition for urban areas (not any two buildings more than 200 meters apart) and apply it to every country, disregarding national definitions which vary from country to country, and applying the same uniform definition to all countries. They use satellite images to determine the limits of urban areas, then they retrieve the number of people within these urban areas using national statistics at the neighbourhood level. It's an immense work they renew every 10 years, and I think their list would be much better than the UN list. You can find out more (in English) here. Only extracts of the list are available online, but I happen to have a paper version of the list, containing the 70 most populated urban areas in the world. Ask me if you're interested.
Here are the 10 most populated urban areas in 2000 according to Geopolis:
PS: If you're surprised by NY figures, I think it's because looking at satellite pictures and using the 200 meters definition, Geopolis realised that New York and Philadelphia have now physically joined into a single urban area. It is also probable that in the future Baltimore and Washington DC will also merge with the NY-Philadelphia urban area. In Europe, Geopolis expects that in the coming 30 years there will appear a merged urban area from Brussels to Amsterdam, with some 12+ million people in it. In Japan I doubt the urban areas will merge, due to high mountains separating Osaka from Nagoya, and Nagoya from Tokyo. Hardouin 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
200 meters works great for the OLD millenium cities. The new rapid transporation cities of the modern age get seriously penalized and misrepresented by this modlel
Hardouin, you've mentioned the urban area between Brussels and Amsterdam (April 11the, 2006). That conurbation will not have 12+ million people, it will be higher. Amsterdam is part of the Randstad Conurbation, with at least 7.5 million people. Just south of that conurbation, you find The Brabantse Stedenrij (or Brabantstad) with at least 2.3 million people. Both Randstad and Brabantstad are touching the conurbation of Betuwe-stad (with another million people). Then you have the Antwerp agglomeration, with at least 1.3 million, and the Brussels Agglomeration, with another 2 million people, at least. All those numbers combined makes a total of at least 14 million people. Besides, that conurbation is in the vicinity of The Ruhr-area in Germany. Furthermore, from the Antwerp-Brussels-Ghent conurbation, it is not that far to the Kortrijk-Lille agglomeration in the South, between the border of Belgium and France. And from there the Ile De France region (Paris agglomeration) is not that very far. Infact, perhaps it is not that strange to think that perhaps in the (near) future Greater London, Ile De France, Randstad, Brussels-Antwerp-Ghent, Ruhr-area and some other agglomerations/ conurbations are all linked with another. Maybe you have some information about that topic? It is, in my opinion, a very interesting case.
Could everybody have a look at List of languages by number of native speakers and especially its accompanying talk page. They face the same problem as here, ie even the best uniform source is not 100% reliable. They use ethnologue as a base but if anybody thinks ethnologue is wrong or out-of-date in a particular case it can be overruled subject to consensus. The talk page shows lots of examples of this process. Jameswilson 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the US Census Data and Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce the current population of Metropolitan Atlanta is 4,708,297. Metropolitan Atlanta is a 28 country region in the state of Georgia, USA.
I wonder why Randstad, Netherlands (7,5 million) isn't ion the list?
I added this to the City page too, sorry for any cross-posting, but thought this is too important...
I haven't found yet a common list of cities, including english name, local name, with/without special characters, country name (local and international), lat/long etc. It's really a shame that in the year 2006 someone interested in displaying a selection of cities has to consult a dozen of different sources to get - unfortunately - as well almost a dozen of different ways of writing the city name or country name, some with lat/long, some without, some with the population numbers, some without, some with local wirting, some without, etc... Believe me, I already spent hours and days trying to set-up a more comprehensive, unified, harmonious set... but not with great success. I think it should be a place like this one here (Wikipedia), where it would be best situated. --
Luftikus143
13:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, the figure of 5+ million applies to the federal region Saint-Petersburg (region #78) which includes not only the city proper, but also some smaller towns in the suburbs of the city such as Kronstadt, Pushkin and Pavlovo.-- Achp ru 19:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that seattle should be put on this list. In the Wikipedia article on Seattle, Washington it says that the greater Seattle area is home to 3.8 million people. I have read outside sources that estimate it at 3,802,230.
Data for the 2005 revision is now available online here. The full report including what definitions are used do not yet seem to be publicly available. There are some significant adjustments in a few definitions, particularly the Chinese cities. Also, at first glance it appears that figures now more closely resemble urban area populations rather than metropolitan area populations. It might be more appropriate to move the UN list to a List of urban agglomerations by population article and use a different source (maybe this one?) for a list of metropolitan areas. I made a table using the 2005 revision data here for reference. -- Polaron | Talk 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway I think we should press on (this page has been stuck for too long already). Nobody has found an ideal list. Use whichever list you prefer and then we can change particular figures ad hoc afterwards.
I know you are reluctant to sacrifice internal consistency by mixing-and-matching from various sources but in the absence of one single convincing source I think its a sacrifice we'll just have to make - ie, in wikipedia-speak, it will have to be a dynamic list, subject to constant revision as people come along with better figures for a particular city. Jameswilson 02:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
In theory that is possible for the urban area definition - we should be able to agree on contiguity, but it strikes me its much more tricky for wider metropolitan areas ("travel-to-work areas") because there doesnt seem to be a common defintion. Jameswilson 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt the Inland Empire Be added to the Metro statistics?
This global list seems inconsistent with the list of largest European metropolitan areas. Specifically, the Dutch Randstad and the Italian Milano (both ~7.5 million inhabitants) are missing from the global list, and the number for, for example, the Istanbul area, differ. Baszoetekouw 09:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that many people here are having a problem about the current list. Why not make a STRAW POLL or something like it so we can have a concesual agreement on which list is suitable and the one we should use. So we can rest this once and for all.
I would appriciate if someone could help me how to organize the voting because I'm quite new here thank you.
Basically here are the choices.
* PopulationData.net: all 1M+ unhabitants Metropolitan areas * Demographia.com: 50 Largest World Metropolitan Areas * Citypopulation.de: The Principal Agglomerations of the World * World Gazetteer: Metropolitan Areas * Current List (UN)
888
I can't understand why that whenever I change the Delaware Valley Population and Rank accordingly to what that page says, which is about 5,951,797 people according to that page, someone comes by and puts it back and says "revert to Un data." Just keep it as is! I am doing it according to US Census data.- Andr e wia 17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I see many people have problems with the list. I also have some doubts about this list, don't get offended, probably not because of the people who are editing this page, but of certain sources used to create the page. As stated in the beginning of the page "This is a controversial issue rather difficult to quantify, as unlike national subdivisions, there are no defined borders for such an area..... Commuting patterns and other aspects of urban behaviour which underlie the metro area concept differ greatly around the world. Thus all population figures for specific metros should be treated as interpretations rather than hard facts." it's a difficult job. Therefore rather than arguing with eachother, as logical people we should compare certain sources and come to conclusions before putting it on the site. Editing the page by just relying upon one website would be wrong, because none of these websites are %100 percent correct.
I think comparing the list of metropolitan areas with the list of cities will be helpful. When you compare these two pages you get to see some impossible statistics. Logically metropolitan areas should be more populated than it's city, due to the fact that metropolitan areas include cities and the suburb areas around it and even sometimes a couple of cities together and their suburbs make up the metropolitan area (example; Miami - Fort Lauderdale - West Palm Beach). Unfortunately for some cities this isn't that way. There are cities on the list bigger than their metros?! (Example; Seoul, Lima)
According to the main source used for the cities page ( http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/2005_world_city_populations/2005_city_population_01.html) there are more examples to this, for example; Toronto and Istanbul. Some like these have been corrected on this page however, but by numbers like 200,000. Where is the source of these new numbers on the page, not provided with the source. It looks like these have been changed just the get the population of these metros just a notch up than their cities.
The main problem exists in the definition of the metropolitan areas. Some under the metros title are really metropolitan areas, some urban areas and even some are only city districts. The same problem occurs in the cities page. For example if we take a look at Lima we see that it's marked as official metropolitan area in the metros page, as it should be (7,186,000). But when we look at the cities page it's marked as province which is a larger area with 7,866,160 people. Neither cities should be showed bigger, nor the metros smaller than they actually are. I attempted to change Istanbul's stats in the metros page due to the fact that the province contains 11,332,000 people. I didn't even attempt to put it for the cities page (like how Lima was put). But it wasn't accepted. On the other hand in the source ( http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/2005_world_city_populations/2005_city_population_01.html) Istanbul's city population is lower, how can that be? These major differences spoil this page, I think. Cities are labeled differntly like province, metoropolitan area, urban area, metropolitan municipality etc. For real and more accurate comparissons I think they should be classified as same as possible. I think first of all we should make definitions for such terminology before we attempt to change anything.
I hope for everyone's contribution to this discussion. Only then can we make a more reliable page. Thank you. -- John9834 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should remove the Mongabay link, as the main source. But once removed, what can we put in it's place? -- John9834 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Also how do we know that the UN page is reliable enough? Where do they get the numbers? For example I currently live in Turkey and such stats in the UN page do not match with the ones the Turkish Goverment states. -- John9834 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Definition of Lima has been changed but in the name of area section "metropolitan area" still remains. Plus the population estimate doesn't match with the cities page. -- John9834 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't agree on that because there's a reason. When the two pages are treated separately big errors occur (as I have explained above giving the example of Lima, which is corrected later on) due to the fact that the two pages are based upon different sources. -- John9834 10:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way the number given by the Turkish Government in 2000 was 9,085,599 and this is only the city population. The total population, meaning the province was 10,018,735, including the suburban areas. http://www.istanbul.net.tr/istanbul_istanbul_nufus.asp In Turkey, province and city is considered almost the same, due to the fact that each province contains one city and the name of the city is the same with the province. Also with the goverment's ignorance to this subject mixed it all up. The same problem exists here like the Lima example. In the two pages; the city list and the metro list, the same number (city) is given. I'm suggesting that we correct this. Like Lima we should use the province population. -- John9834 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You said "current population estimates for cities alone". Why cities only? Isn't this the metropolitan area page? I did post a message for the cities page though. Probably you wanted to post this message there. -- John9834 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
But I don't want to edit this page without your confirmation. Because I may make mistakes, even when selecting sources, anyone can. Therefore I will post my suggestions here on the discussion page, then I will put them on the article page. -- John9834 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting to use province (as I have explained above) for Istanbul, not city, as there's no difference between the two statistics (city and metro). Istanbul province is accepted as the metropolitan area most of the time. -- John9834 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
After editing the cities page now the population of the two cities looks bigger than their metros. I'm suggesting to change them. The source is official goverment statistics; http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=229
I have no idea why it doesn't work. It works for me. This is the link to the main page. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/ This is English but hard to navigate. Try the Turkish one. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do From there bring your mouse over to (left of the page) "Nüfus, Konut ve Demografi" and click "Nüfus İstatistikleri ve Projeksiyonlar". Go to the very bottom of the new page that comes up. Click "İllere göre yıl ortası nüfus projeksiyonları". Hope that helps. -- John9834 23:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What it means by "köy" isn't village population. There are luxurious villas and neighborhoods in those regions. -- John9834 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A while back, someone posted a question about the copyright status of this list. Please know that under the United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, factual lists can never be copyright-protected, so as long as we stick to the list (and not, say, editorial comments attached to the list), we can use whatever source we wish. -- M @ r ē ino 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
where is Rhine-Ruhr in this list? -- LaWa 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3 Rhine-Ruhr Flag of Germany Germany 11,716,845 in 2005[2] well, thats how big this region is in the list of the largest european metropolitan areas.... but... whatever. 84.144.124.221 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This list is crazy. How can you exclude San Jose from the Bay Area. It doesn't matter at all what the UN or the census beurogh says because this is just obvious. Just drive south on el camino real (a street not even a highway) and see for yourself. There would be not one person out of the million that live in San Jose that will say that they are not from the bay area. Thats a better source than this census crap. look at google earth or any sattelite image. This is so obvious. The only way to tell you going into a new city is city limit sign. Anyways this is is a huge bunch of crap and should be deleted. More that half of all the info here is incorrect. When has Bogota ever been bigger than Lima. Never ever. Both the cities are both hundreds of years old and not once has Bogota been bigger than Lima. But then on this list it says that it is. There needs to be some administrator here to just delete the page and block anyone else from making it again.
P.S. To all the people trying to make their cities look larger than they really are; its not always good to have a really big city. Try living in L.A.
Vivaperucarajo 07:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a bull crap. I live in San Jose but I work in San Freancisco. San Francisco and San Jose simply are connected in every single way. They may have different MSA but it does not necesarilly mean they are not in the same Metropolitan Area. That is why the census have CSA. Do not interchange the term MSA to a "metropolitan area".–88800-- 67.101.102.134 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)888
Do not be a fool. We need to REVISE THIS article. Everyone who lives in the Bay Area knows San Francisco and San Jose are in the same Metro Area. It seems you are the only one who is pushing for something different. You said they were different metro area historically. So why not put what it is that is current. San Jose and San Francisco simply has since merged and become one Metro Area.
Every Metro Area should be treated differently because there are simply NO standard period. So we should take it to account evrything locally. That is why the Citypopulation.de are the most appropriate as it gets its source right from each local nation. The Reason why there are no dominating city in the Bay Area is because many of the city limits are very small compare to others. For Example the whole city of San Francisco is just about the size of Manhattan. But If San Francisco were to have the city limit size like the whole New York City it would eat up Oakland to the east and most of San Mateo County to South and would be like the 4th largest city in the US. New York City (not the metro area) is just about the size of the Bay Area core including San Jose. So Boudaries are irrelevant as they differ a lot from each metro to another –88800-- 67.101.102.134 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)888
Census Bureau aside, I think it's clear that the 5 million-plus residents of the Inland Empire should count toward Los Angeles' total metropolitan population. 68.96.161.229 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
California is tricky. Despite dividing both the urban regions of the Bay Area and SoCal into several metro areas, I think many residents would agree that San Francisco and San Jose form a unified urban region as does L.A. and Riverside. The problem rest on the reliance the Census Bureau places on commuting patterns (the only thing that really matters in determining American metro areas.) As both San Jose and Riverside have substantial areas of employment they are treated as separate metros from San Francisco and Los Angeles. chazman 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As we are in 2006, I suggest to change the list according to 2006 figures. We are one year behind at the moment, therefore far from real numbers. The UN page may be according to 2005 but we can take a look at official goverment websites for 2006 estimates for every city. -- John9834 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Polaron, I need you to comment on this please, because you made this article reliable, so I need your ideas. It would be rude otherwise. John9834 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest something, even though I'm not the decission maker here, seeing you guys are into this. We may add a new row to the list where we can put the date of the estimation; so that people can compare the metros with eachother even though their estimations are of different years. As the numbers will change by figures like 100,000 the rankings won't change very much. This is only a temporary solution, as I believe we will find 2006 estimates for all cities in some time. Like John has found (for the Istanbul and Ankara examples), we should look into official government websites for each city (of its country). They are the most reliable sources. Berkserker 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
However the US Census Department has produced some figures using the urban definition on an experimental basis ( see here (scroll down)).
This is useful for comparison purposes if nothing else, because the figures given for European cities such as London, Madrid, etc are generally given on the urban area definition, so its interesting to see how big US cities are when caslculated on this much narrower definition (ie excluding a lot of commuter settlements). See here for the US metro figures. Jameswilson 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand this redirect. "Agglomeration", or unbroken urban growth, would be the equivalent of the urban area, not the metropolitan area that is an urban area with its commuter belt added. thepromenader 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS ALL WRONG. sOURCES ARE OLD AND INNCORECT.
the metropolitan area of Milan is 4,451 sq. km the population 5,941,000
the metropolitan area of Naples is 2,397 sq. km the population 4,254,000
please also Rome needs to be corrected: 3,658 sq. km and a population of 3,653,000
the source is the official gazette of Società Geografica Italiana (Italian Geographic Society) 2001
Anyway the Società Geografica Italiana is obviously an impeccable academic source BUT, for this page, we need figures for the contiguous urban area only, not the whole economic region. Looking at the maps, it aeems that we need a figure for an area which only goes out from central Milan as far as Gaggiano, for example. Does that correspond with the 4,451 km²? If not, do the Società Geografica Italiana have another definition area which stops at Gaggiano (assuming myn maps are correct)? Jameswilson 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've found a map about the metropolitan area of Milan, with many data, this is a photocopy from my old geographic book, Manuale di geografia per il biennio Edizioni R.A.R.E., Milano 1994 [ [4]] The metropolitan areas of Bergamo, Como, Varese and Busto Arsizio/Gallarate/Legnano, as described on map, are contiguous with the Milan's one and they form togheter an unique metropolitan area, so they were summed on the table below, in fact in Italy we refer only to an unique one, named as the metropolitan area of Milan (the main city)...that is also the name of the picture on the book, as we can read over the map
Note: Illustration. The 18 million London definition goes out as far (clockwise from north) Luton/Dunstable in Bedfordshire, all of Hertfordshire, South Essex including Chelmsford, Basildon and Southend, North and West Kent including the Medway Towns and Maidstone, Crawley in Sussex, all of Surrey, Aldershot/Farnborough in Hampshire, and eastern and central Berkshire including Reading, Buckinghamshire up to and including High Wycombe. I.e., all of the Greater London (administrative county) plus the area decribed as the Outer Metropolitan Area or the Inner South-East (of England, I mean). Maximum 40 miles from Central London, sometimes less where there is no railway line/motorway( eg the area of Essex at two-o'clock on my clockface is excluded)..
Ctr: The smaller London urban area definition used here includes most (but not quite all) of Greater London (administrative county) plus a very few bits beyond that boundary such as Watford and Epsom/Ewell, Chertsey/Walton. 15-20 miles from Central London to the end of the urban sprawl and the start of the Green Belt (a line which occasionally creeps inside the Greater London boundary, eg, in the south-east around Biggin Hill). For full definition see Greater London Urban Area. Jameswilson 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
so...Use the criteria that you prefere, but still I can't see Milan and Naples in the list. Why??? And why were not them considered before?
Where in the current source did the UN claim the list as "Metropolitan areas of the world"? It seems they never reffered to it in that way. I think thats the reason why the list is having so many problems. I just want to clear if the UN did indeed make an official defenition of what is a "metropolitan area", (not agglomeration not uraban population but "Metropolitan area"). Like what the IAU did where they make a clear defenition of what a Planet should be. If the UN did not make such a thing then we should follow each Individual countries defenition of thier own Metropolitan Defenition. It does not matter if they varied from each coutry to country as long they are the official defenition of that country. This measurement is no different when a country is defining what their cities should be.
Eeach country has different defenitions of thier cities. Each countries has different defnitions of thier metropolitan areas. Whats the difference? I think we should not aim for comparison because that will lead to subjectiveness, hence, what is happening right now with the list. We simply want to provide information based on official description for each country.
The Office of Management and Budget in the U.S. defines metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) based on Census Bureau data. These are the closest there is to an official metropolitan area definition in the US. The current UN list uses urban area data for US cities. I am proposing to change all US cities to conform to the MSA (and not the larger CSA concept) definition. If there are no objections over the next few days, I'll begin changing figures. -- Polaron | Talk 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Many Metropolitan areas fits more on the CSA groupings than MSA. On the otherhand there are also Metropolitan areas that fits more on MSA than thier CSA. We should untilize a list that would incoorporate both categories. (Of course we are just talking about the US). I have seen a list who have done this where they included all the CSAs together with the MSAs that are not included in CSAs and ranked them accordingly.
www 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, the Urban Audit LUZ data I mentioned in another section seems like a good approximation (on the conservative side) to the metro areas of many EU cities. The most recent tabulated data, however, are only for the year 2001. What do people think about using LUZ data. The main Urban Audit site is here. What do other people think about using this as a reference to standardize EU cities. There is also some information here. -- Polaron | Talk 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But every time I see that approach I automatically get negative and assume those figures cant be what we want here because I am used to the other system. Taking an aerial, nowadays satellite, photo to determine land-use and drawing a red line on the photo around the edge of the built-up area. Add up all the census-blocks (enumeration districts) which fall wholly within the line of course (for the sake of convenience), but where a census block doesnt correspond with the red line, and they hardly ever do, the red line takes priority and its a question of the statisticians wading through the original census returns house-by-house to work out how many people live within the red line.
To you this probably sounds ridiculous but we are used to the idea that the "real shape" of a town is the urban footprint rather than the administrative boundary. (This ia probably because administrative boundaries are changed so frequently in Britain). For example all our road maps show even small towns as grey blobs corresponding to the shape of the built-up area on aerial/satellite photos, rather than showing coloured municipal/parish boundaries with a symbol in the middle for the town centre.
This is why I was hinting at splitting the list to reflect the different approaches. For example, I was playing around with some maps of Brazil and it is clear to me that the Brazilian conurbations on the list are done on your approach (adding whole municipalities even if they includes rural hamlets). So by my criteria all the Brazilian figures on this page are too high. The MSA, LUZ, Brazilian system is perfexctly valid of course; its just different. Jameswilson 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know of a good, reliable reference for international urban area figures? Some countries do tabulate urban areas ( including the US) but many do not. There must be some international organization that tracks urban areas. If you have a reference, then let's create that urban area list. -- Polaron | Talk 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
LUZ's seem to be "economic zones" ("economic dominance" rather than commuter, travel-to-work, zones). The Santander example the LUZ covers an area of just over 5,000 km2. Does that seem right for a central city of 200,000? (Santander is a port, summer resort and financial centre which punches above its weight in terms of economic importance within Spain).
You'll know better than me how closely that matches the MSA concept, but I would suspect the the LUZ areas, at any rate in Spain, might still too big even for your (metro) purposes. Specifically, it seems to me that if all Spanish cities participated in the project, most of Spain would end up falling into one or other of the LUZ's. The only "gaps" would be the (ten?) provinces which happen to lack a large capital. From the figures it is clear tha the Santander LUZ directly adjoins the Oviedo one. Is that justifiable on an MSA basis? I dont think the population density (about 80/km2) in Spain is high enough to justify including so much of the national territory. Large parts of rural Spain are quite empty really (to a Briton admittedly). The overall density is less than, say, Ohio. Is 80% of Ohio's territory included within one or other of the MSA's. How much is left out? Of course Spain is only one country. Other countries' LUZ's might work better. And as you say it might be more rliable for the larger cities. Jameswilson 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
For reference:
City | Definition | Population (2001) | Area (km²) |
---|---|---|---|
London | Greater London + 42 surrounding districts | 11.62 million | 8,920 |
Paris | Ile-de-France | 10.95 million | 12,080 |
Madrid | Province | 5.37 million | 8,023 |
Essen | Ruhr Area | 5.36 million | 4,434 |
Berlin | State + surrounding kreise | 4.94 million | 17,405 |
Barcelona | Province | 4.80 million | 7,755 |
Milan | Province + surrounding municipalities | 3.90 million | 2,767 |
Athens | including surrounding nomos | 3.89 million | 3,807 |
Rome | Province | 3.70 million | 5,352 |
Hamburg | State + 6 neighboring kreise | 3.08 million | 7,304 |
Naples | Province | 3.06 million | 1,171 |
So why do we not move for the EU cities to the LUZ definition? It is the only EU-harmonized defintion by a neutral agency (Eurostat) and accepted by all EU national statistics offices? JGG 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
To anybody reading this article: please note that the population reflected here for Johannesburg is the CITY PROPER, not the metropolitan area, and is therefore wrong. Suggest you take this into account when using this info for anything. The figure excludes the East and West Rand, which have always been functionally linked to Jozi, but separated for administrative purposes. For a much more accurate figure, please see Thomas Brinkhoff's data [ [5]]. The real figure is closer to 7.5 million. PS Soweto is AUTOMATICALLY included in Jozi as it is within the official city boundaries.
YAY! Somebody finally took note! Thank you - the inclusion of the East and West Rand is a much more accurate and real estimation of the Greater Johannesburg Area.
All lists have errors, but this "UN List" is an abomination!! I've been studying populations of cities for years every damn day, suburb by suburb, city by city, and this one is one of the worst i've seen. Citypopulation.de is one of the better ones, although these are my estimates for those cities based on satellite data, multiple sources, area lit by light, commuting patterns, etc.
Changes/Notes to citypopulation.de
Tōkyō Tokyo Japan 34,200,000 incl. Kanagawa, Tokyo, Saitama, and Chiba prefectures, excluding mountainous fringes areas of these (Chichibu and village areas), including Toride/Abiko area of Ibaraki prefecture. Many small cities dot the landscape exiting Tokyo N/NE/E, including them or not is very difficult to determine, and megacities like Tokyo have very strong pull. Including Maebashi-Takasaki, Oyama, Kiryu-Ashikaga areas would greatly increase these estimates. Kanto region less mountains and Mito and areas north has around 37.5 mln people.
São Paulo Sao Paulo Brazil 20,200,000 Official Regiao Metropolitana of Sao Paulo, plus a few suburbs, minus Salesopolis and low density rural fringe inside RM de SP. SP has a NYC like core with a LA style sprawl. If LA-like sprawl cities are included, Campinas and Baixada Santista must be added, bringing the total to over 25 mln, with potentially others like SJ de Campos and Sorocaba.
8 Shanghai Shanghai China 18,150,000 I support this number for Shanghai as there are so many undocumented people there without official residence.
10 ?Ōsaka Osaka Japan 16,800,000 incl. Kobe, Kyoto, not including Himeji, Wakkanai, or Nara areas. If Himeji areas is added, 17.5 million is easily achieved.
11
Jakarta is under-reported and easily contains 18 million if not more.
35 ?Nagoya Nagoya Japan 8,050,000 Though Nagoya region is very populated, Toyota region people don't bother to go to Nagoya, and neither do Mie prefecture people....6 mln is a good estimate, 8 mln is good for connected urban corridor but unintegrated areas.
The list seems to alternate between ranking by number of 100 areas and by total population of top 100 areas. I'd think one should be decided upon?
Country | Number of top 100 metropolitan areas | Combined population |
![]() |
10 | 56,455,000 |
![]() |
9 | 80,100,000 |
... | ... | ... |
![]() |
2 | 17,341,000 |
![]() |
4 | 17,001,000 |
I'm planning to use figures that seem closer to what other lists of metropolitan areas use. The default would be the UN figures. The proposed exceptions are:
I think these are the ones that where people come in periodically and change the figures and where people have complained on the Talk page specifically about. I will begin changing figures in the next day or two so if there are additions/subtractions, please let me know. -- Polaron | Talk 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has noticed this, so I may be hopelessly confused. The "Distribution by Country" list lists the European Union as a country. Last time I checked, Europe isn't a country. Is it possible that this is because some Metropolitan areas in Europe are in more than one country? (ie: Rome, Vatican city)
Perhaps what this list needs is definition. Maybe we should define a metropolitan area as the area with a minimum population density (ie: the area around Paris with at least 100 people per square mile). This might cause some confusion because some areas would be merged together (BosWash), but at least it would give the list some order. And I know there is at least one credible up-to-date source out there that lists it in this way. So if we accept this proposal, our next question is "what is the minimum population density that defines a metropolitan region?"
I'm wondering how Algeria got onto that list when they don't have a city in the top 100.
Also in the Distribution by Country list Colombia only shows as having one city listed when there are two Colombian cities in the top 100 adding up to about 10,000,000+ in population.
Hi, there is a big mistake about Milan. the Urban Area of Milan, the real city is of 4.280.000 people. the sprawling, the Metro Area is of 7.400.000 of people, as was for the first time officialy calculated by OECD / OCSE just 3 days ago.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/62/37720067.pdf
OECD Territorial Reviews: Milan, Italy
"Milan is often identified as a prosperous region and an international capital of fashion and design. Once a successful industrial city located in the northern part of Italy, Milan has grown into the core of a wider industrial metropolitan region that is home to more than 7 million people. The OECD Territorial Review of Milan recognises that Milan’s historical skills endowment and its advantageous geographic location could underpin its ambition to become a southern European and Mediterranean capital. At the same time, the Review demonstrates that Milan displays disappointing international performances and seems to have lost part of its long-established drive..."
Perhaps this is a silly question, but is there any particular reason why the table (at least when I looked at it; November 28th in the evening in the Western US) has so many holes for the population density? I was going to go through and correct this, but decided to post this in the talk page first. Ixnayonthetimmay 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)