![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The population of "Greater São Paulo" is 19.616.060 million people, not 18,850,000. I know, I was born here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.174.81 ( talk) 20:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You should review the São Paulo metropolitan area's population. According to the wikipedia page, nowadays it has 19,889,559 inhabitants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.28.116.138 ( talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the official São Paulo´s government company that mesures the population of the metropolitan area, it says 20 million. http://www.emplasa.sp.gov.br/portalemplasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.144.85 ( talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not use the São Paulo metropolitan area from the main article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo)? There it's said to be 19,889,559 (I think it's accurate, according to the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute).
Tehran metro. area 13,413,348 according to article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.71.67 ( talk) 09:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is getting really outdated, might it be a good idea to have this article have multiple lists or a merged list like List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. One column could be from Forstall (current source for article), or another as City population, or another as World Gazetteer, etc. ? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That is a very good idea. How can we do it? Skchandon ( talk) 03:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I started a possible suggestion based on the structure of the Japanese page. Any suggestions and comments are welcome. This list is still a preview and is still incomplete. It can be found at User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population. I used the rankings based on the what the article uses now and it in no way reflects what would be the default list if a numerical system is used. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Expanded the list to 25. The primary ranking for the table is from World Gazetteer because it referenced its list as a list ranking metropolitan areas, and Citypopulation ranked according to agglomeration. Also regarding the Forstall rank, it stopped at 20 so another list's ranking would be needed to expand it past 20. It doesn't seem right to use the Forstall rank for the first 20 then use another list's rank for the rest. Comments or suggestions? How big should this list be? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 00:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
For the most part, I expanded the list to 100. Just a couple of fixes and also trying to fill the official estimates column. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I ran into a little trouble while I was working on User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population as a possible suggestion for the article since the definitions of the sources do not match (Ex: Washington-Baltimore and Hong Kong-Shenzhen where some sources keep the separate), how about if we just expand the article and create subsections per each list instead of creating one massive table? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population(2) is an example for anyone that's interested. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a protection of the page until this can be sorted out. I see from User talk:SoCal L.A.#List of metropolitan areas ( oldid) some discussion has started, but as I can't access the Forstall journal article to clarify what is meant by the Los Angeles abbreviation in this version. Also can somebody give me the ref link(s) on which Census definition we would be using for this definition. - Optigan13 ( talk) 07:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
My argument is that Greater LA is not a metropolitan area, the US census does not consider it a metro area. GLA is a combination of metropolitan areas, usually just used to separate Southern SoCal with Northern SoCal, or San Diego and LA. os Angeles metropolitan area is more appropriate since it is the LA metro, there is no other one, well unless sources don't matter here. House1090 ( talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, perhaps it is time to implement Elockid's version of the list using multiple sources. That way, everyone will find something they like. -- Polaron | Talk 02:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that article is getting around! I have been watching the move of List of metropolitan areas by population to List of metropolitan areas by population (Forstall) to List of metropolitan areas by population (FGP) and back, along with a Gordian Knot of redirects with – detached – interest.
I’ve said it before, I say it again: This article is perverting Forstall. The three gentlemen had a noble cause. “Why lists of major urban areas vary so greatly.” Then they made a mistake, made their own list. And before you know it, it gets a Wikipedia article titled List of metropolitan areas by population . This title is disingenuous. It tricks people into thinking that this is what it appears to be, an up-to-date list of metropolitan areas by population. People are being fooled so much that they endlessly attempt to update a list that shouldn’t be updated. The edit history and the talk page are testament that experienced editors are being fooled by the title. How many readers are fooled?
Forstall et al may be worth to be treated as an artifact of history. If possible, the list should be edit blocked. But the title must reflect what it is: List of metropolitan areas by population according to Forstall, Greene, and Pick. It is definitely not a List of metropolitan areas by population.
Everything else is just wrong. It is also interesting that Wikipedia’s trite and true “consensus” is being invoked with nary a word on the discussion page.
Triplespy, whoever he may be, had the right intentions: That article needs the proper name. List of metropolitan areas by population does not reflect the source.
If List of metropolitan areas by population (Forstall) isn’t accepted, how about “Ancient and outdated list of metropolitan areas by population, produced after all other lists had failed?” Not good? How about “How to forestall the compilation of lists of metropolitan areas by population , once and for all?”
If you want consensus, Triplespy has my vote. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 11:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
List of metropolitan areas by population → List of metropolitan areas by population according to Forstall, Greene, and Pick — Title does not reflect single source. This is about a list by Forstall, Greene, and Pick, and the title needs to identify this BsBsBs ( talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: Please refrain from edit warring. This movereq was put in to start an orderly discussion. If the war goes on, I must request a block. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
List of metropolitan areas by population → List of urban areas by population (FGP) — As the page only uses Richard Forstall, Richard Greene, and James Pick data so the page needs to reflect that so I added first letter of their last name to come up with FGP. Also pages that uses UN estimates has UN added at the end of title for example: List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations). Triplespy ( talk) 20:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As much as I dislike this list (along with all the other lists based on vague and often arbitrary concepts), the senseless editing of a single source list must stop. To frustrate thoughtless drive-by editors who don't bother reading the article, or the remarks in the list, I put the table in a template.
The sources are also in the template, accessible as <ref name=forstall1/> and <ref name=forstall2>.
Here they are:
<ref name=forstall1>R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick, [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122302376/abstract Which are the largest? Why lists of major urban areas vary so greatly], ''Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie'' '''100''', 277 (2009), Table 4</ref>
<ref name=forstall2>R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick, [http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/session3_4/3_4whicharethe.pdf "Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly"], City Futures Conference, (University of Illinois at Chicago, July 2004) – Table 5 (p.34)</ref>
I hope this helps and frees up our time for more productive projects.--
BsBsBs (
talk)
15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just in case the watchers are getting sick and tired of reverting the single sourced list twice a day, there still is {{List of metropolitan areas by population, Forstall}} for your perusal.
But hey, every revert counts as an edit ... -- BsBsBs ( talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have updeated the list with two new sources. The sources i have used are from the Mexico City and Sao Paulo City governments respectively who clearly define their Metropolitain areas and give firm numbers for them. These sources are also more recent. I believe that theses sources will clear up the difficulty with finding a source with a precise definition of metropolitain areas.
The "greater sao paulo" in fact has 19.6M people. The source is in the Wikipedia itself on the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_S%C3%A3o_Paulo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.53.218 ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Rahlgd ( talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Greater Sao Paulo and the Metropolitian Area of Sao Paulo are different things. The first is a bigger area including other areas that are not actually adjacent to the metro area. Thus it would be incorrect to compare Greater Sao Paulo to Metro Area of SP. There's also a "Greater Mexico City" are which also includes some other areas not part of the adjacent metro area. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there are obviously multiple definitions for a metropolitan area, ONE list should ALL definitions to be accurate. The concept that one list fits all is totally wrong. Especially since national bureaus information are totally ignored. I think there is no more accurate information than from the bureau of the national governments in which the counts took place, along with area and density figures. ALL the data regarding these metropolitan areas should be published. It is so silly to say one source knows everything and can accurate describe any particular metropolitan area. Doseiai2 ( talk) 15:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Note that Metro Manila is only composed of Manila and 16 other adjacent cities and towns in a legally-designated area, with an entire population of 11,553,427 [2007 census] on a land of 636 km2. Therefore, the 16,300,000 may include cities from the other nearby provinces, which are not legally part of Metro Manila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.235.131 ( talk) 11:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a slightly updated version of Forstall's paper published in Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Vol 100 (issue 3), 277-297. The issue was published in April 3, 2009, although the article was submitted on as early as May, 2007.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122302376/abstract
A list of 25 largest Consistently defined metropolitan areas as of July 1, 2003 is described in the paper. The list is slightly different from the abstract paper prepared for the City Futures Conference in July 2004, The list below is based on Tables 4 (page 292) and 5 (page 293, for Average Annual Change).
Name of CDMA | Rank | Population | Area (km2) | Density | Average Annual Change (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tokyo | 1 | 32,450,000 | 8,014 | 4,019.2 | 0.66 |
New York | 2 | 21,610,000 | 26,362 | 891.4 | 0.56 |
Seoul | 3 | 20,550,000 | 5,076 | 4,048.5 | 1.12 |
Mexico City | 4 | 20,450,000 | 7,346 | 2,783.8 | 1.54 |
Jakarta | 5 | 19,400,000 | 3,851 | 5,037.7 | 0.75 |
Mumbai (Bombay) | 4 | 19,200,000 | 2,350 | 8,170.2 | 2.53 |
São Paulo | 7 | 18,850,000 | 8,479 | 2,223.1 | 1.57 |
Delhi-New Delhi | 8 | 18,600,000 | 3,182 | 5,845.4 | 3.86 |
Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto | 9 | 17,375,000 | 6,930 | 2,507.2 | 0.16 |
Shanghai | 10 | 16,650,000 | 5,177 | 3,216.1 | 2.07 |
Manila | 11 | 15,900,000 | 2,843 | 5,592.7 | 2.18 |
Hong Kong-Shenzhen | 12 | 15,800,000 | 3,051 | 5,178.6 | 5.42 |
Los Angeles | 13 | 15,600,000 | 12,926 | 1,206.9 | 1.07 |
Kolkata (Calcutta) | 14 | 15,100,000 | 1,785 | 8,459.4 | 1.74 |
Moscow | 15 | 14,600,000 | 9,693 | 1,506.2 | 1.08 |
Cairo | 16 | 14,450,000 | 1,600 | 9,031.3 | 1.89 |
Buenos Aires | 17 | 13,170,000 | 9,050 | 1,455.2 | 0.63 |
London | 18 | 12,800,000 | 11,391 | 1,123.7 | 0.89 |
Karachi | 19 | 11,800,000 | 1,100 | 10,727.3 | 3.43 |
Rio de Janeiro | 20 | 11,650,000 | 7,099 | 1,641.1 | 1.26 |
Tehran | 21 | 11,600,000 | 6,500 | 1,784.6 | 2.30 |
Istanbul | 22 | 11,450,000 | 4,824 | 2,373.5 | 3.08 |
Paris | 23 | 11,325,000 | 14,518 | 780.1 | 0.31 |
Beijing | 24 | 11,100,000 | 2,747 | 4,040.8 | 2.94 |
Dhaka | 25 | 10,960,000 | 1,700 | 6,447.1 | 3.24 |
Chicago | 9,175,000 | 12,028 | 762.8 | 0.79 | |
Lagos | 7,800,000 | 1,393 | 5,599.4 | 3.03 | |
Tianjin | 6,800,000 | 4,335 | 1,568.6 | 0.66 |
Aurichalcum ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's still hopelessly outdated, first world biased, and fraught with the same errors. Whoever counts Hong Kong and Shenzhen as one needs to have his or her head examined. Might as well count Tijuana and San Diego as one. By 2006, the population of the Beijing municipality alone stood at 15 mil, most likely lowballed, a year later, it was 17.5 mil, now 22 mil .... All other points discussed above apply. --
BsBsBs (
talk)
06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about Forstall. HK-SZ doesn't fit Forstall's criteria of "at least 20% of the working residents commute to the urban core." People from SZ would love to, but they get stopped at that border. It is easier to get a residence and work permit for myself in HK than for a Chinese. There is no "commuting" across that border. Wouldn't you agree that commuting patterns are at the core of Forstall's work? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 17:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this will be the last thing I say on this tired topic, because it increasingly feels like preaching Paganism to Jesuits. The Shenzhen article is quite clear on the topic of commuting: "According to the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, in 2002, 7,200 Hong Kong residents commuted daily to Shenzhen for work, and 2,200 students from Shenzhen commuted to school in Hong Kong. Though neighbouring each other, daily commuters still need to pass through customs and immigration checkpoints, as travel between the SEZ and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is restricted." It provides handy sources. The year was around when Forstall did his "study." 7,200 people reverse-commuting to SZ and 2,200 students going from SZ to HK on their student visa hardly fill the 20% quota. The 7,200 usually are HK businessmen who visit their SZ factories (or their mistresses, parked in SZ apartment buildings.) There is no such thing as increased integration, and you should stay away from speculations. In any case, when the study was done, there was no SZ-HK commuting except for a handful of students, and there is none today. Forstall was patently wrong and ignorant when he bunched HK and SZ together for his study. People who copy him perpetuate his ignorance. HK and SZ did not fulfill one of Forstall's own core criteria, namely massive commuting to the metro core, and it doesn't today. According to the HK treaty, nothing will change for 50 years after the hand-over. Forstall will have to wait some 40 years. If he gets an obvious case such as HK/SZ wrong, how can we trust him with the less obvious cases? We cannot. However, acknowledging the fact that there are people who believe that the world is flat, I rest my case. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually the Chicago metro area is 9.8 million, approaching 10 million. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.211.82.178 (
talk)
10:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Shanghai is little bit out of date. There in list is 16M ppl, but on another page is 19M+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai#Demographics with source proof
and on another page on Internet, where was some studies about Expo, there is new numbers and they talk about 20M+, just +3M in last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.176.177 ( talk) 11:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And that's just official census. Due to China's hukou system, this is likely to be massively underreported, as migrants will not be allowed to travel to and work in Shanghai so will do so illegally. I've heard claims of 30M+ in the past, which don't seem unbelievable. 217.151.102.18 ( talk) 04:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This article should be renamed "List of the 20 largest metropolitan areas by population". Sean Quixote ( talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this list is NOT long enough. Twenty? How about the Top 50? A much better improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Re [2], per usability experts at the Nielsen Norman Group, even teachers don't always read the ledes - people just want to find out a specific ranking and I think the hatnote link will catch their eye. Our aim is to make a usable encyclopedia, not to confuse people who don't take the time to read everything. -- Jeandré, t 12:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is based on a source dated last 2004. What year are we now? That's right! 2011. Therefore I suggest updating the article and using the newest source The 2010 list of Metropolitan areas by Population as published by World Gazetteer as an appropriate replacement. Now that I have stated this. If there are no objections I will proceed to replace the article source and update our information. Thank You.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 07:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
ADDENDUM:
In order to further support my update im going to use two more sources Demographia's WORLD URBAN AREAS 2011 7th Edition to replace R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick, 2009 edition. If there are no negative comments I will now proceed to replace the article content. Thank You
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 08:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, please give other alternative sources from same year, 2011 or 2010. So that we can determine whether the statistics difference is only a case of it being outdated [Since cities have on average grown by 3-5 Million] ever since the last version of the article...
Or it might be that my source is really unreliable, though I doubt it since at the 2nd page of my source it says that "Demographia is used by prestigious websites such as City Mayors"...
If it is proven to be so then i'll concede. In the meantime I will search for more sources [Probably 3 more] to strengthen support for my edition.
Thank You.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 02:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Lol
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is near impossible to find a harmonized global list of metropolitan areas (employment centers plus their associated commuting sphere). The Forstall list appears to be the only peer-reviewed study that attempt to do this, although their population data is quite old (2003). With regards to the Demographia source, their methodology appears to be clearly stated, but if you read carefully, the source clearly says it is a list if urban areas (extent of continuous development) and not metropolitan areas. World Gazetter, on the other hand, does not describe its methodology at all. It is not clear what statistical concept it is tabulating and at first glance it looks like a mix of various definitions. The population figures themselves appear to be the site owner's own projections using some unstated methodology. See the section above #Possible suggestion since this article is getting a bit outdated for a possible solution to your concerns. -- Polaron | Talk 17:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, while you had a good idea, the source you cited, as pointed out by Polaron, uses urban area information and thus would be more fit for the List of urban areas by population article -- though I believe that article presently uses those statistics. Otherwise I did not find your changes at all controversial or imposing. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Istanbul is missing in this article. it's totally wrong! istanbul have 13,255,685 inhabitants according to http://www.citypopulation.de/Turkey-Istanbul.html, 13,275,000 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul and 12,255.00 according to http://www.allaboutturkey.com/info.htm so don't change it when i'm editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramoderncity ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Jakarta itself has 9.6 million, it and the surrounding metropolitan areas (known as Jabodetabek) comprise 28,019,545 (2010 Indonesian Census). It is both an official and practical designation. This list, which drops off a full __10 million people__ is entirely incorrect. 122.57.62.81 ( talk) 08:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This article leaves out a full 9.1 million people from the population of the greater Jakarta region, as measured by THE INDONESIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS 2010 CENSUS. They actually have a statistical unit called Jabodetabek. So there's no argument there. But the owner of this page doesn't like that, and thinks that they know more. They're an idiot. 122.57.62.81 ( talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't like how someone took the edit buttons away. I hope this edit succeeds... Anyway, my suggestion for this and the other factually incorrect lists is that you do what the Germans have done. Create one list and use the highest and lowest estimates. Put all the information together and rank things properly. There is already a version like this on Wikipedia but because it is based on this incorrect list and another one it is just as useless. 125.239.125.22 ( talk) 08:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually taking the population data from one single credible source is the most fair way. If figures were used from dozens of different entities, well let's just say, some countries or smaller regional organizations within a particular country, may not count their citizens as honerably or accurately as sources in another country. Therefore, it is better to take counts from one single credible source. Take the U.N. for instance. It doesn't matter to the U.N. if CITY B has more people than CITY A. But if you use data from an organization in CITY A, they may give figures that imply their population is larger than CITY B's. So one source is the most fair way.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Santa feconj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
As was pointed earlier (Istanbul metropolitan area - Ultramoderncity 13:52, 19 June 2011) both Wikipedia and official sources list Istanbul as the largest in Europe and one of the most populous cities in the World. National Statistical Institute of Turkey (TUİK) I don't see the reason to keep a page with "WRONG" information... Is a reason like "it's coming from a single referenced source." valid to put wrong info in Wikipedia? I'm seconding the strong urge to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzgurKartal FreeEagle ( talk • contribs)
This list isn't thorough enough. It's over as soon as you start reading. It should be top 50, which would really fill it out well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Reason: Hong Kong is not part of the "Hong Kong/Shenzhen" area (should it even exists). The "Hong Kong/Shenzhen" region is not a single metropolitan area, but two. There are restrictions on the movement of labor between Hong Kong and mainland China and the two areas are sometimes listed separately in other lists. If some other lists list HK and Shenzhen seperately, why does Wikipedia put them together? There are some more reasons to put them seperately from other participants on this page. In fact, the current arrangement is just counter-intuitive and requires some explanations. (If you ask 10000 Hong Kongers, I bet most of them consider Shenzhen as another rural area while fewer than 100 treat Shenzhen as part of the same metropolitan area.) -- Jabo-er ( talk) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Those figures for any of those Asian cities are completely wrong - everyone who's familiar with those cities and the (official and unofficial) statistics generally used for their populations. Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai, Delhi, Jakarta, Karachi. (That obviously not the people who control this page). You need better sources, because most of those numbers are about 2-3 million out, in some cases more. That's pretty huge. Additionally, calling HK-Shenzhen one metro area is ridiculous. They're still very much separate for all practical purposes, as much as SF-Tijuana. I haven't edited because it's pretty clear from discussion that those numbers are not allowed to be challenged or added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.103.145 ( talk) 23:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
the city got more than 13,255,685 Mio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.54.120 ( talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
According to information provided from other wiki pages, Edmonton by metro size (9,426.73 km2) should be included on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.39 ( talk) 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
very Old info from 2003, and why use that, when we can use updated info from the different countries official statistics. it makes no sense at all to use the statistics from one source, which is not official statistic, but info from a study by Richard Forstall, Richard Greene, and James Pick, who are they? Let use official statistic from now on, or at least side by side with the info from the study. This is 2012 and not 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.107.202 ( talk) 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"I already proposed an idea to include official data but not as a primary list per above (see archives) but there has not been enough support" I support this, we need the different country's census bureau/national statistics office, and not only a study from 2003, thats a decade ago!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.232.79 ( talk) 08:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Guangzhou lists the population of urban Guangzhou at 11,070,654, and Foshan, which is so integral to the Guangzhou metropolitan area that the cities are being merged over the next few years, adds another 7.2 million. How does Guangzhou not make this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.9.250.6 ( talk) 02:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that some biased vandal is the cause, or that it was removed by someone biased against South Korea, but why is it that in the top 4 images of the world's largest cities, an image of seoul is missing? It is, afterall, the second largest metropolitan area in the world, but I guess for whatever reason, an image of it doesn't exist?
If necessary, I can add a fair-use image of Seoul if you guys would like.
161.28.82.74 ( talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
According to this list, the metropolitan area of Shanghai would have a smaller population (16.6 Mio) than the city proper according to the List of cities proper by population, as defined by its core districts (17.8 Mio). This sounds rather implausible. And both populations would be smaller than the municipality area of Shanghai according to the article Shanghai, which is (23.0 Mio). Someone messed something up here? -- JakobvS ( talk) 11:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The information on this page regarding Karachi is incorrect, especially the population density. This should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.180.52 ( talk) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
95% of the people coming here would want to know the world's largest metropolitan areas IN ORDER OF POPULATION! If you can't provide that, people will go elsewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 ( talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sao Paulo's population is misrepresented, probably very outdated, and incoherent with this page (which I believe is correct, or nearly so): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_S%C3%A3o_Paulo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.97.13 ( talk) 01:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
According to another Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China - Chongqing should be second on this list. Unless I am mistaken? Leecharleswalker ( talk) 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised Detroit, Michigan USA was not listed here. It has a metro area of over 5.2 million people. It may prove helpful to include what criteria are being used to determine what makes it into this list or how we are defining a metro area. Desire Mercy ( talk) 23:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
How come Istanbul is not on the list, with a population of at least 13.9 million? Non credo ( talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I second that- it has 17 million doesn't it and I think Ankara has enough to be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.15.157 ( talk) 14:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Beijing already has 22 - 27 million people. Shanghai has a similar amount of people. This list is way too old babes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.33.254 ( talk) 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This list is totally useless, because it's information and population figures are 10 years old! They are from 2003! Something really radical needs to be done. -- Ransewiki ( talk) 20:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have an updated list because the figures are from 2003, and its 2014 already... In my opinion we should use the figures from the cities own Wikipedia pages (Metropolitan population). Regards -- Ransewiki ( talk) 19:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No one who lives in either would ever try to put combine the population of these two cities (one also a SAR) together. The population of each should be treated differently. Zepppep34 ( talk) 01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree -- Ransewiki ( talk) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
100% agree, although Hong Kong is next to Shenzhen, they are ABSOLUTELY TWO CITIES, where there is border line and you need to check travel documents and go through immigration in order to go from Hong Kong to Shenzhen or vice versa. In addtion, cars CANNOT go through the border unless the car has 2 license plates (not easy to have 2 license plates on the car, unless you have significant investment on the other side of the border). Hong Kong traffic is keep left where Shenzhen is keep right. In conclusion, there are absolutely 2 cities ! buhin —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If the criteria for notability here is a population of 5 million or more then we're missing several cities from List of metropolitan areas in Africa. mvc ( talk) 22:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this list needs updating. Cairo's population is listed from 2003 (ten years ago) and metro areas like Lagos aren't on the list as all. I'm not sure if anyone has this article on their Watchlist but I think it needs a major clean-up or overhaul. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, also Jabodetabek (Jakarta) has now 28 millions according to its wiki page, it makes it number two. 82.247.190.134 ( talk) 10:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Tehran is missing in the list. According to the wikipage of Tehran, the metro has 13 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.122.232 ( talk) 18:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Forstall data should be removed and rewrite the lead of the article. The data is more than a decade old and there doesn't appear to be a significantly more recent paper from them. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and revamp the article. Elockid ( Talk) 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
how is Hong Kong missing from this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.249.118 ( talk) 15:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Lots of Chinese cities are missing. Chengdu? Chongqing? Guangzhou? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taipei!-- 72.94.172.49 ( talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO MESSED UP THIS PAGE WHY IS IT IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AND NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT THE ORDER. I don't know how to edit this, but would someone please? It looks terrible and is difficult to understand/use.
What about Istanbul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.87.68 ( talk) 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Really needs Updating. Bangkok isn't even on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.19.255 ( talk) 22:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The list is not as per the information in the reliable resource. I modified them accordingly, but one of the administrators has reverted back asking for more details. here are his comments on the talk page
Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of metropolitan areas by population, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 16:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know how can i have items edited as per the source provided
The population data from Turkey's TUIK-ADNKS (Turkish Statistics Organization - Address Based Population Record System: entire data can be found at http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul which unfortunately has a Turkish only interface) is reliable, but it's categorization is not. The official boundaries of Turkey's metropolitan areas are simply the provinces they are in, I suppose for ease of bureaucracy. However, this doesn't fit with the page's definition of people commuting from the metro area to the city center. It is like not counting Newark, but counting Buffalo in NYC metro area. This can be fixed by some work using GoogleEarth and ADNKS in parallel. (Actually to make sense of the rest, you will have to consult GoogleEarth or GoogleMaps.) For example, Çayırova, Darıca, Gebze and Dilovası districts of Kocaeli province (total population 642726 in ADNKS) and MarmaraEreğlisi district of Tekirdağ province (pop. 22816) have no gap of urbanization to the city center. On the other hand, the islands (pop. of Adalar district: 16166) and black sea coast of Istanbul province (pop. of Şile district: 31718; plus there are some coastal villages in a few other districts, so let's call the total of these plus the islands an even 70k.) don't have much connection to the city center. So, in the very least, it is 14160467-70k+642726+22816 = 14756k in 2013 December. Now on top of this, a significant number of people live in Istanbul and commute to Izmit (which is a very industrialized city, and its province, Kocaeli, is the one with highest GDP per capita among all provinces of the country) to as far as automotive industries and shipyards of Gölcük district, and conversely a significant number of people live in Izmit and commute to Istanbul. Unfortunately I can't cite any sources other than me knowing a bunch of such commuters. Regardless, here is the calculation adding districts of Kocaeli except Kandıra, Karamürsel and the 4 listed above: 14756k+930397 = 15686k in 2013 December. As I noted above, these are Dec'2013 figures. The growth rate between 2012-2013 for Istanbul province was: 14160467/13854740-1 = 2.2%, between 2011-2012 was 13854740/13624240-1 = 1.69%, between 2010-2011 was 2.78%, 2009-2010 was 2.63%, 2008-2009 was 1.72%. So last 5 years' average growth rate was 2.2%, but let's say 2% to be on the safe side. For December 2014, this increases the two population figures above to 14756k*1.02 = 15051k and 15686k*1.02 = 16000k. As a result Istanbul's current population is either 15M or 16M, depending on whether you include Izmit in or not. Or if the 2013 data will be used, then the year next to it shouldn't be 2014. Nkt777 ( talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of metropolitan areas by population's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "OECD":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to add some columns for population density on the table. Should it the include data for urban or metro areas or both?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 09:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Karachi is missing. 88.104.211.90 ( talk) 19:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Most estimates are at least 16 million with at least 23 million for metro. You cant just discount it because of outdated census. That would be an unreasonable technicality. Just use of reliable sources. 88.104.211.90 ( talk) 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of an official count, another source should be used since it is clear that Karachi is near the top of the list by any count. 88.104.211.90 ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
18 Million people seems to be a laege enough number to be on the list -- 71.88.99.117 ( talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Should definitely be there, used reference from
Moscow metropolitan area page.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsigned March 7 2015 edit suddenly increases the population figure for New York and moves it up the chart. Citation to the US Census website remains the same in that edit and the year (2013) was not updated in the chart. When you follow through the citation, it gives the old number and the same year (2013). I confirmed this earlier today and changed it back to the old number and moved it back down the chart. Then someone reverted it. I'm sorry I didn't discuss it on the talk page, but the March 7th edit was clearly not properly done and I was actually trying to restore the previous data. The new 2014 Census data for Metropolitan Areas in the US will actually be released next week, but so far it has not been. In the interim, my recommendation is that the chart should say what the actual data source/citation says, not what some unsigned IP thinks it is without providing a new source. -- Kingsidebishop ( talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats about population of Tehran is wrong. According to the link that cited in page of metropolitan areas, 8 million population is just population of Tehran city Itself and You can see that in here. Also you can see metropolitan population of Tehran which is referred in page of Tehran city itself. Shaater ( talk) 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)