Jump to content

Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

São Paulo

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)

Definitions of metro area boundaries differ from one source to another. The article presently uses this [1] source. --Peter Talk 20:57, 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)

But this article is according to one source though. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:55, 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).

I'm working on it. Please see the thread below. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tehran

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)

Different organizations have different measurements or criteria for a metropolitan area which results in different figures. This is why Tehran was not included on the list because the established source of the article had different figures for Tehran or rather, when the source was published, Tehran under their criteria did not produce a figure higher than the ones already listed. Also, the Tehran figures are vandalized often, (I checked the history and from it, there has been a lot of dubious changes) so it wouldn't surprise me if that figure was wrong. Elockid (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes maybe the number is disputet for several reasons. Some figures may include the nearby cities of Karaj , Ray, Shahr-e Qods and more. The German wikipedia article claims that the Metro area is identical with Tehran province http://www.citypopulation.de/Iran50T.html however the German Wikipedia "List of metropolitan area" article completely differs from this one http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ften_Metropolregionen_der_Welt --79.251.101.243 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible suggestion since this article is getting a bit outdated

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)

First we need consensus or other opinions from editors first. I can do it once I get the approval from some other editors. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Providing lists by multiple, widely-cited sources is probably the way to go to avoid these recurring discussions about the accuracy of the listed figures. Looking at how other non-English Wikipedias do it, I found the list in the Japanese Wikipedia to be a good way to implement this. We already have separate lists for Demographia and UN World Urbanization Prospects. The Geopolis reference seems to be no longer available online. That leaves us with World Gazetteer, Citypopulation, and the last column, which is official definitions by each country (where available). We have to decide the default ranking though. To prevent debates, an alphabetical default list like the European list might be the way to go. --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia does look really good in terms of structure. Using official definitions is definitely not the way to go as the default ranking (if it's a numerical ranking). New York vs. London or metropolitan area definition vs. metropolitan area definition topics will most likely arise. I think from what we have, Citypopulation and WG are the best bets for a numerical list. I wish that the Geopolis still kept their list though so there's more of a comparison. But yes, an alphabetical list seems like the best idea to prevent debates and disputes. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:31, 24 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)

The list looks good. The only other thing I would add is the year of the estimate in either the column header (if all figures are for the same year) or in each table entry (if data is for different years, like in the official definitions). An additional source for figures would be this table from Statistics Finland. I think these are the most recent official estimates of various definitions collected together. (Many cities are tabulated using two different definitions). --Polaron | Talk 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I added estimates years for all the sources. I looked at Statistics Finland and I don't know but I think I might be missing something. I searched some big cities like Tokyo and New York but I was only able to find the city proper population. Is there something I'm missing? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a second tab in the spreadhseet labeled "kaupunkiseudut–urban regions". --Polaron | Talk 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm blind. Thanks. I'll add those now. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Stats Finland added. I was uncertain which definition to use for New York and this will probably go for U.S. other cities like Los Angeles, but I used the CSA definition. It might be a little big based on the sizes of the CSA but it roughly corresponds more to the other estimates from the given sources. But I'm still not sure if either the CSA or urban definition should be used. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the figures tabulated by Statistics Finland are either: (1) actual official figures obtained from the various national census authorities, or (2) figures from the UN World Urbanization Prospects report. It would probably be redundant to have a separate column for StatFi but we could use their spreadsheet as a source for the "Official" column if we cannot easily link to the source for the official figure for some reason. With regard to the U.S. with dual official metro area definitions, I'm inclined to use MSA rather than CSA for better comparability with other countries. We should mention in a footnote though the alternative definition. The only other issue I see in using StatFi is that there are still cases where "we" (the article editors) still need to make a judgment call about which figure to use. --Polaron | Talk 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right and I understand your point. Should I just alphabetize the list while keeping the rankings from the corresponding sources or keep it the way as is (list numerically/by ranking given that we decide which ranking to use)? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My preference would be to choose one source and use that as a basis for ranking but any particular choice would be sure to find someone who disagrees with it. Ultimately, it would be the choice of whoever is actually creating the list (in this case, your choice would probably prevail as you're the one doing the actual work). --Polaron | Talk 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that it would cause disagreement as well. I'll finish the list and ultimately let others decide which of the rankings listed they want for a the primary rankings or if they still want a numerical ranking. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:30, 26 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)

That seems reasonable. With regard to how long the list should be, 100 is a nice round number and is also the length of earlier (pre-Forstall) versions of this list. --Polaron | Talk 13:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll expand it to 100 and let's see how things will go from there. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:27, 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)

How is the trial for updating this article going on? By the way, I am the same person who made the list in the Japanese Wikipedia arranged in multiple columns. But I'm troubling in updating that article, for it is quite hard to get the newest census from every country. Forstall compiled a lot of metropolitan lists in the 20 century for Britannica or so forth, but the 2004 article cited here seems to be his last compilation of metroplitan list.Aurichalcum (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the primary ranking for the table is best from Citypopulation, because World Gazetteer provides less reliable one (especially for Chinese metropolitans). In the Japanese wikipedida page, I added UN (urban agglomeration), Demographia (urban) and Geopolis (urban agglomeration) data, for there is no big difference in usage between urban and metropolitan in Japanese.Aurichalcum (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The trial updating seems to be on hold for now since really there's not much input on which of the versions I made is preferred. For convenience, here's the versions that I've been working on:
The new CityPopulation rankings seems to have gotten some controversy due to Guangzhou's definition. See Talk:Megacity. If the first one is more preferred, I think some dispute will come up again. How about alphabetizing the first on instead? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't noticed that the updated version of CityPopulation ranking connected Guangzhou and Dongguan, but I don't feel odd about it. Both cities are nearer than Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. I myself prefer the first one, but maybe the second one is better for calming down disputes.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

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)

While less elegant, I agree that this makes sense to do. Thank you, by the way, for taking on this task—I'm happy to see the list grow larger than only twenty cities, ranked by only one source! --Peter Talk 17:18, 15 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)

Los Angeles definition and footnote

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)

I didn't see any clear clarification on the journal sadly. Maybe I missed something. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Reference 1 has the details including a map (pp. 289-290). Basically the definition is the contiguous urban area (apparently without using the Census Bureau splitting procedure) adjusted to census tracts rather than census block groups. Then surrounding census tracts with a 20% in-commuting to this core area. It most definitely does not include whole counties as is implied by the use of MSAs in the note. This whole list, as currently constructed, has nothing to do with the U.S. Census Bureau. You're better off chaning the basis of the list rather than implying something the source doesn't. --Polaron | Talk 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I see now. Was looking at the wrong reference (reference 2). Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to view the cited references. Bad on my part i guess. Perhaps we should consider using a list from the UN. Polaron, could you please explain to me what is wrong with the footnote i currently have. To me the Greater Los Angeles area is define by those MSA's. However i think this article focuses on urbanized areas correct? Which is why you would have a problem with that footnote? SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, this article lists metropolitan areas (urban areas and surrounding communities based on commuting). The problem with the footnote is that it is irrelevant to the Forstall definition and including it impies that MSAs are used as a basis for the list, when it is not. Forstall uses census tracts for its U.S. definition. Perhaps, removing the note entirely would be better. FYI, the UN list uses urbanized areas for U.S. cities and such a list exists at List of urban agglomerations by population. --Polaron | Talk 02:31, 25 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)

The main source in this list attempts to come up with a consistent definition of metro area that applies globally and they're applying their definition without regard to what the national census authority considers as the "official" metropolitan area. This is one attempt at global comparability. Note that the Forstall definition doesn't include all of the CSA but parts (not of all five counties (never whole counties). --Polaron | Talk 02:31, 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)

I have access to electronic journals via a research library. Forstall's idea of "Consistently Defined Metropolitan Areas" is actually quite elegant, incorporating the critical aspects of many nationally-defined urban areas to develop a comprehensive analytical approach to the subject. As he says after introducing the relevant Census MSAs that make up the GLA, "It is evident that with the counties in this region configured as they are, combining densely settled and nearly empty territory, no definition in terms of counties can give more than a very rough approximation of the actual geographical extent of metropolitan Los Angeles." (p289) I made a fair-use snapshot of Figure 3 of the study contrasting the US Census parameters with Forstall's parameters of Consistently Defined Metropolitan Areas for Los Angeles and posted it to google docs here; I can send the full text of the study as a pdf if anyone requests it via email. Ameriquedialectics 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Polaron you can re-add the footnote from Forstall. I was just trying to be helpful since in my ignorance i thought it included all five counties. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you're correct that it does include portions of all five counties, but just not the entirety of the counties as is implied by mentioning MSAs. I suppose what we could do is instead of listing MSAs, we can just list the five counties, specifying that only parts of the five counties are included. --Polaron | Talk 13:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be suitable to just have the metropolitan divisions as you had previously. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Winds of Edit Wars

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)

Folks, can we do this in a civilized fashion? Move requests have been set. Let's talk about it and do it. If the edit wars continue, then I need to write up the article as WP:LAME. It's not lame enough, but getting there. --BsBsBs (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

  • Oppose. Firstly, since there is no consensus to move to a specific title. Secondly, it's unnecessary. It's clearly indicated in the lead that the current list listed is from Forstall, Greene, and Pick. Note, I have already listed alternatives in the above threads. Thirdly, it's not consistent with many of the other lists which are single sourced or only used few sources such as life expectancy or human development. Elockid (Talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it would be a bit hard to reach a consensus if the discussion hasn't yet started, wouldn't you agree? --BsBsBs (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However, I prefer to add other data from Brinkhoff's list of principal agglomerations:
I don't feel oddness about greater Guangzhou-Dongguan metropolitan area that Brinkhoff has defined.
By the way, if you want to change the title, citing the name of Forstall is egnough. Richard Forstall created a lot of tables on metropolitan areas in the 20th century, mainly based on the 10% commuters' areas. The problem is that he no longer updates his tables, so the list is getting outdated.Aurichalcum (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree I feel a bit odd. I actually wanted to agree to Triplespy's List of urban areas by population (FGP) but then I noted "urban areas" and that strays a bit too far from the original title. That the special nature of this list is "clearly indicated" is put into question by the countless edits an reverts. They clearly don't get it that this is a single source list that should not be edited. Adding (Forstall) is fine by me --BsBsBs (talk) 20:30, 8 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)

Even when it's made even more clear like in List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations), people still don't get that it's a single source listed. Actually, it's not that they don't get it, it's that they don't bother reading the article in the first place and in that article's case, the title itself. It's also indicated that the list in this article is a single sourced list by the little friendly note on above the table when you edit the article. Changing the article title will not make it any more obvious that this is a single sourced list. Note I said single sourced list, not single sourced article. Elockid (Talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You made the point I had always intended to make, but somehow failed to get across: People don't bother with the article, they just head for the list. What's more, they see a list of city names and foolishly assume that we are talking about these cities. The finer points of metropolitan areas, agglomerations, cities proper, etc are lost on them. (Not to mention the fact that we ourselves have problems defining them and keeping them apart.) We need to be aware of this behavior and act responsibly. Taking an ancient list that started as a study of why there are so many contradicting lists, and which then morphed into an (often ill-advised) exercise in commuting patterns, and publishing it under "List of metropolitan areas by population" is irresponsible if we know that people read it as a current list of city populations. This is how myths like "Tokyo is the world's largest city" get perpetuated, and we aid in the perpetuation. We are making ourselves tools of propaganda. --BsBsBs (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone is running out of arguments (and English grammar.) BsBsBs (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drive-by editors frustration project

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)

Polaron, you think that last revert was smart? If you (for whatever reason) don't think the template was a good idea, then I'll leave the senseless reverting of the senseless edits to you. Experienced editors could always find the template. But if you insist on doing it the hard way, it's all yours. I tried. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Templates should not masquerading as content. --Polaron | Talk 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you say. I tried to help. No good deed goes unpunished. I'm sorry if I deprived you of your favorite honeypot for reverts. It's all yours. Bye! -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert-O-Mania

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)

Mexico City & Sao Paulo

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)

If you read the introduction, it says the list is from Forstall. Adding new sources breaks the consistency of article and creates inconsistencies with definitions. Also, how the governments of Mexico City and Sao Paulo define their metropolitan area are not necessarily the same as each other or as other cities since there is no accepted definition for what a metropolitan areas is. This again creates inconsistencies and to others an unfair comparison as some definitions are considered too lenient or too strict when compared to other definitions. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 02:42, 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. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New Study worse than before

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)

Metro Manila

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)

Area changed. -- 112.205.82.104 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Forstall's updated paper

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)

Unlike HK and Shenzhen which belong to the same country, China, Tijuana and San Diego belong to two different countries. Some definitions only have the restriction that a metropolitan area must belong to the same country. HK is not a country, it is a Special Administrative Region of China. Also, that figure is for Beijing municipality. Municipalities are not the same as metropolitan areas. Elockid (Talk) 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You clearly haven't been to HK. As noted above, there is something called a border between HK and SZ. Heavily guarded. Chinese must apply for a travel permit to be admitted. Not all get it, it is only for a short stay and a limited number of entries. I travel often from China to HK with my Chinese assistant, and each time she fumes that "you foreigners have it easier to get to Hong Kong than us Chinese." As a foreigner carrying a European passport, I must file an exit form for China, and an entry form to HK. (Folks from some other countries need a HK visa.) On return to China, I must file an entry form to China and produce a Chinese visa. (Folks who are in possession of a single entry visa to China, and who made a quick and supposedly easy shopping trip to HK are now stuck at the border, their single entry was used up. Sorry!) I must clear customs and sometimes submit myself to health checks both ways. My fuming Chinese assistant is being hassled and must produce reams of paperwork when she wants to convert Chinese RMB into Hong Kong dollars. I as a foreigner just hand over the money and show my passport. She fumes some more.
Compared to that, San Diego-Tijuana is a cinch (for me.) I just park my car in the lot on the right, walk through the turnstile and am in Mexico, unbothered. On return, I just show my Green Card, or if I'm really brazen, my NYC driver's license (I hear that may not work anymore, it did last November.) The poor Mexicans have it a bit harder.
HK is owned by China, but for all intents and purposes it is a very separate part of China. Different political system, different passports, different money, they even drive on the other side of the road. Administratively, HK is considered "overseas" as far as China is concerned. Commuting is a cornerstone of Forstall's work, and trust me, there is no commuting between HK and SZ. Thank you for setting the record straight that municipalities are not the same as metropolitan areas. --BsBsBs (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I have been to HK and I'm well aware of the border. The point I was trying to make is that, some definitions just have the restriction that a metropolitan area belongs to the same country. Though HK is highly autonomous, it is still not a country. Elockid (Talk) 16:15, 9 June 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)

Do you have a source that supports your statements? Using personal experiences is considered original research. Elockid (Talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Consider my eyes rolling. If I'd want to, I could give you chapter and verse on it. However, I will not invest any time into something as obvious as this. I carefully make these statements on a discussion page. If you need a source for the observation above, then you out yourself as someone who may have been in HK once or twice, but who has never dealt with these issues. I have two companies in Hong Hong and three in China. Trust me, I know. If I ever challenge it in a WP article, then I will provide sources. (In the meantime, if you would go to the trouble of accessing Shenzhen, you would find frightening commuter patterns, along with a handy source.) --BsBsBs (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's really not for me. It's really for the community since most editors want a source to support statements. But, from one of the sources from the article, specifically bullet one, it does state a "Hong Kong-Shenzhen metropolis". Though metropolitan area and metropolis are not the same, using the source, there would be increased integration, maybe with commuters for example, between the two cities. One could also interpret this as a single metropolitan area as well. See also the Integration with Hong Kong section on the Shenzhen article. Elockid (Talk) 21:09, 10 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)

The grouping together of these two places is because of urbanization rather than commuting. Continuous urbanization is the criterion used by Forstall to define the core of a metropolitan area. The urban areas of Hong Kong and Shenzhen are continuous which makes them part of the same metropolitan area by their definitions. Having said that, I do agree that whenever there is a border that limits free flow of workers, the urban area should be split and hence the metropolitan areas should be split as well. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 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)

Shanghai

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)

Rename

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)

Updating the article

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)

Not having somebody replying do not mean there's consensus and your falsely added in your edit summaries. This article is a single source to avoid cherrypicking references. Also your source have really weird statistics, contradicting all other major sources. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:44, 23 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)

Controversial changes must be discussed first in order to avoir edit wars. Trying to impose changes is never a good way to start a real discussion nor it is stating a false "consensus". AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 03:16, 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)

This website could be an option [3]. Their metodology was to research official census data and international data. And when they found large inconsistencies (which could be the case of a publication trying to boost a city) they calculated cautious averages. I also found the list to be a little less biased than others and almost in line with other publications. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:25, 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 metropolitan area

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

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)

Article is not neutral, and is transparently wrong

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)

They're is no owner to this page. Wikipedia articles are developed as a community effort. If you read the comment in the article, you will find that this article goes off of the same source for consistency, though that source was published in 2003. Here is the note: "NOTE:THIS TABLE IS BASED ON INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SINGLE, CITED SOURCE, AS REFERENCED ON THE PAGE. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY ASPECT OF THIS SOURCE BEING USED, OR HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO BETTER PRESENT THIS LIST, PLEASE DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE. IF YOU SIMPLY CHANGE THE INFORMATION HERE, E.G. PLACING A CITY IN A DIFFERENT ORDER IN THE LIST WITH FIGURES FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE REVERTED. Thanks!" 08OceanBeachS.D. 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I DON'T LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT, ESPECIALLY BY SOMEONE WHO IS WRONG!! Okay, I've now read the entire talk page. It is obvious that this list cannot be improved, because it comes from a single source. This doesn't make it any less misleading or false. So why is there not an actual encyclopedia article, instead of the opinions of the UN or some private agency? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a place where the articles are as accurate as possible and factually correct? I still dispute the article though. 219.89.229.118 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "not an actual" article. Anyway, can you suggest how we improve the article? Barrylb (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I was just quoting the text verbatim - it happened to be capitalized. But yes, how would you suggest we improve the article. No doubt all the metropolitan populations are greater than they were in 2003. 08OceanBeachS.D. 17:24, 25 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.

File:Santa feconj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul - Turkey population

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)

Largest metropolitan area in Europe? Moscow has more people in its metropolitan area than Istanbul. Though outdated, the source here shows that Moscow is larger. World Gazetteer also shows that Moscow is larger. Though not ranked by the metropolitan population, City Population lists Moscow as a larger agglomeration (not that much different from a metropolitan area). Some other alternate lists such as List of urban areas by population and List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations) also list Moscow as larger. In some definitions, London and Paris are larger in metropolitan population than Istanbul. Elockid (Talk) 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

List

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)

Seperate Hong Kong from Hong Kong/Shenzhen

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)

I'm not familiar with this region or metro area. I think it was added as Hong Kong-Shenzhen because the source had it togheter this way. If this is uncommon, then I think we should add a note to clarify this. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the subject of metropolitan areas, so I do not understand why R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick's research papers are chosen here. It is not uncommon to see Ivory Tower researchers giving hilarious research results. If they are real top researchers in this field, please excuse my ignorance, but if better research exists, it is a shame we include funny data based on F,G &P's results. --Jabo-er (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Forstall's paper is actually one of the better representations of the size of the metropolitan areas I've seen. It makes notes that some sources, specifically the UN (a lot sources use the UN), where for some cities, large areas that would be included in their definition (they also make note that other sources have included these areas), such as Seoul and Jakarta, are not included and these cities have much lower estimates than their official counterpart (the UN bases their data on official sources but seems like they decided to change the definitions of Jakarta and Seoul). There is another considered reliable source, World Gazetteer, but it's not used because there is no explanation of definitions. All other reliable sources have their own list. Also, the definition for these metro areas are consistent with each other here. There are other sources where it would seem that the definitions are different from one metro area to the next. There is no one accepted definition of a metro area, by having a single sourced list, we can have a fair comparison. Elockid (Talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Another important point here is that when considering a metro area's population, we often consider where people reside/work; for example, the New York metro area's population includes people that live in southern Connecticut but work in New York City. I think the reason Hong Kong and Shenzhen are grouped together is because there's a considerable population that belong to that category, e.g., living in Shenzhen but working in Hong Kong, or vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.46.136 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows

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)

You're allowed to challenge the numbers. I also did bring propositions, but there wasn't enough consensus to apply it. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is istanbul?

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)

Since the data is from 2003, it's very likely that if the data in the article were to be updated, Istanbul would still not be in the top 20. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually Istanbul would be in the top 20 as of 2010. Istanbul would be larger than Buenos Aries and Karachi making it the 19th largest metro area (as of 2010). (Central Data Bank (talk))
Some estimates put Karachi at 15+ million (the population growth rate is also higher) and another area Guangzhou-Foshan-Dongguan or just Guangzhou-Foshan is another contender. Elockid (Talk) 01:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
World Gazetteer says Istanbul 15-th. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.249.164.66 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, AB, Canada

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)

Per the title, metropolitan areas here are ranked by population and not area. Elockid (Talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

very Old info from 2003, lets use other info

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)

Because you would be comparing apples to oranges. One of the main purposes of lists is comparing. There is no widespread common definition for what a metropolitan area is. By using official data as a primary list, certain metropolitan areas will not be included because some countries don't even have a definition for a metropolitan area or they have a stricter definition such as with India that would exclude many cities. Also, we'll hear the never ending arguments of the following: If we used the same definition as the US, then our metro area has X population. So convinced by this, people are obligated to change the data to have a fair comparison. This is in violation of the no original research policy. 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. Secondly, if you want to use an official source as you say, then the country's census bureau/national statistics office is much more reliable and much more preferred as they are the people who are actually tasked for reporting and publishing the country's population data. Elockid (Talk) 13:06, 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)

In case you're wondering. Here were some of the proposed pages I created:
User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population (Single list)
User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population(2) (Split into sections for each source)
If there is consensus to do any of these, then perhaps we can get some work done. Elockid (Talk) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Guangzhou?

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)

Seoul image?

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)

Shanghai

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)

Karachi

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)

Why In Heaven's Name Would Anybody Want An Alphabetical List?

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 too low

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)

No Chongqing?

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)

The thing about Chongqing is that it encompasses a huge amount of countryside. Most sources just count the urban core which I believe is around 5+ mil. Elockid (Talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Detroit

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)

Istanbul

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)

China City figures need Updating

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!

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)

Updated list

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)

Hong Kong-Shenzhen

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)

African cities

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)

Needs updating

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)

What makes this article more difficult to update is that there are few [considered] reliable lists out there for metropolitan areas. The lists that are reliable are already found on other lists. Also, some agencies don't have a definition for a metropolitan area. For example, I haven't seen an official number for Lagos. Just the city population is what I found. Elockid (Talk) 21:36, 5 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)

Proposal

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)

I agree. We cant have 11 year old data here in Wikipedia. We should just delete the Forstall estimate, and before we find newer estimates rely on the official population. --Ransewiki (talk) 14:32, 21 August 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)

China???

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)

Comment

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)

Where is Bangkok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidqkelly (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Bangkok added to table. Apuldram (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Indian Cities

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

Tanush6 - it appears that the larger figures were put in by user Prajjwal Gandharv on 14 September 2014. Prajjwal Gandharv did not fill in the edit summary to explain the edits nor provide a new source for the changed figures. On that basis, my advice to you would be to inform Thomas.W about this discussion. Incidentally, Prajjwal Gandharv altered more than just the Indian cities. Apuldram (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Istanbul

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)

Orphaned references in List of metropolitan areas by population

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":

  • From Macau: "PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World". Retrieved 10 January 2008.
  • From Russia: "Russian Federation" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved 24 February 2008.
  • From Hong Kong: "PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World". Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. Retrieved 14 December 2007.

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)

Population density column

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

Karachi is missing.88.104.211.90 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Last I remember the last census from Pakistan was from 1998. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any recent official data. Elockid (Talk) 23:57, 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)

Currently, the criteria for this page is for "official" sources. Most other considered reliable sources already have their own page such as in List of urban agglomerations by population. Elockid (Talk) 21:44, 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)

That's currently out of the scope of this article and wouldn't be consistent with other entries found. Elockid (Talk) 21:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Where's Moscow?

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)

I've removed the addition. The article states that "the sources on this article include figures from official governments only." The source did not look official. Elockid (Talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New York (part 2)

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)

Tehran Population

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population/Archive_4&oldid=1136944644"