Talk:Primate city/Archive 1

Archive 1

Primate city is a country's largest city

Primate city is a country's largest city- ranking atop the urban hierachy- most expensive of the national culture and usually the capital as well.

From what I'm taking in my developmental geography classes, what is being discussed on this page is the rank-size rule. Primate cities are large cities in (generally) developing countries that were once under the influence of colonialization. The cities are generally much larger than any other in the country and find themselves situated in areas relative to shipping routes (Port cities, etc). 64.110.216.133 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article lacks important things

- In what field does the term "primate city" arise? It seems like a specialized technical term. - Is there any controversy about whether the term refers to a useful category? It seems like there might be. - How old is the term? Who came up with it? - Citations please! Mark Foskey 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan

I seriously disagree with the assetion that Japan is a country with a primate city. Although Tokyo is the largest amalgamation of population & finance and the center of government for the country, the Osaka-Kobe corridor in the Kansai metropolitan area has around 19 million people alone, and there are over 26 individual cities with over 500,000 people. Osaka is also considered a Gamma world city. In addition to the clear importance of the Osaka region, the Nagoya area has 9 million inhabitants, and there are least 10 more distinct metropolitan areas in Japan with more than a million people each, many of which are known internationally, such as Fukuoka, Hiroshima, and Sapporo. This article is very contradictory in many places, but it almost certainly rules out Japan. Though Tokyo is by far the most important city in the country, it is not the only large urban area, containing only about 28% of the country's population. Just because the capital is the largest city, I would argue, does not by default make it a primate city. Catsonmars 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan is listed as both having and not having a primate city. I added a {{contradict}} template as I am not well-versed enough in this subject matter to edit it properly. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

United States

I refrased the first paragraph, which showed blatantly POV in favor of the northeast, when Chicago and Los Angeles (as well as some other cities to a lesser degree) are clear contenders for the position of cultural and financial centres alongside New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington. For this reason I believe the rephrasing is much more NPOV, accurate, and encyclopedic. --Harel Newman 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

Brussels, although headquarters of the EU and NATO, is not necessarily a primate city. The lesser known city of Antwerp is the largest Flemish city (the largest population group of Belgium) and is culturally and historically as important as Brussels. It is also the hub of the northern Belgian urban area known as the Flemish Diamond, which in total has as many inhabitants as Brussels. Even for the southern part of the Netherlands, it serves as a commercial and cultural hub. Antwerp is also by far Belgium's biggest harbour and one of the most important in Europe, rivalling Rotterdam. Antwerp is one of the most significant diamond trade centres of the world, rivalling Amsterdam. Besides, if Belgium is taken as part of the Benelux, then Brussels is definitely not a primate city.

I would still say Brussels is the primate city in Belgium. Look at the definition of primate city in this article: A primate city is a major city that works as the financial, political, and population center of a country and is not rivaled in any of these aspects by any other city Brussels is the financial centre of Belgium (it has the stock exchange, major HQ's of banks etc) it definately is the political centre of Belgium, being the capital of Flanders, of Belgium and the host of many EU and NATO institutions. The population criterium is a little more vague, since the city of Brussels, much like the city of London is very small. But in the most common definition of Brussels it has over a million inhabitants, whilst Antwerp has 450.000, so it has more than twice the population. Another problem with the population is that Northern Belgium (aka Flanders + Brussels) is so small and densly populated that most of the Urban areas are connected with eachother. Seven million people in around 15000 km² is comparable with for example the San Francisco bay area, both in size and in population. The definition of "primate city" becomes a bit less relevant in these densely populated areas. The train from the center of Brussels to the center of Antwerp takes only 33 minutes.Sure Antwerp is a major port and diamond center, but that doesn't weigh up to the central role of Brussels in Belgium I think. The historical importance of Antwerp doesn't really matter in this definition. --Lamadude (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example is the very central role of Brussels in Belgian transportation. It is the center of nearly every big train connection, both domestic trains and high speed trains and has with Brussels Airport the by far the biggest aiport in the country. It also is the cultural centre with the biggest museums etc --Lamadude (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I've removed Cardiff in line with the dispute resolution at Talk:Cardiff#Third_opinion Pondle (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep adding Cardiff, or Belfast for that matter, until you can find a source. Personally, I can find no sources describing Cardiff as a primate city and only one describing Belfast as such (then in historical context - [1]). We have disputed this previously and sought 3PO resolution so I don't see why we're still arguing about this? Pondle (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, none of the cities on the page are sourced, so if you want to remove Cardiff or Belfast then you should delete the whole list. Otherwise you are giving undue weight. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not solely responsible for the accuracy of Wikipedia - it's a collaborative project! If you feel that other cities are describely inaccurately, please challenge them as well. Other editors have debated the status of various other cities as you can see above. Pondle (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But the article is already tagged as citations needed. Cardiff and Belfast are no different. Why aren't you removing Salt Lake City, Utah or Naples, Campania for example? Please adhere to a neutral point of view Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that Cardiff is a primate city (and I'm dubious about Belfast) - I am not disputing other cities where I do not have sufficient expertise / interest to comment. In the absence of a reference to support your claim, it seems to me we are simply arguing about our own interpretations / opinions, i.e. original research. Pondle (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you should know that when a fact is doubted o n Wikipedia, we tag it as citation needed. So I'm going to reinstate them pending a citation (see tag at top of page) Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree to compromise (retaining your edits with a dispute tag) for the moment, but unless you or someone else can provide a reliable source in support of your claims in a reasonable timeframe, I will eventually challenge and remove your opinions in accordance with policy. At that stage you can escalate to dispute resolution if you're not satisfied. Pondle (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the burden of proof lies with the user including content, and not the user challenging it. Therefore it is for User:Welshleprechaun to provide the necessary citation. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not introduce it into the article. The dispute arose when I added that Cardiff is the primate city of Wales to Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't introduce it, but you did reinstate this content after my previous challenge, and you have supported the inclusion of this material in all our previous discussions. Pondle (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pondle is right on this one. It doesn't matter whether you're introducing, reintroducing, merging, splitting, or even vandalising. In all cases, if an edit seeks to add information, the editor performing it should be ready to back it up when challenged. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the only two users to challenge this show strong evidence of coming from Swansea Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please engage with the substance of the argument rather than attempting to distract people from the issue at hand. You have no justification for implying POV and I regard this incivility. Remember that attempting to discredit other users is regarded as a personal attack. I have assumed good faith in my disagreements with you and I would hope you would extend the same courtesy to me. We are all trying to contribute to a better Wikipedia. Pondle (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we though? Because I do believe that your opinion of Cardiff influences this and some previous edits. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just upholding Wikipedia standards here - you're the one making a claim for the status of your favourite city without a reliable source to back it up. In that context, accusing me of POV really is a bit rich! Pondle (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guangzhou

Guangzhou should definitely be taken off the list, as Shenzhen has a greater population and plays an equally important role in the national and regional economy, especially as it is the location of one of the two main equity markets in China. Aas217 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Manila is not a primate city

I would like to say that Metro Manila as a whole is not considered a primate city. Cebu's status is as important as Manila's especially in trade and commerce. Themanilaxperience (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are New York and Sydney primate cities?

This paragraph seems to indicate that they are not primate cities:

"Some examples of nations without a primate city, would be that of the Brazil, whose largest city and financial centre is São Paulo, its political centre is Brasília, and its cultural centre is located in Rio de Janeiro; Australia, whose largest city is Sydney but its political centre is Canberra; and the United States whose financial centre is located in New York City, its political centre in Washington, D.C., and its cultural centres are widely dispersed, though the conurbation BosWash may act in many ways as a kind of primate city, fulfilling many functions fulfilled in other countries by a single city. Additionally, New York, São Paulo, and Sydney have close competitors as their countries' largest cities (Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, and Melbourne).

However, both New York City and Sydney appear in the list of primate cities.

--Ldrhcp 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not national primate cities, like that of Australia and the US, but they apparently are the primate cities of their respective political divisions (New York State and New South Wales). I don't really agree with adding political divisions to the list, since most major cities are the primates of this, but it should still be mentioned. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NYC isn't the primate city of NYS. Albany's the capital, after all. Sydney (as with most Australian state capitals) is a clear primate city in NSW, but not in Australia (Canberra is the capital precisely because there was no agreement over the primacy of Sydney versus Melbourne, and Melbourne remains only slightly smaller than Sydney) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.198.4 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Los Angeles or Chicago are competitors of New York City. The reason why New York City is not a primate city is that Washington D.C. is the political center.

--cchow2 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing Personal Knowledge???

This is a general Wikipedia nothing, but it deals with this article. Somebody is asking for a citation about Des Moines being the political, population, economic, commercial, sports, and cultural capital of Iowa. I live out in rural Iowa and deal constantly with the fact that I am out in the sticks: this state is completely dominated in every way by a city that is over an hour's drive away. How do I cite everyday experience? Thank you for your responses.AltairIowa (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Auckland as a primate city

Auckland would fit the role of a primate city- it has ~1.4 million people, compared to Wellington (~350,000) and Christchurch (~320,000). It also the concentration of company HQs, tourist arrivals and industry. While Wellington is the political capital, both the PM and leader of the oppisition live in Auckland and has several electorates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well since Wellington is the capital, I'd say no. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

The 'law of the primate city' is a notable theory in human geography, so I don't think this article should be deleted. However, I'd be quite happy for the contested List of primate cities to be removed - I reckon that a shorter, sharper article would be better. What does everyone else think? Pondle (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but there a still "examples" of primate cities in the article that are not sourced Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I sourced a couple of them.

I'm thinking about deleting the following examples, I think they are not sufficient:

• Auckland (it's not the capital of New Zealand)
• Cairo (there is an important and huge second city, namely Alexandria)

The others, (Athens, Baghdad, Lima, Seoul and Tehran) still need citations.

Globe-trotter (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Russia really have a primate city?

I'm not an expert, but I would question Moscow status as a primate city since St. Petersburg seems to rival Moscow as a cultural center.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.67.18 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Karachi

I took out Karachi from the list on account of the fact that Islamabad is the capital.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.229.169 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Egypt

One could make a case for Cairo not being a primate city, as Alexandria, although not as mediagenic and populous as Cairo, is tremendously important economically, culturally and historically, in the past especially, but even still at present, as well as rivalling Cairo as an internal national tourist destination, being an affordable seaside resort. It is also one of the main ports of the Mediterranean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.28.248 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

United States

Both at the national level, and individually within many of the states of the U.S., there has been a deliberate decision not to make the largest city be the political capital... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the above

The article is somewhat correct in that a primate city is "a major city that works as the financial, political, and population centre of a country". Now as far as being twice as populous as any other city, I don't belive that is true of a primate city.

Also, if we use this definition of a primate city then New York is not quite a primate city, because the political center is Washington D.C., and the cultural center of the US is debatable. Some would say Hollywood, California. --69.162.69.17 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I call BS on this entire article. Seems like just another artificial and basically useless construct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.25.252 (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thailand

While it is true the Chiang Mai is the second largest metropolitan area in Thailand after Bangkok, when talking in terms of municipal size alone (which this article is) the title would go to the city of Nakhon Ratchasima (capital of Nakhon Ratchasima province). I've referenced statistics from the Thai Department of Local Administration (2017) in my edit to support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJulius (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Primate or premier or prime

When I first saw the title I immediately thought of the Ape City in the film Planet of the Apes, or then name of a zoo enclosure.

The definition that is included in the top of the article is

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate

which does not support the use of "primate" as it is used here. A it is used here the meaning would be number 2 "one first in authority or rank" which the dictionary lists as archaic.

The OED states about this use:

• [noun]: b. A person who is first in rank or importance; a chief, a head, a leader. Now rare.

  Frequently of a religious leader; often an extended use of sense [of the chief bishop or archbishop of an ecclesiastical province]

• †B. adj. First, earliest; most important. Obs.

The usual term this archaic/obsolete meaning in modern English is premier or prime. As premier in the English football Premier League and such things as Premier Inns, or "Prime" as in "prime real estate" or prime minister.

I suggest that unless there are a lot of secondary sources to support the current title showing it a term of art in geography, that this page is moved to a more common name. -- PBS (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a term of art in geography:

• Brunn, Stanley D.; Williams, Jack; Zeigler, Donald J. (2003). Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8476-9898-1. "The term was coined by geographer Mark Jefferson in the late 1930s".
• Kim, Yeong-Hyun; Short, John Rennie (12 December 2007). Cities and Economies. Routledge. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-134-21452-5. "Mark Jefferson first identified the primate city in 1939".

-- PBS (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of primate cities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boldly merged. Nobody was going to discuss this anytime soon, the way things were going, so I took initiative. The need for a merge was quite clear. If you disagree with my decision, feel free to discuss in a new section below. BruzerFox 18:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Much of the content in the lead section of List of primate cities is already found in Primate city and does not need to be duplicated here. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 2017

Add a list of countries that don’t have a primate city as well as major primate cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.127.218 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for that kind of information. Anything resembling an extensive list would be original research, which is not allowed. There used to be a separate article for a list, but I removed it for that reason. Also, when you start a new discussion, make sure to click the "New section" button, to make sure it's separated. After finishing your message, please sign your comment with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ BruzerFox 17:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation doesn't support claim, Need Thai language conformation

Citation number seven does not support the claim. The source is merely a classification system of cities ranking them into Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. Moreover, New York isn't a primate city. Ironically, a sentence later this is pretty much confirmed. Therefore, there is no need to include the fact that New York and London as being Alpha++ cities. The tenth citation needs to confirmed by someone with decent enough Thai language skills. AFHW (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)06:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone has the time, this article needs to be entirely rewritten. It's full of subjectivity, original research, and a whole bunch of other unencyclopedic content. Stylistically, it's a mess. Also, @AFHW: You can add your signature simply by adding four tildes to the end of your posts, and your signature will be automatically inserted for you. Secondly, please make sure you add a new discussion to the bottom of a talk page by clicking the "New Section" button. BruzerFox 08:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

List

Can we add a list of national and regional primate cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.119.46 (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Primate city

Russia has no primate city because it is highlighted in red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.119.46 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Russia has no primate city because it is colored red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.119.46 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Belgium is not red, yet it has no primate city.

JacobBryssen (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Numerous errors. Population of each primate city needs to be updated. Also, Rosenberg's 2018 article is the citation for Jefferson's definition of "twice as large and more than twice as significant" -- if this is still standard, then the column of "second cities" that supposedly confirms the column of primate cities also needs updating, and the examples of primate cities then should be adjusted accordingly. For example, as shown in the Asia section of the chart (June 12, 2019): Iraq: Baghdad is NOT double the population of Basrah Japan: Tokyo is NOT double the population of Osaka Taiwan: Kaohsiung is actually LARGER than the primate city Taipei. Martindo (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

India

India does have a primate city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.101.212 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Don’t confuse city with metropolitan area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.101.212 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I changed it back to Japan and removed Taiwan because Tokyo is the capital of Japan and is huge compared to other Japanese cities. And I removed Taiwan because even though the capital is the largest city, other cities in Taiwan are almost as big as Taipai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.101.212 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Auckland is NZ's primate city

The map indicates NZ has no primate city, yet Auckland is around 3 times the size of the next largest city (Christchurch) and dominates the domestic economy in most services, light industry, etc. Australia, by comparison, has multiple contenders (at the national level), but NZ does not. Roche-Kerr (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Included primate city graph is incorrect

The article currently includes an infographic that purports to show countries of the world with no primate cities. However, it is wrong in the case of Japan, which has Tokyo, one of the preeminent primate cities in the world. I am going to remove the chart for now.PhilHudson82 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflicts between map and list

There are some conflicts between the map and the list: Japan, Russia, Philipines . And Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, North Macedonia and probably others are missing from the list— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.199.131 (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitals

Multiple lists contain the line "X does not have a primate city, because their capital is not the largest city", even though nowhere is stated that the capital has to be the primate city or else no city can. Considering many countries intentionally have their capital in a small city away from the largest urban centers, that destination doesnt make sense to me. Every county should be included. Also Im not sure of Wiki lists can do calculations, but this list really only becomes useful when it actually includes the ratio between largest and second largest city for each country. (And as an aside, I think the country column should be first in the list, the current order of Largest City, then Country, then Population makes no sense. Also why do we take the metropolitan areas population for the largest city but not the second largest? That inflates the size ratio arbitrarily, especially for cities with a small actual center and a large metro area, Paris or Athens would lose most of their populations in that case) jonas (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Philippines

The article lists "Manila's" population as 23,088,000. That's wrong, depending on how you define "Manila". If it's Manila the city, it's around 1.8 million. If it's Metro Manila, it's around 13 million. If it's the Greater Manila Area, it's around 25.4 million. If it's Mega Manila, it's around 40 million. If we're going to "metropolitan area", it's between Metro Manila and Greater Manila Area, with the former being formally defined, while the latter is ill-defined "the contiguous urbanization surrounding Metro Manila" so it probably changes every second. So what is it? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It also says "Cebu City's" population is 2,275,000. The actual Cebu City has 900k people. Metro Cebu has 2.8 million people. In 2005, they expanded Metro Cebu, but that shouldn't explain why there's some gap of 500k in 2020.

If "Manila" is defined as "any definition except for the actual city", and Cebu is defined as Metro Cebu, that definition of Manila will still be the primate city. If the actual metropolitan areas are used, it won't be the 10:1 ratio that the article makes you to believe; more like 5:1. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite

There are significant issues with this article which has been mentioned above:

• The intro is confusing, with multiple definitions of a primate city
• What is the map attempting to tell us other than that some countries have primate cities and some don't? There is no pattern to look at.
• The quote from Jefferson "at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant." doesn't actually appear in the paper
• Lacks citations for many of the claims
• New York City is a particularly confusing example as it's not a clear national primate city and is probably best avoided. It is a "regional" primate city but for what region?
• No examples of subnational divisions with primate cities
• Contradictory information about Bangkok (is the 2nd city Chiang Mai? Nakhon Ratchasima?)
• Possibly excessive prominence to the Jack Fong's research about Bangkok
• Uncited description of "Urban primacy"; the ratio of city 1 to city 2 is not reliably called urban primacy
• Unhelpful giant list of cities. No way to see the ratio of city 1 to city 2, outdated and inconsistent population values, several cities which would not seem to really be primate cities included
• No historical context (clearly there were primate cities before Jefferson gave them a name)

Anyway rather than just moan, I'm going to have a go at a complete rewrite over the next few weeks Matthewmayer (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the quote from Jefferson, and the mention of the urban primacy should be removed. The usage of Jefferson's quote seems to refer to a very technical definition of the primate city in terms of urban planning.

I changed the mention of New York City to a mention about the lack of a primate city for the United States. It is a regional primate city for the Northeastern United States but even then Boston or Washington D.C to a lesser extent have a similar economic, cultural, and educational influence.

I corrected the 2nd city of Thailand to Chiang Mai as the editor who made the list used the population of the metropolitan area for Asian cities rather than the population of cities proper. Like you, I am displeased with the lack of consistency regarding the population values in the tables.

The information about Bangkok is too contradictory and excessive. I suspect that condensing the comments made about Fong's research would benefit that section of the article.

Providing historical context for the existence of primate cities may be too difficult for a Wikipedia article. Just providing the historical context for Paris alone would require one to be knowledgeable about the political structure of the Old Regime or per-Revolutionary France. Imagine having condense such information to a sentence or two.

Anyways, I just want you to know that I have made some edits to this article. Feel free to discuss this with me. Leiwang7 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Coding rules for the list

What countries should Primate city#list include? All countries with relative primacy >2?

• An IP just deleted Belgium, and I restored it since it has relative primacy of 2.01.
• this would mean we delete Poland (relative primacy 1.8), Mauritius and Qatar.

There's also the question of what a country is.

• I'd appreciate any input on what's the usual Wikipedia approach to country lists - any state recognised by the UN?
• this might not be controversial, but I'd also propose to have only one country per city, meaning we don't list subnational divisions.

And shouldn't we require refs for the population numbers? Trimton (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Relative primacy factors in tables

User:Howard the Duck great idea with the extra column for relative primacy. Could you make it factor, not percent? Most primate cities are several hundred percent bigger than the second city in rank. Numbers like, e. g.., "820%" sounds wrong, so it's better to say "8.2", in line with the literature. (see Primate city#Measurement) Also, with percentage it's unclear as to whether it should be 820 (as in '820% the size') or 720% (as in '720% bigger'). and the numbers seem to be wrong? --Trimton (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering how to do this. I tried ratios but my Google Sheets gave my funky (not helpful!) results. Let me do this later shortly. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Trimton These should be right now. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! Trimton (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Howard the Duck, I just discovered Wikimedia calculation. For instance {{#expr:3352000/342940 round1}} gives you 9.8. Using this would allow us to quickly change the number in the article itself, without having to manually alter the ratio. I just inserted in to the first row of the Africa table (it was of course the same number before). Did you know this? Do you think we should use it going forward (as population numbers will be updated)? Trimton (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The population figures for the UK are a bit misleading. The London figure is for the metropolitan area, while the one for Birmingham is for the city only. Tigerboy1966  06:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed this so the figures given are both for the metropolitan area, so we are comparing like with like. Tigerboy1966  04:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong map

my mistake

Why does Sweden not have a primate city. Stockholm is the capital and largest city by far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Min886 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Stockholm is about double the size of Sweden's second city Göteborg/Gothenburg, which is not in any way unnatural for a capital or largest city. Rather, that is the standard relation between a country's two largest cities. Thus Stockholm cannot be said to be a primate city. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Note about Tiraspol

Should there be a note about the second largest city in Moldova, Tiraspol, not being currently controlled by Moldova and is instead controlled by Transnistria? 2600:1702:3D20:E1C0:8484:2DAA:86CB:C35F (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is Bangkok considered the most primate city...

...when Barbados and Costa Rica have ratios higher than 35? 84.64.93.159 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

The legislative capital of Sri Lanka is located well within the Colombo metro area even though it is a different municipality. On that basis, Colombo is the primate city according to the definition used throughout this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocky1OOO (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which cities should be included: confusion within the article

The definition stated in the introduction is as follows: "at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant." so I shall take that to be the working definition for whether or not a city should be included in the article.

"Burundi, Nigeria, and Tanzania do not have a primate city, because their capital is not the largest city. But their largest city is more than twice the population of the second-largest city/urban area and is the economic and cultural center of their country." Here my issue is that a city needn't be the capital to be a primate city. They fulfil both requirements mentioned: they are twice as large as the next, and, being economic and cultural centres of their respective countries, are presumably twice as significant in terms of everything except politics. I have the same issue with Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, Belize City and Auckland (NZ) are presumably disqualified for not being the capital. It would actually be a more interesting map to have a map with countries with primate capitals in (e.g.) red, countries with a primate city which isn't the capital in (e.g.) blue, and the rest unshaded (note that I propose colouring the reverse to what is coloured in in the present map). For the time being I'm going to add that Auckland isn't the capital so that it's more obvious why it has been disqualified.

We need a definition which can be objectively applied ("twice as significant" according to what measure?) but in its absence, I would assume that being "the" cultural and economic centre is sufficient. And ideally, the definition used for inclusion in the list should be explicitly stated, as once the article is more fleshed out it may well refer to more different definitions.

Re: the Philippines, this is confusing and should be avoided as it indicates that a different way of defining things is being used for that item. The whole list should follow the same criteria for defining the city to be used, whether they are megalopoles, metropoles, or simply the city proper. I personally would opt for metropoles. It sounds like the naming of things in the Philippines may be confusing the issue (I haven't understood it fully) but really we should be following the location of people rather than official lines drawn on a map where these lines do not correspond sensibly to where people live. Anditres (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Glide08 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Philippines. Metro Manila is a well-defined region (hasn't changed since the 1970s), where local government has some coordination. Metro Cebu isn't a region, has its definition changed as late as 2005, but the local government has some coordination (whether it is as well-coordinated as Metro Manila is another matter). Manila isn't the largest city in Metro Manila, not at least until the 1990s, but Cebu City still is in Metro Cebu. If only taken by city proper, the relative primacy is around 2.0 (1.8 million vs 964k). If we'd use Quezon City, which is the largest city in Metro Manila with almost 3 million people), it's at 3.0. Compare to using the metropolitan areas which is at 4.5. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm coming to this after having already made my edits, but I agree. Those remarks about not being primate cities because they aren't the capitals contradict the explicit statement given to us that whether a city is the capital is irrelevant, so I've removed them. Largoplazo (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Non-capital primate cities in the table

Should a city be included in the table of this Article if it has more than twice the population of the second-largest city, even though it is not the country's capital or seat of government? Glide08 (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because the article has already told us that being capital isn't relevant to whether a city is a primate city. Largoplazo (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Capital is not largest

The article first states a primate city is one with more than double the size of any other city in the country or region.

It then states that a primate city need not be the capital.

Then. In at least three paragraphs, it says certain countries don’t have a primate city because the capital is not the largest. But each country has another city more than double the size of any other.

I can understand that these countries’ largest city may lack the requisite doubled influence, but that’s not what is said. And criteria for measuring influence should be provided. 2603:8000:E800:8545:80DB:9609:8F43:C948 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I just removed those non-sequiturs. Largoplazo (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed section: Historical examples

For cities that were previously primate cities during human history. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Istanbul?...

The article lists Istanbul as the first example of a primate city, and I find this rather problematic...

My general understanding of what it means to be a country's "primate city" is that it's:

1) The capital city.

2) The country's most important cultural and financial center.

3) Larger in population than the second and third largest cities combined.

Istanbul meets the second and third criteria, but not the first, since Ankara is Turkey's capital city.

Now of course one could argue that Istanbul is Turkey's most important city in terms of political influence, even if the seat of government isn't located there. And perhaps in some cases a city being "primate" or not is a bit ambiguous, with there being something of a continuum, but there are so many other cities which are much more clearly and unambiguously primate in nature...

Ironically, several of them are listed towards the end of the first paragraph - "Mexico City, Paris, Cairo, Jakarta, and Seoul have been described as primate cities in their respective countries." - and yet written in a way that suggests uncertainty as to whether or not they're primate cities - saying that they've "been described" as such, rather than simply that they are, thus suggesting that some people might disagree with that description. But all of those listed in that sentence are much more clearly primate than Istanbul is for Turkey. -2003:CA:8710:6F33:C4B4:70CB:C682:86B2 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Istanbul is a primate city and needs to be added to the "List" section in the article, because it fulfills the criteria. It is already included in the article for the above mentioned reasons. Istanbul's population is 15,569,856 (December 2022, Source: 1, Turkish Statistical Institute) and has 3.0 times the population of the second largest city, the capital Ankara, which is 5,187,949 (December 2022, Source: 2, Turkish Statistical Institute). Istanbul's GDP makes up 30.4% of Turkey's GDP, at 2 trillion 202 billion 156 million Turkish Liras for the year 2021. (Source: 3, Turkish Statistical Institute) Multituberculata (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?

The problem is with contiguous metropolitan areas. Unless one lives there and notices that, say, it's a different administration collecting the taxes & fees, to everybody else it's one city: no gaps in the built-up area, same city buses for the entire area, streets keep their name once they cross invisible municipality borders, etc. In one case they might call it a metropolitan area with N different towns, in another - a city with N boroughs. Until that is solved, the definition here remains vague. Arminden (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What you say is true - but it seems to me that the desirable sensible solution (which I would support just as you would) can only happen in theory, unless some supra-national authority takes away the right of governments to set and negotiate internal boundaries. (Obviously, the creation of such an authority would create other problems.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood a bit what I meant. It wasn't political, it was semantic, if that's the right word: it's about terminology and definitions. If a large inhabited area works in most relevant ways as one unit, why call it by a different name than a very similar one, which self-defines the whole and the admin. subunits by different words? One can preserve the local terms for "local colour" in the respective contexts, but when analysed academically or encyclopedically (Wiki) from an outside, neutral position, one must, in my opinion, use a single well-defined term for all items corresponding to that definition.

An example: one should maybe use the terms "Soviet cosmonaut" and "NASA astronaut" for historical accuracy, but if within an academic or encyclopedic work the author (on Wiki: editors) defines them all as "extra-athmospheric travellers" or "chuckwhimbs", the article may very well go on, after the term has been defined, with only using, for all of them, "extra-athmospheric travellers" or "chuckwhimbs". PC bullshit wants us now to use the specific Indian and Chinese terms, and how many more will follow?

But I'm drifting away. Here it was concrete: what's the encyclopedic difference between a "metropolitan area" of M million inhabitants and N different "towns", and a large/mega "city" of also M million inhabitants and the same number, N, of "boroughs"? Is there a difference relevant to Wiki, or are we just being dumb? Because analysing, comprehending, and drawing a rational conclusion is what defines cognitive intelligence. Arminden (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what I think is your main point: in reality, a city is the entirety of some large contiguously-populated area, any boundaries that pass through parts of it are artificial and arbitrary, and in general such artificial boundaries tend to impede study and understanding.

However, I think there are situations in which artificial boundaries are undeniably significant and need to be taken into account. For example, would it have been right for encyclopedias in the 1960s through 1980s period to persist in treating the population of the entire Berlin area as a single unit? Admittedly that is an extreme example, but it's also a reminder that administrative boundaries can be significant in at least some cases, and it will sometimes be a mistake to ignore them.

And I think part of the point of my earlier message was to say "OK, but if we follow your proposal, who gets to make the decisions?" If local governments (or regional, or national) are not to be trusted to set city boundaries correctly, who are we going to trust instead? In your response I can't find which other entity we're supposed to trust as our source of data and refer our disputes to, unless it happens to be you. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Limit

If primacy requires that a city be more than twice the population of the next in line, should we remove Tokyo and Cairo? DS (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

202.62.41.81 (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Even if you only look at a limited definition of Tokyo, it is 3 times bigger than Yokohama. However Yokohama is part of Greater Tokyo, which has a population close to 40 million, and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto are close to 20 million, so I see your point, but Tokyo does act like a primate city in the context of Japan. Interesting idea. 07:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)