Jump to content

Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/Archive 3

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

Not Good Enough

For a start, there's not enough cities on that list, instead of just the top 100, how about the top 500. Also, can we check the accuracy of all of them by finding the most recent figures from a reputable website. Also, could we add the population of the city proper? Citikiwi 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been done, using an impartial UN study (look at the sources). I believe the city proper populations are listed on a different page. DirectorStratton 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert

Someone put NYC as #1 even though its population (as given here) makes it #4. I fixed it - just wanted to alert everyone in case it happens again. 146.95.2.106JB

Toronto

Should the population of The GTA or the Golden Horseshoe be listed? Canadian 'CMA' definitions are questionable, and the Ontario government considers the GH to be a metro area...

The GTA (or the CMA) is the official metropolitan area. The Golden Horseshoe region is composed of several adjacent urban centers. --Polaron | Talk 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is identical to a US MSA, of which the Greater Golden Horseshoe is the equivalent of. There needs to be a revision to how this article is listed, as Toronto now very much spills over into neighbouring CMAs without even so much as a break in the urban boundry. Snickerdo 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
US MSAs are defined such that they have only one urban center. The Golden Horseshoe would be considered a Combined Statistical Area in the US definition as it is composed of multiple urban centers. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then MSAs must be removed from the list as they consist of multiple American urban centres around a single point. You cannot tell me that Newark cannot be classed in the same league as Hamilton. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is, very much, an American equivilent of an MSA. Toronto is -the- urban centre of the area. Statistics Canada agrees with this. I would have to say that StatsCans opinion on the matter outweighs yours, especially since the official data was released today. Either remove MSAs, or allow the Greater Golden Horseshoe. If Toronto is excluded while American MSAs remain (instead of Metropolitan Divisions) I will bring this to arbitration. Snickerdo 23:50, 13 March 2007
StatCan does not describe the Golden Horseshoe as a metropolitan area. MSAs and CMAs are defined in exactly the same way except that the building blocks of MSAs are counties (=Census Divisions) while CMAs use CSDs (=Minor Civil Divisions) resulting in somewhat larger rural fringe areas. If the Golden Horseshoe were a single core metropolitan area, StatCan would have defined a single urban area and CMA for the region. Toronto and Hamilton are listed as separate urban areas unlike Newark and New York. The situation with Toronto is more like San Francisco and San Jose. --Polaron | Talk 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)

Again, that is incorrect. If you read the data, you will see that the Greater Golden Horseshoe -is- an officially designated area by both StatsCan and the provincial government, is listed on their website (references provided) and is the same size as an MSA. The data is there. If you would like someone to review the despute, be my guest. I will bring them onboard if you like. Snickerdo 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, please note that it is not ever described as a metropolitan area. It is a region. A recognized region does not necessarily imply it is a single metropolitan area. StatCan data indicates there are several urban areas within the region. The Golden Horseshoe is also twice as large in extent as the New York MSA.

--Polaron | Talk 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look, it is, however, the same size as the ones in Texas. I don't think you fully understand what a CMA is. The grouping of a CMA (like how Metropolitan Divisions are grouped into Metropolitan Areas in the USA) is a first for Canada. The reference information has been included, and I do feel it is sour grapes on the part of the Americans that a stats agency, for once, has finally gotten the balls to create an equivalent to their massive metro areas. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is intertwined into a single area with Toronto at the core. I am going to initiate arbitration, as we need to get an expert in here to define what an MSA is, what an MA is, what a CMA is, and what a Census Region (the term for the Greater Golden Horseshoe) is in relation to each other.
Also, could you please provide references to this single urban core thing you're talking about? This in itself should disqualify many of the American MSAs from being listed if its description is what the name implies.
Snickerdo 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By single core, I mean it is the area associated with a single urban area (an urban area as defined by the national census authority). If a city is large enough to be its own metro area, certain criteria are looked at to see if the urban areas can be split. If the splitting criteria are not satisfied, a single MSA is defined. The U.S. Census Bureau lists New York-Newark as a single urban area, which is why there is a single MSA. StatCan lists the Toronto urban area separately from Hamilton and Oshawa so they are all listed as separate MSAs. I will post CMA and MSA definitions when I get home later but I am sure they are defined in exactly the same way except for the building blocks. The LUZ definition used for European cities and the MEA definition used for Japanese cities is also similarly defined. Please do invite others to join the discussion. The more input we get, the better. --Polaron | Talk 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't mean to be insulting by any way, but we need to get some sort of clear opinion on this matter, especially when cities like Oshawa and Barrie are now becoming a bedroom community of Toronto, even though they are their own CMA - in fact, Barrie only just became a CMA this past 2006 census. I have opened up a mediation cabal request simply because I feel it would be best to get a mediator involved at this point. From there, hopefully we (or they) can bring in an expert to better define what a Canadian CMA is, what an American MSA and/or MA is, and how they related to one another in the context of this article. I look forward to seeing the outcome. Snickerdo 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference

U.S. and Canadian definitions for urban areas and metropolitan areas:

For what it's worth, when one looks at google earth, it is continuously built up from just east of Hamilton to just east of oshawa.In other words, i cant tell when oshawa ends and toronto starts and the same as goes for hamilton. Just one big massive sprawl much like L.A

Tehran

The metropolitan area of greater Tehran is inhabited by 16 million people. Is it not?

It is 


       Has anyone noticed the vandalism in this page? Someone put links to "penis" as an image on the whole page...



Update data

This table for the main metropolitan areas needs a very urgent update. In the specific case of Mexico, none of the mentioned three cities in the list still have the indicated population: Mexico DF has at least 22 million inhabitants, Guadalajara metropolitan area has 4.1 million and Monterrey metropolitan area has (at least) 3.8 million inhabitans.

Please check that numbers.

If you have sources from INEGI that have those numbers, go ahead and change the figures making sure to link directly to the data. You might want to look at this though. --Polaron | Talk 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem of using U.S stats

The American government uses the most liberal methods on the planet when determining a city's metroplitan population. For example, take Dallas ,Houston ,Atlanta and Seattle for instance. The first three cities cover an area twice the size of Holland and the last the size of holland. Americans use a city's region to difine its metro area. The problem is that a city's region is different to a metro.With that said, by using America's definitions Toronto would have at least 9 million people and Londonwould have at least 30 million because American census people would consider south east Englandmetropolitan London

That is the reason why only the MSA definition (and not the CSA) definition is used. The MSA is simply a single urban core with a rural fringe that is socio-economically tied to the urban core. I believe it is best to stick to the single core definition as that seems to be used by various national census authorities. --Polaron | Talk 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And really I don't see what else we could do. If we don't use official definitions, then it's pretty much a free-for-all. In any case, the US metropolitan areas, while generally large, aren't entirely anomalous: Tokyo, Seoul, Paris, Berlin, Sydney, and Brasilia are all of comparable size. --Delirium 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lagos

Lagos, Nigeria is one one of the most populous urban areas in the world. Most estimates I've seen (of the city iteslf, not the metropolitan area) are well over 10,886,000. What is the source for the 10 million figure? The Lagos article states that population estimates "generally range from 12 to 18.5 million people."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It looks like someone took the number from UN data. It still seems very low, based on other estimates I've heard.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you know of official (census authority) sources that clearly define what areas are included in the official metropolitan area, as well as their population, please go ahead and make the change. In the absence of that, we use the UN World Urbanization Prospects Report data. --Polaron | Talk 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE!!!!!

look up 18Million for Osaka; 9Million for Nagoya; 5Million for Fukuoka; 29Million for Sao Paulo, get the proper citation and CHANGE THIS ARTICLE!

Karachi

The figure for Karachi seems really, really low. Even the List of cities by population has a higher figure.

--iFaqeer 05:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE HAS TOO MANY COMPLAINTS I SUGGEST THAT WE JUST TAKE IT OFF.

Instead of WE providing a list. We could just provide links of various sources and reference about the ranking of Metropolitan regions around the world. And put it on the main Metropolitan Defenition Article. Or we provide different rankings from different credible sources. Top 10 or 20 of various rankings will do it does not have to be up to top 100. Anyone Agrees?

I AGREE. 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)88800

agree.67.101.145.70 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't, Get a hold of yourself. There are way more controversial things on Wikipedia that should be "taken off" because of "complaints". -Phoenix 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the history of the discussion, I agree with the suggestion of just putting top 10 or 20 lists from various credible sources. I do not think the whole suggestion was to "take the article off" but simply change it to a more simplier article and make it more understandable to a regular reader. It could lessen the complaints, editing and confuison here and most of all make the article stable. Beside we are just presenting a very simple thing here which is a "list". Must we or the readers really have to know the which is rank 88 or 98 for that matter? I believe Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia would do best if it is geared towards on showing general references for the regular readers to understand the idea better. We are not trying to make a text book here. If a reader wanted to know about a particular article then that is where the realiable links are there for.

To Mr.Polaron

Population of Keihanshin district urban area is not 11,268,000 people. It is the number that there is extremely little it, and was calculated. You do not imagine it on Internet, and please really live in Osaka. Anyone understands that it is 18,000,000 scales of a half of Tokyo metropolitan area.

And the third Japanese population of Tyukyo(Nagoya) urban area of a city is 8,000,000 - 9,000,000 scales. I recommend that I get by the Sinkansen to Oomiya Station - Tokyo Station - Yokohama Station - Nagoya station - Kyoto station - Shin-Osaka station - Kobe station once. Almost town area becomes continuity. There is not a gap at all like U.S.A. and a European city. We call this Pacific megalopolis, and it is not overstatement even if it says that Left Coast of the Japanese Islands forms the world's hugest urban area in it in itself.

I show urban area population statistics of Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications of Japanese Government becoming grounds here.

ttp://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2000/final/zuhyou/092.xls(A formal source of Japanese Government). Keihanshin(京阪神) district metropolis area:18,644,000 Tuykyo,中京(Nakagyo,名古屋) metropolis area:8,864,837 Fukuoka（福岡）/Kitakyushu（北九州）University urban area:4,990,000 Keihanshin district metropolis, Nakagyo metropolis, population of Fukuoka / Kitakyushu University urban area are wrong by follows, and there is not it. I reduce population of Keihanshin district metropolis, and I delete Nakagyo (Nagoya), and please stop forgery, distorting it.

The MMA definition uses a 1.5% commuting criterion and results in area that contains multiple urban/employment centers, similar to a metropolitan region or a Combined Statistical Area. I have changed the definitions of the Japanese cities to the one used by the University of Tokyo which uses a definition that is the same as the U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Area. In this list, cities that are large enough to have their own metro areas are listed separately even if there is no urbanization gap. For example, San Francisco is separate from San Jose, Mexico City is separate from Toluca, New York City is separate from Philadelphia, Boston is separate from Providence, Los Angeles is separate form Riverside, etc. While multiple core definitions do exist for a few countries, since the single core definition is more commonly used worldwide, it is better to use the single core definition for better (but still not perfect) comparability across the entire list. --Polaron | Talk 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Polaron,When we are talking about in America, It has more to do with the county lines than anything else. Notable example is the Los Angeles County. It is defined in MSA as one metropolitan area or region along with Orange county. Now this place is huge. It also include the far away land of Lancaster area and its moutainous rural surrounding and the coastal rural regions in Orange county. Now, compare that to its northen neigbor San Francisco and San Jose. Why are these two metro region sepearte? eventhough you can easily fit, its continous urban built area, more or less twice inside inside the Los Angeles Basin and San Fernando Valley alone? not because of the commuter patterns or urban center like you are saying, but simply because they are divided or seperated by county lines. The county areas in northen California are a lot more smaller than in Southern California. If Let say SF, San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara (The 4 major counties in Bay Area) are just one county it would still be smaller compare to Los Angeles County alone (Not including Orange County). If they were actually one county, I don't think the Census or OMB would still seperate them into 2 sepearte metro regions, they would be consider as one metro region not bec. of commuter or urban pattern but because they share the same county boundaries. My point is The MSA defenitions is heavily based on COUNTY LINES more than anything else. The whole urban commuter thing you are saying can be very well abritary because they do not really have boundaries. Los Angeles has a LOT of Urban Centers: Glendale/Burbank, Anaheim, Long Bech, San Fernando Valley, LA Dowtown etc. Why arent these seperate although they are large enough to have their own metro areas? Why because they are all in Los Angeles county. If we stick staright to the real "continous urban built up" as our defenition of metro area then a large chunk of protion in the Lancaster area shouldnt be included in the Los Angeles region, likewise the rural Marin County in San Francisco Metro area or San Benito County in San Jose region. You see it all base on COUNTY BOUNDARIES.

Yes, the US definition uses counties as building blocks but a single MSA is based on a single urbanized area. If the Census-defined urbanized area exceeded county boundaries, then the MSA would also. See United States metropolitan area for more information on how MSAs are delineated. The MSA is designed as an approximation of the total population commuting into an urbanized area - the extent of the MSA definition does not necessarily correspond to the actual metro area but the population figures are reasonably close.
In the case of Los Angeles, the official urbanized area includes Ontario and excludes Lancaster but the MSA excludes San Bernardino County and includes the entirety of Los Angeles County. On balance, the population figures would be more or less the same whether you used MSA or urbanized area.
In the case of San Fransisco and San Jose, the US Census Bureau lists them as separate urban areas. This has to do with the contact boundary not exceeding a certain threshold (three miles I think) so the two are separated because San Jose is large enough to be its own metro area.
If what you are interested in is continuous urban area (which is not the same as a metropolitan area), then see List of urban areas by population which is what you might be looking for. --Polaron | Talk 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But the main source of this article is based on "Urban Built Up" produced by the UN right? Then why are we calling this article list of Metropolitan Areas? If like you said they are different. I am sorry but I am really confues about all this.

Please see List of urban areas by population if what you're interested in is areas of continuous urbanization.

I suggest we ought to change the article name to urban agglomeration as the main source describes it.

And where did you get the reference about the contact boundaries not exceeding a threshold? Maybe you rea right but if that is the case then San Fernando Valley should have its own MSA as well since it is large enough to have its own metro and reletively isolated by surrounding mountains to the LA basin. San Francisco and Oakland are seperated by a couple of miles of water(bay). Oakland is quite large enough to have its own MSA plus it has a different County. But still why are at they at same metro? I do not beleive San Jose and San Francisco is seperated because of that treshold, clearly there is no gap between them. They are seperated because they simply were split by county lines and also it has something to do with the cities' sizes in area as well. SF is quite small area wise. In fact it is one of the smallest if not the smallest major city in US. It is even only as big as Manhattan. But, let say if SF size is just as big as LA or NY, SF would eat up all of San Mateo County with spare left. And hypothetically speaking if that is the case then I dont think they would still seperate SF and San Jose. I ask you, If Hypothetically, SF City limits includes San Mateo County do you think there MSA would still be seperated? Again, the point is "County Areas" and "City Areas" and basically they can manipulate it from there, like gerrymandering perhaps. This mean the MSA descriptions is not uniformed at all BUT it is mainly based on the political boundaries of each Couty and City Boundaries first and foremost even first before considering urban areas.

See Definition of U.S. urban areas for details. Delineation rules begin on page 5 of the pdf file. The section on criteria for splitting an urban area should also be useful. You might also want to look at the published urbanized area maps on the U.S. Census website. In defining metropolitan areas, one always needs a reasonable building block where commuter inflow/outflow data is easily available. In the US, this convenient building block happens to be counties. The total population of a metro area would still be roughly the same because its core is based on an urbanized area whose extent is defined without regard to political boundaries. If you don't like the way the U.S. officially defines metropolitan areas, it is to them you should be complaining about. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I sounded like I am complainig to you. But Im just trying to explain my perception to their defenition of MSA which I think is not uniform not because of the urban built-up but because of political boudaries. Like you said political boundaries are the building blocks of defining MSA. So because of that defenition, it is possible for a single countious urban agglomeration can be split into two MSA because of political boudaries like in SF. On the otherhand, it is possible for a seperate urban agglomeration can be combined in one MSA because of political boundaries - in this case like in LA and Lancaster area.

What about the Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario and San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos metro areas (ranked 14 and 17th respectivley at United States metropolitan area)? They're not included in this article, although they both have populations greater than last 23 cities in this list. They're also not grouped together with the Greater Los Angeles area. Is this part of the dispute about references? —Brien ClarkTalk 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Houston??

Houston is said to have a population density of 228/km^2 Well, the whole bangladesh has 985/km^2 So, if we consider the greater houston a metropolitan area, we cannot forgot the population (141,822,300 people) of bangladesh

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-14 List of metropolitan areas by population

Hello, there is a mediation case currently going on here. Feel free to read it over and comment if you wish. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

London

The figur given for the London commuter belt is given as 13,945,000 (2001) not 11,624,807! --12345 wiki 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chennai (India)

Can we update the population figures and density for the city of Chennai to reflect the numbers that the Wikipedia page on Chennai (featured article) show? The discrepancy in the numbers might reflect poorly on Wikipedia. The Chennai page lists the city's population at 7,066,778, while this page lists it as 6,916,000 --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. MSA

Is there a reason why the 2005 stats are being used in this article instead of the 2006 stats that the Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas uses? —Brien ClarkTalk 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No particular reason. No one has just updated the figures :) --Polaron | Talk 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Osaka

Does Osaka include Kobe and Kyoto or not? The table identifies Osaka as including the other two cities, but a note by the population figures says otherwise. 4.243.206.96 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is just the way the article that includes a description of the Osaka metropolitan area is titled. I've used a redirect instead to avoid potential confusion. --Polaron | Talk 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Right now, Osaka is listed twice, once at #5 as "Osaka–Kobe (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto)" and again at #17 as "Osaka (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto)". Should probably be cut to one. Erp Erpington 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlin

Berlin is actually shrinking (no wonder with unemployment near 20%). I know, I live here. The Wikipedia article on Berlin gives the number 4,262,480 (12/2004), which seems reasonable to me and presumably is Eurostat as well. I'd like to downgrade Berlin accordingly.Hirsch.im.wald 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

This list is changing constantly, much faster than the actual cities listed, and as soon as some basic principle is semi-applied, it is dismantled and jumbled. People seem to take city population as some kind of status, wanting to put theirs higher on the list, when its not, its only a simple fact and government delination. These delinations change and the basis changes also. These lists should be maintained by an expert...one who knows a CMSA from an MSA, one who can analyze each and every definition of cities in every nation for comparability, letting the public rampage it is a mistake. It's not a competition, its a description...I don't know why people can't let that go and just base it on that.

If only one person who is an "expert" could maintain this page then that would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia "The free encyclopedia". The reason why this page are in constant chaos is because of issues among editors. Why not limit the list to just top 10? or 20? the more cities you put the more problem you have. Some suggested to create a limited ranking of top 10-20 from various rankings of credible sources. Present it all here AND put a link of the original source in each rankings. We present the best sources we get, the readers could check the sources themselves and they can decide. Then there would be no problems because one can not just simply change a listing not coinciding with that original source. What editors are trying to do here is making their own original grand ranking coming from multiple sources and that of course would result in chaos. The rankings is not even coherent with the main source anymore.Whats happening here is we are making all this about the editors and not about the readers. That is what we need to change.69.3.237.71 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The UN Provides Figures for Every Metro Area Listed

So why in the world does this list use the UN sources for only some areas? One would think that a useful list of this type would use figures from the same source in the name of consistency. The most egregious example of inconsistency between UN figures and an alternative source exists with Seoul, where the Korean National Statistics Office gives a figure of over 22 million, while the UN gives one of less than 10 million.

Clearly someone is wrong here. Moreover, although this is admittedly unscientific, one look at a satellite photo of Seoul next to one of Tokyo shows that Seoul's population density would have to exceed Tokyo's by a fair margin to even come close to 22 million people. Somehow, I find that doubtful.

Apparently so does the UN.

I am revising the figure for Seoul (and for that matter, New York and Los Angeles, among others) to reflect 2005 UN data, the latest consistent data set we have available covering all listed areas. National statistics offices have no place in an international ranking such as this one.

EDIT: Okay, so revising this list is going to take a while. I'll do it later. If you have a valid argument with which to dispute the logic behind aforementioned change, now is your chance.

--Mjesuele 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)I

Just a note that if you wish to use the UN for all entries, please work in a sandbox and copy the article when you are done. Also note that an article, World largest cities, exits that uses the UN WUP data. --Polaron | Talk 01:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the sandbox: that is not a problem, thanks for the guidance. As for the existence of an article using the UN data, does that render this article redundant in addition to simply flawed? I would like a second opinion before suggesting the two articles be merged, or this article simply deleted.
--Mjesuele 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the articles merged. But opinions from a wider group of people are probably useful. Putting either this or that article up for AFD might actually be a good way to do that but might be too drastic at this point. --Polaron | Talk 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There are also list of cities by population and list of urban areas by population. We probably only need two of the four articles (one for the city itself, one for the metropolitan areas).Toresica 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that a merger would be welcome, using the UN data as the source. As already pointed out by others, it's bordering on OR to use different sources when a fairly reliable source exist for every city.JdeJ 03:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, #98 should be the Twin-Cities Metro area, because according to ITS article, it's population was estimated at 3.5 million209.162.44.149 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seoul: The UN clearly states, that their number for Seoul is for the city proper. That's clearly a different thing than an urban agglomoration. A comparable number for Seoul should be in between the low and the high number mentioned.

That means, even the UN are comparing apples to oranges, where reliable numbers for the urban agglomaration don't exist. I'd rather prefer an estimate, than a number from a different category.Hirsch.im.wald 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Better deleted

This page is better taken off Wikipedia. Right now it is a strange mix of sources from all around the world, removing any claim to credibility from it. As different countries use different systems and different definitions, it is of very little use to source the figures with national censuses. The UN, to the best of my knowledge, is alone is providing data for all major cities and thus those figures should be used for all cities in order to make any comparison - and a list of the top 100 is by definition a comparison. Such an article already exists, so I see no reason why this rather unsuccesful list should be kept. It has no encyclopedi value that isn't already found in more NPOV forms elsewhere on Wikipedia. JdeJ 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


update

The US cities cheat so much in this table. How come New York City and Los Angeles have more than double the area of most cities here? In fact the city proper of a US city can only be considered a metro area of a city in Asia like Shanghai and Tokyo. There are so many surburbs in a US city proper. But in this table instead of restricting the areas included, US cities even included more areas than other parts of the world. That is so unfair. I don't think anyone who has been to both Shanghai and New York would consider that New York is larger.

Hy reader, do yourself a favor and don't belief this article. NYC has roughly 8Mio citizens ... to me it seams like the whole state New York and NOT New York CITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.126.187 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey first of all check out the other four boroughs of New York before you make outlandish claims- for the most part Manhattan is only 12 blocks wide and is by far the smallest part of the city. U.S. commuter patterns are vastly different than those in Asian cities and you have to appreciate the draw of New York City; the size of its commuter shed is fantastic. That being said, if you are going to count the New York Metroplitan Area, at this point you are talking about something like 22 million people. While the city proper only has 8.27 million, there is, without a doubt, a dense urban core of about 12 million when considering Jersey City, Newark, Yonkers, etc.

Not only that the population density math is not even correct for the top few entries! Learn to divide!

The Greater Los Angeles page is also ridiculous. It includes about 300 miles of desert east of the city.--Bobiskool145 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delhi

The city and metropolitan population of Delhi is much more than stated in wikipedia and some baseless sources. Its municipal population is 18 million (2008) and metropolitan population well over 22 million[1] (around 25-28 million). The confusion over Delhi's population is because of 3 reasons :-

1. Delhi (city municipal region, area = 1483 sq. km) is one of the fastest growing cities in the world with compound annual growth rate of 4.2%. This means that by 2008 the Delhi population should have grown by 33.37% from 2001 census level (13,782,976) to reach over 18 million today. That is why in case of Delhi it is better to use current figures to avoid wrong results.

2. The suburbs of Delhi are growing at even faster rate than Delhi itself. They are almost doubling their population within a decade. Current populations of the suburbs are Gurgaon - 1.7 million, Ghaziabad - 2.2 million, Faridabad - 2.1 million, Noida-Greater Noida - 1.2 million. There are many other suburbs of Delhi as well. The contribution from suburbs puts the population of Delhi metropolitan area (Area - 3483 sq. km (Delhi-1483, Suburbs-2000)) more than 25 million, which is growing at astonishing pace.

3. Another reason of confusion is wrong method of calculating metropolitan population of Delhi, which was highlighted by Population Reference Bureau, Washington[2].

We should hope that Wikipedia should accept and embrace these changes soon and help people in breaking myths and misconceptions.

Thanks for that. However, as you are no doubt aware, it is impossible to standardize population estimates for urban areas. The article makes clear that this list is only from one source. No workable, unified solution has yet been proposed that would allow us to present standardized data. Indeed, averaging data from different sources for the purposes of presenting it on Wikipedia is disallowed under WP:OR. Hence while your figures are just as "valid" as the ones already in the table, and possibly more up-to-date, it is not practical to start changing the numbers for one city without entirely compromizing the list. Readers clicking through to the Delhi article will have a chance to look at more detailed population data and relevant external links from the article itself. Deiz talk 09:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

'Metropolis' vs. 'City'

The introduction is great, but I think that switching the term 'city' for 'metropolis' would add some clarification: 'City' can be both/either a demographic and/or administrative description, whereas 'metropolis' is a purely demographic term that fits entirely the concept of the metropolitan area. Another weak point would be the introduction's stress on the definition of 'City': The concept of 'metropolitan area' is not this at all (the main role of one term is not to define another), rather it exists to determine areas of real urban growth - or metropoleis - thus its name. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro is plain wrong. In my book, a city is a city: It begins and ends at clearly defined city limits. The population of a city consists of people who live in that city. Commuters don't count, neither at the poll booth for the municipal government, nor in the statistics. A metro usually also has a - less rigid - definition. This (badly outdated) article is not up to Wikipedia standards. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi BsBsBs, this is true in the USA and some other countries like Germany where there is a rigid divide between the 'City' and 'suburbs'. But in other countries, especially Australia, there's no such duality, and no clearly defined city limits. For instance, I live outside the municipal boundary of the City of Sydney, but there's no doubt that if you asked anyone in my street what city they lived in, they'd say Sydney, not the name of the municipality I live in, which is regarded as just one of many constituent parts of Sydney. In fact it's hard to define where Australian cities start and finish at all. - Aucitypops (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Same in the US or Germany. Someone from Eastern Nassau County will say he's from New York (City), or simply "the city" - especially when talking to someone from out of town. If you'd ask me where I lived as a kid, I'd say "in Munich" and not "in Olching" (a village 20km from the city center, where I grew up.) In neither places is there a rigid divide between "the city" and the burbs, one flows into the other. That's not the point. The point is that most cities on this planet, especially the ones that will land on that list, have clearly defined boundaries, tax maps etc. For instance, if you live outside of the Electoral district of Sydney, will they ask you to re-elect Clover Moore when her term is up? You either live there, or you don't. I once lived in a place where the boundary was the street in front of my house. Thank God, I was on the right side. Had I lived on the other, my real estate tax would have been double .... Back to Wikipedia: Wikipedia's strength is the strength of its many contributors. Looking at this discussion list, many contributors find fault with the numbers reported. Most appear to live and breathe closer to the matter than the three "experts" who did a study in 2004. Hell, many Wikipedia articles for cities on that list don't agree with the numbers reported. How's that for consistency? We need a real list, powered by the power of Wikipedia.--BsBsBs (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't realise you were from Germany when I used that as an example. :) I've just heard before from Australian accquaintances living in Germany (Frankfurt, specifically) that people strongly identify with their local village or suburb there, and conversely don't feel much connection with the 'main' city of their conurbation. But I'm sure it differs from region to region.
I have to maintain that there is no single definition of what Sydney is. There's the electoral division as you pointed out, but there's also the local government area, the postal suburb called Sydney, the contiguous urban area, the Statistical Division, the County of Cumberland...all of those entities might be considered "Sydney proper" in a particular context. Which do you pick?
Back to your point, I agree that the choice of sources used in all these list articles is sometimes arbitrary. It might do to find a more up-to-date or reliable source, but I think it's essential that whatever source we pick, we only use one (or the ranking becomes Original Research, i.e. prohibited). Cheers, Aucitypops (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Frankfurt! I lived there also for a while. For reasons I cannot quite fathom, many Frankfurters are proud of their (pardon me) ugly city, and especially of the fact that they don't live across the Main River, in Offenbach. Offenbachers are being despised. Their "OF" on the license plate is translated by Frankfurters as "Ohne Führerschein" (without driver's license.) But hey, in Manhattan, we called non-Manhattanites "Bridge&Tunnel" - and that included the "New York City" denizens from Queens, Brooklyn & Bronx. As far as what to pick: We just have to agree on it. Not knowing exactly what the "Statistical Division" of Sydney is (except for what Demographics of Sydney imparts), my gut says this would be the one to choose for your "metro." For Beijing (where I live now) we'd use the most recent published number of the Beijing Municipality (same for Chongqing Municipality, Shanghai Municipality, and Tianjin Municipality.) For Tokyo, what would make more sense for "Tokyo Metro" than the Tokyo Metropolitan Government or TMG. For New York, I'd probably agree to the definition of the New York metropolitan area. Come to think of it, the US Office of Management and Budget has come up with an official definition of Metro, called an MSA, or Metropolitan Statistical Atrea. We'd use those in the US. See? Not that hard. In any case, we would have to deliver sources and citations, and we'd quickly agree on the facts. --BsBsBs (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

mumbai is 4,355 sq. km

It's 4,355 on Mumbai metropolitan area but not on this page. --Ben Atkin (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

source: [1]. Thanx. --60.50.66.130 (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico City

Why are the metropolitan areas of Mexico City and Toluca joined together in this article, if no official document or agency in Mexico considers them a single metropolitan area? [In fact, they are physically separated by a mountain range with altitudes of over 3.000 m (9500 ft.)? The official delimitation of metropolitan areas in Mexico considers them two separate metropolitan areas. Was there a justified reason to consider them one single entity? --the Dúnadan 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The current list is the product of research by a group of well-known demographers to delineate metropolitan areas globally using a single definition. It ignores any statistical or administrative divisions. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the table is lifted from a study that discusses the same points that are debated here: "Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly." The study is from 2004, and it uses even older data. Its authors indeed chose to ignore statistical and administrative divisions. Why not use the whole Eastern Corridor from Boston to DC as a Megalopolis? Or the Netherlands as a whole?The list is worthless, as many examples cited above demonstrate. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit the list, unless ...

People: As long as the list refers to one single (and hopelessly outdated) source, namely "R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick, "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)" all editing of the list is senseless. We either use the source and its list as is and leave the list alone. Or we find current, verified, referenced, accurate, and official data (of which a lot is already available in Wikipedia.) In the latter case, we may research and edit away. Speaking of which, as a longtime New Yorker, I would object to bunching the New York-Northern New Jersey Long Island MSA and the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk MSA together. A.) Because what are MSAs for? B.) Because you will hardly find someone living in Bridgeport, CT, who thinks of himself as a New Yorker. Actually, even if only for tax reasons, most people in the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk MSA will steadfastly deny that they are New Yorkers .... --BsBsBs (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Northeast NJ (arguably Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Bergen, Union, maybe Middlesex) is very much part of a Metropolitan NYC area. Spettro9 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Chong Qing?

What about Chong Qing? I'm really confused, please help! See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chong_Qing> [2009.11.3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.137.60.172 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The number that you are refering to, which would put Chongqing in second is not the population of the metropolitain area, but rather the population of the Direct Controlled Municipal District of Chongqing (a type of classification used in several country's which give municipal area the same trreatmen a state or province would have.) See this page for more info: [2]

update

We really have to update this page! The german version may help here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_größten_Städte_der_Welt Example: Tehran current (official) metro. population:14.0 mio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran --Englishazadipedia (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The information about the cities in this page is not correct to my observation which I have gathered from various sources. For example Culcutta is bigger than Delhi, but here its the reverse. Population of Karachi unofficially predicted by NGO's & the UNO is aproximately 18 million. Government confirms 16.5 million. But wikipedia is still clinging to 11 million. Although I have tried several times to correct it. Beging is bigger than Karachi by Population. Hence there are many changes required here. Of them some are in my knowledge and I have only tried to change Karachi. This sort of information may be very useful for students, applicatns appearing for general knowledge tests/exams. But very dangerous if not delivered correctly: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.161.82 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The page indeed is in need of urban renewal. The German page cited above is a little better:
- Right from the start, it admits that this is an inexact science with diverse viewpoints.
- It makes clear distinctions between cities (easy to count,) agglomerations (still fairly easy to count, and usually officially defined), and metro areas (a fuzzy subject.)
- The article cites several sources, some more recent than the single source used here. Inhowfar these sources copied from each other is up for debate.
- It has great pictures.
However, it didn't survive my Beijing and Tokyo test. It mentions Chongqin in the text, then disregards it. It's not us to decide what is a city and what is not. We can leave that decision to the official records.
How about a true Wikipedia approach: We have authors all over the world. Find the most recent (2007) OFFICIAL data, for city and OFFICIAL metro/agglomeration. Cite source. Lets build our definitive list, and most of all, lets keep it current. --BsBsBs (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That approach has been tried before but was rejected for the reason that different countries define things differently and so a ranking where each entry has different delineation criteria as deemed invalid. See the results of the AFD of this page for some information. You can try and see the various versions over the last several years and you might even find a version that you like. The thing is, any version one comes up with will always find critics. --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. There just isn't a definition for "Metro" everybody can agree on. Even the US Gvt. did change their "rules" by introducing CSAs, which inflate numbers. I think, the only true measure would be city pop - and even that wouldn't go undisputed. Chongqing wouold win hands down, end everybody would cry foul. Chinese population trivia: Beijing is very worried by the 18 Million number, because someone decided a while ago, that Beijing couldn't take more than 18 Million. Counting only the "native" Beijingers according to the Hukou system deflated the number artificially. People with a non-Bejing hukou are being issued "temporary residence" permits, and were just recently included in the count. That temporary permit wasn't enforced, so the number remained artificially low. In the course of the Olympics, the "temporary residence" rule suddenly was rigidly enforced, with Police going door to door. Expect a sudden jump in "temporary residence" holders in Beijing for 2008. OTOH, should they have sampled the Beijing population DURING the Olympics, then the temporary residence number would be low: Beijing was sent on vacation during the Olympics, and non-natives were "encouraged" to go home to their families during the games .... --BsBsBs (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use the world gazetter as a source of information here??? the source mentioned as a reference for this article is the result of individual research and even their definition of metropolitan areas is so vague. arsalan... (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
And World Gazetteer is better? The study here gives their methodology. World Gazeteer doesn't. --Polaron | Talk 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

London

According to the article London Commuter Belt that is linked from this page, the population of Metropolitan London is 13,945,000, when this article states it as 12,875,000?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.217.10 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Largest European Metropolitan areas page says its 13,063,441.

That page has gone, anyway it's impossible to accurately decide the population of london - firstly there are so many unknown people living here, secondly where do you decide the cut off point is? if luton airport is to be called london luton then luton should be included, as with everywhere else within. same with gatwick. the population of london is at least several million more than most estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The above comments could just as easily be directed at any major city such as New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.0.47 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Greater London Authorities (GLA) London Plan "Working London is part of a metropolitan region of 21 million people. This forms a 'mega-city region' in which there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Within this wider region, London performs the functions characteristic of the central city. It is the main generator and source of jobs as well as of culture, leisure and higher-level shopping activities. The interactions within the mega-city region are increasing. The Mayor supports polycentric development across the mega-city region in which Central London, London's town centres and the towns in the other two regions develop in a complementary manner. He also supports the government's proposed growth areas in Milton Keynes, Thames Gateway, London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough and Ashford as important contributions to dealing with the pressures on land and development in the mega-city region and sees these as complementary to the growth strategy for London set out in this plan" [3] [4]

--90.205.89.231 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are various definitions of London's metropolitan area floating around. 21 million people is by far the most generous one, and definitly oversized. Most definitions gives approx. 12-14 million people in the MA. Here's a Greater London Authority document (pdf) about some definitions of the London metropolitan area.--Pjred (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I am inclined to agree with it, as a large percentage of Englands population surrounds London, and cities such as New York City have vast metro areas. Indeed New York Cities Metro is currently the size of all the yorkshire ridings in England combined. There are a number of policy documents relating to the new 21 million mega-city region, not least in the GLA's very own London Plan. [5]

"Research has shown that the Greater South East of England has led UK economic performance over the last 25 years. It is home to 21 million people, some 35% of the UK population. It is responsible for 42% of gross domestic product – some £452 billion per annum – and attracts 60% of all UK private research and development investment and 70% of venture capital investment.Over half the top 20 global companies have major research facilities located in the Greater South East. Whilst London continues to be the world's leading financial centre, rivalled only by New York". [6][7]

The Greater South East Region (pdf)

Facts About the Greater South East Region (pdf)

Here's a policy research report regarding the Greater South East Region (pdf)

Greater South East Area on the map - http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/images/rb268f1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.104.71 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


--90.214.0.47 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I can also break down the population of the Greater South East down by county -


Greater London - 7,700,000


Population of Counties sharing a border with London


  • Essex - 1,318,400
  • Kent - 1,394,000
  • Surrey - 1,098,000
  • Berkshire - 812,000
  • Hertfordshire - 1,066,100
  • Buckinghamshire - 719,000

Total - 6,407,500


Other Counties in the South East and Thames Valley

  • Hampshire - 1,705,700
  • Bedfordshire (Home of London Luton Airport)- 595,800
  • West Sussex - 776,300
  • East Sussex - 761,800
  • Oxfordshire - 635,000

Total 4,474,600


Other Counties to the East

  • Cambridgeshire - 760,700
  • Norfolk - 840,600
  • Suffolk - 709,300

Total 2,310,600


  • Greater London 7,700,000
  • Bordering Counties - 6,407,600
  • Other South East/Thames Valley - 4,474,600
  • Eastern Counties - 2,310,600

Total - 20,892,700


The UK is a small country, England is even smaller still, and the Greater South East Region is only a small corner of England. Even if you just add those counties that border London that's a combined population of 14,107,500. People commute to London from all over this region, and even if you neglect to count the Eastern Counties such as Cambs, Suffolk, Norfolk, you still have a population of nearly 19 million. You could even take Oxfordshire off the list and you would still have a metro area of around 18 million.

The whole area is also very intergrated transport wise, with good road, rail, air and sea links.

London and South East Rail Map (pdf)

London Rail Connections Map (pdf)


--90.214.0.47 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, both the Functional Urban Region and the 1960's London Metropolitan Area definitions are far better definitions for the real Metropolitan Area. As I understand it, the GSE region is more of a political project for some regional planning rather than a definition based on population density and a notable degree of commuting to central London. To my point of view, the GSA is quite useless in lists for international comparitions, as it allows a vast fringe with just vague commuter patterns towards London. I wouldn't be surprised if some areas in the northern and western parts of the GSA have about the equal amount (or more) of commuters going to for instance Birmingham and other northern centres rather than London. So, why should we consider the GSA as the definition of choice, just because it gives the highest figures, when there exist other, better and just as official definitions to use? Anyway, the list in this article is based on work of a single source who has tried to define worldwide metropolitan areas from somewhat equal criterias. So, this discussion won't change anything for this list at the moment.--Pjred (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I could equally say the same about people in the New York City metro area who could head for Philadelphia, Newark, Atlantic City or other cities close to New York Cities vast Metro area. I know plenty of people who commute to London daily from such towns as Milton Keynes, Oxford, Luton etc or from neighbouring counties. What is even more bizzre is that even if you just count the figures for the tiny English counties that surround London, the population is still over 14 million and not 12 million. The next major English city is Birmingham in the midlands which is further from London than New York is from Philadelphia. As for Demographia it is one of the worst sites I have visited, with little explanation and is just a poor version of nationmaster, which is possibly the second worse source of accurate information on the web.

Places such as Ocean County, NJ are part of NYC's metro area - http://theoceancountylibrary.org/NewWebImages/CountyMap.jpg

Plces such as rural Woodstock in New York state are 90 miles north of NYC, and are not even the most northerly parts of New York's metro area. It beggers belief that London's metro a very densely populated area, and one of the most densely populated countries in the world is not properly reflected, whilst New York's metro area has a metro of vast size that stretches way down in to Southern Philadelphia and equally far to the North and other directions.

Sadly I question the consistency of these figures given the discrepancies in metro area and calculation methods, and I suggest others approach such figures with a good degree of scepticism. If you look up 'The London commuter belt' on 'wiki' itself it says it currently covers much of the South East region and part of the East of England region, including the Home Counties of Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Essex and quotes the population as 13,945,000 as of 2001. So wiki is contradicting itself. If you look at the commuter belt today, you will find an area of at least 15 million, if you include London and some of it's neighbouring counties, however if you include the South East and East of England (wiki commuter belt) then the figure is going to be nearer the 20 million figure I initially suggested.

Which is it to be, surely wiki can't have two sets of figures, and can't have it both ways.

If you just add the following counties which are very close to London, you get a figure well over 15 million.


  • Essex - 1,318,400 (1,417 Sq. mi)
  • Kent - 1,394,000 (1,537 Sq. mi)
  • Surrey - 1,098,000 (650 Sq. mi)
  • Berkshire - 812,000 (500 Sq.mi)
  • Hertfordshire - 1,066,100 (530 Sq. mi)
  • Buckinghamshire - 719,000 (604 Sq.mi)
  • Bedfordshire - 595,800 (460 Sq.mi)
  • East Sussex - 761,800 (692 Sq. mi)

Total - 7,765,100 (6,390 Sq. mi)

Added to London Total - 15,465,100 (7010 Sq.mi)

This may neglect important counties such as Hampshire but it is a good deal more realistic than the 12 million odd quoted on this site. Most of those counties either border or are stones throw from London. The area within the M25 (London orbital motorway) is not much larger than the Greater London Area, and that area alone has a population of over 10 million. Indeed the Greater London Area (the actual city) is increasingly aligned to the M25 area, and beyond that the metro area stretches across corridors throughout the Home Counties and South East of England.

http://www.touristnetuk.com/london/images/London_hotels_areas_images/gtrlondonmapsml.gif

Indeed Two out of three people living within the M25 consider it to be the natural boundary of the London itself, whilst th metro commuter zone encompasses most of the south east/eastern region. The population within the M25 is over 10 million and the commuter zone extends to an area between 15 and 20 million.

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=3002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3587799.stm

I would have little hesitation in suggesting that in reality London itself extends as far as the M25, and has a population of over 10 million, whilst it's metro population extends across the south eastern and eastern corridors and is between 18 and 20 milliom, and I have lived here all my life and have travelled widely across the area in question.

Finally where is Paris, the city has a massive metro. Indeed there are plans for even faster trains between London and Paris cutting journey times to a mere 1 hour 50 minutes and people are even commuting to London from Northern France. No two massive western cities are linked together as London and Paris are, you are not less than a 2 hour train ride in NYC from another city of the same size. The distance between London and Paris (214 miles) is less than the distance between New York City and Washington DC (240 miles). Whilst Brussels is set to be a mere 1 hour and 30 minutes from London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2778462/Trains-from-London-to-Paris-could-take-under-two-hours.html

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/overseas/article2875616.ece


--90.214.0.47 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Great Britain is one of the most crowded little islands on the earth, England is even more crowded still and one little corner of England is home to over 1/3rd of the population. The tiny region centered around London is home to around 18 million. As for London it has a positive migration with more people leaving other parts of the UK and other countries for London than those leaving London, indeed London's population is predicted to grow substantially in the coming decades.

The population of London is expected to increase by almost 20 per cent over the next two decades. The total will have grown by more than a million, to about 8.8 million, by 2029. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the capital's population growth will be the biggest for any of the regions of England.

England is now the most densely populated major country in Europe, with only Malta having a higher population density. Beyond Europe, England's population density is among the highest in the world for major countries. England ranks third in density after Bangladesh (1,045 per sq km) and South Korea (498 per sq km). As I have already mentioned over 1/3rd of this population live in the south east and London region with a massive population and very high population density.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html[/url]


--90.205.89.74 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does Chungking go in this list?

Once I heard that Chungking -- if you want the Cultural Revolution's Chongqing, give me them back their iron rice bowl -- was now the largest city in the world, beyond Tokyo even. And indeed, on Wikipedia's page it does seem to have a high population. 64.69.127.105 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure is! The world's largest city (not just metropolis) is Chongqing, a city in China which is unknown to most of the world. Chongqing is a city of 31.4 million ... and growing. Chongqing is the largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of China, the highest level classificiation for cities used by Chinese government, with a status equal to that of the provinces. The other three municipalities are (according to size) Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin.
Beijing is listed here as having 12 million, which was the official number until quite recently. This needs to be changed urgently, because Beijing officially counts 17.4 million people. The Chinese have an odd system of "Permanent" and "Temporary" residence, and the previous 12 Million had only taken the "permanent" native Beijingers into account. The new number now takes the "Temporary" residents into account, made up by people who moved to Beijing for work, and also the foreign community. I've lived in Beijing for four years, as a "Temporary" resident (albeit with a very permanent address, and two businesses,) and only quite recently did I become a statistic. There is a large number of undocumented "illegal" workers in Beijing (and in the other large Chinese cities.) You need a permit to live and work there, even if you are Chinese. Taking this into account, the true population of Beijing is thought to be more than 20 million. Think about it: While US "metros" artificially inflate their "population" by counting commuters, China doesn't even officially recognize a large chunk of their people who actually live in their cities. List of cities in the People's Republic of China by population is worth a look, check out "Administrative Area Population" and add a fudge factor of 10% to 20% due to chronic undereportintg and/or inadequate bookkeeping in China. In this list, you will find many cities which you've never heard of, and which yet have populations that equal New York City. A city the size of Boston is regarded a village in China.
True, Beijing is much bigger than records say; unofficially I have heard something between 15-20 million. Spettro9 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Tokyo number also is worth a closer look. According to the Metro Tokyo official website, Tokyo has a population of 12.8 million, the official Metropolis of Tokyo (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba) is listed with approximately 19 million pop. A far cry from the 34 million which are usually reported. Now who might get it straight, the city itself (and the Japanese know how to count, I'm married to one ..) or the lists that get copied from each other? --BsBsBs (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


The point about Chongqing is ridiculous. While the "municipality" of Chongqing has a population of over 30 million, that definition is actually an entire region that was carved out of Sichuan Province, and as such the "municipality" covers an area of over 80,000 km². The city or metro area itself has a much smaller population - about 5 million. DMac (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I second what DMac said. Take a look at a map. Spettro9 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Chongqing Region has the political title of "municipality" (which indeed means 'city') but Chongqing city or even Chongqing metro area is much smaller than the whole "municipality". To state that Chongqing is the largest city in the world because it has the title of "municipality" (and so it comprises the whole region) is not accurate. However, Chongqing citizens may have learned this as a fact, therefore, making it difficult for them to understand any reasons. It's part of their pride and nationalism. In this particular case of Chongqing, Municipality = Region, not a city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnie2010 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dhaka

According to the Dhaka article, the metro population of Dhaka is 23 million, if this is true, it should be second? Taifarious1 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the most recent statistics of Dhaka SMA which put it in number 19, still it was reverted by someone. I am not sure why that is. If anyone can shed a light on this subject that would be great. Thanks.Skchandon (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a note in the article which is this (copied directly)
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!
One source (this list follows this source) was established quite a while ago because if multiple sources was used, it would cause an edit war because each organization has different measurements for a metropolitan area. Elockid (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So you mean you will not accept any other data than the source, where the source may be out dated? or do you mean I can add a new item if I can show a proper reference to it? if its the later then, here is my source of information from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/pby/pk_book_08.pdf this was uploaded in their site February 03, 2009 so the information contained within is most up to date. If you go to page 7 of that pdf file you will find Population of Statistical Metropolitan Area and Dhaka is Listed there with a population of 12,797,394 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skchandon (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who wrote the note if you were wondering that. Generally speaking, because using multiple sources was conflicting in the past, a consensus was made to only use one definitive source which is the one being used now. So yes, no other sources are accepted at this time for this article because the article is structured so that only one source is used. The source you added is reliable and generally in Wikipedia adding sources to support a change is encouraged. But from my explanation, that would cause a lot of trouble, considering the history of this article. I myself would like to do the same, update some parts of the article but I know that would cause a whole lot of complaints. Hopefully that shed some light. Elockid (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then this document should be removed. It is a lie that is being spread otherwise. May be in the article we can mention something like a big note that says "Content Out of Date and May be Misleading". Can we do that? What you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.133.94 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it a lie? The source the article uses is reliable, has criteria set and explains measures which is much more than a lot of the alternative lists out there. Even if the source updated to current estimates, it would have minor changes, mainly population changes. The most likely cities taken off the list would be Moscow and London, but they seem to be in good standing. Unfortunately adding disclaimers like that is not very encyclopedic and can be seen as vandalism by other editors. Also what is so misleading about it? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is a better estimate then others may not make it acceptable. Especially, when a reliable source is omitted because of some vauge reason. The whole idea of wikipedia I thought, was to quote references and have it accepted. If there is a reliable reference then it should not be omitted. When a criteria is created and those who fall under that critera is not included then it becomes a lie. The example you provided: "The most likely cities taken off the list would be Moscow and London, " is a perfect example. I don't know if they should be taken out or not from my own. But I do believe there are people who can provide valid references and based on those references we should decide which item should stay on the list. Without that when we say the most populated metropolitan areas are such and such and includes something that has no business being there, then it becomes misleading.Skchandon (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your missing the point. The reason I said London and Moscow might be taken of the list because the list only includes 20. There are other cities right now that probably surpass London or Moscow such as Rio de Janeiro. Also, I meant the source would take them out, not an editor because they only have 20 listed. Some lists also have a limit to how many there should be listed to keep the article from being to long. So it is entirely appropriate to remove something from a list. Yes, Wikipedia is all about what you said but the reason I gave you was not vague, it was clear. The reason other sources are not accepted is because they would cause an edit war. The addition of alternative sources like in this matter led into the article nominated for deletion and also caused a lot of disagreement hence the nomination for deletion (This was originally for World's largest cities but was split into 3 different articles, List of metropolitan areas by population, List of urban areas by population and List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations) each article using only ONE source, thus ending the nomination). That's why consensus was reached to only allow one source for this article to prevent edit warring and complaints about definitions. Just so you know, Wikipedia is also about consensus, and consensus led into this article having only one source. Furthermore, though added sources are reliable, they do not necessarily have the same criteria (definitions) as another organization resulting in different figures. You can see what I mean when you click the external links in the article. The criteria I was talking about is the amount of land area to measure in which all cities are judge equally using the same criteria. It wasn't that a city had a preference over the other. It was just how many people live in a certain amount area (based on factors such as population density, size of the agglomeration, commuters, etc.) that resulted in the list. That's how the list works. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying, editing war should be given priority over the integrity of the Data? Very well. Thanks for your clarification. I'll cease making any changes to this list. Thanks for your time.Skchandon (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant prevent editing warring and I don't mean give priority. Edit war is against Wikipedia policy. I already know that the source you added has integrity, I even used it for some other articles, but like I said before, not all data, although they are true or have integrity, does not mean that the have same definition. It would be like comparing apples to oranges because the definitions of each city would be different. The aim for having only one source is to have a fair comparison. Just take a look at the U.S. metropolitan area statistics. They are equally as valid as your source but people rant all the time how their definitions are too soft or they "cheat to much". This has led to London vs. New York arguments because the New York's metro area has less strict criteria than London resulting in London having as smaller population. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a real shame :( :( I get your point. Since we cannot convert an orange to an apple so consider only apples or only oranges. Looking at all these different kinds of lists in here somehow I had thought the wiki ppl might have found a way to do compare all the different items. oh well. Hey once again thanks for your clarification. I really appreciate it.Skchandon (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is a real shame indeed. Also, if you need any more clarification or help about anything, you can discuss matters with me in my talk page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population as one possible solution. There multiple sources are given where one can sort the table using whatever source one prefers. 66.69.222.69 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That actually looks like a really great idea but one thing concerns me. The article says it is listed by population but it seems to be listed in alphabetical order instead. Perhaps we can add multiple lists to this article? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

"Restrictions on the movement of labor between Hong Kong and mainland China" are the understatement of the century. A Chinese needs a VISA to travel to HK. Most foreigners don't. Getting a work and/or residency permit for HK is easier for a total foreigner than for a mainland Chinese. When it comes to movement of labor, HK and Shenzen are as far apart as Tijuana and San Diego. Just one of the many flaws of the referenced study. Wikipedia deserves better. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Considering the comment was posted in Sept 2008 it shows remarkable ignorance of the facts. Travel for Chinese citizens between SZ and HK is much easier than it is for foreigners. Chinese have a Travel Pass, foreigners have to struggle on through the border with their passports, which is much, much slower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.61.0.162 (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


This is posted in Oct 2009. The transit of Chinese nationals to Hong Kong is restricted and its far from "easier" than it is for foreigners. Consider this:

1) All Chinese nationals going to HK need to obtain a special permit. This is not exactly a travel pass. It has limitations.

2) The permit (or "travel pass") must be obtained from the competent authorities at their home city or at the city where his/her ID card is from.

3) Only Chinese nationals from capital cities can go to Hong Kong without a tour package. Other Chinese nationals must take a tour package.

4) The permit only allows a limited amount of entries to Hong Kong during a certain period of time (2 times every 2 months, for example). Also, the time they can stay in HK is usually limited to 1 week.

5) Notice also that HK only requires visas to citizens of certain countries.

All this, makes me think that it is easier for a foreigner to cross into HK than it is for a Chinese national. It is true also that HK and Shenzhen are not the same city, they are completely different, and that includes people and mentality. 

Vinnie2010 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

New York land area

Looking at the chart, one would assume that Los Angeles has a higher population density than New York when the opposite is true. How did they get the NYC land area to be so large? DavidRF (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The area of metropolitain zone mostly consists of commuter area. If we agree that 2 hours (or 1 hour) is a potential commuter zone we can understand that Mojave desert is mostly a desert and is not included in the metro area. And LA has no well populated islands in the ocean, but NY has. So I can assume the larger land area for the NY.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm still having a hard time understanding how the population density of the NY area could be so low. Anyone who has been to both LA and NY would think the opposite. The LA area is quite sprawling and doesn't have the urban center that NY has. It feels like a giant suburb. Are places like Fairfield County really weighing down the pop density of the NY metro that much? DavidRF (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are the main principles of Metro Area definition. Municipalities are included in MA if:
  • at least 20 percent working residents commute
  • pop. density not less than 70 persons per square mile
I don't know where are the NY MetroArea limits, but it is possible to find 70 persons per square mile commuting in 20 % in NJ or NY than in Mojave desert, I guess.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a misconception many people have. The LA urban area is actually smaller and denser because it is contained by geography. The NYC urban area sprawls out to over 75 mi from Manhattan in certain directions. Even if you treat the Bridgeport-Stamford urban area as separate, the NYC urban area is still larger and less dense (see United States urban area). Further, the mass transit infrastructure of the NYC metro area is more extensive and so the commuter zone outside the urban area is also larger than that of the LA area. These two factors result in the NYC area to be the most sprawling urban/metro area in the world. --Polaron | Talk 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The NYC area is the most spawling if we don't count Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta. The table we are talking about is only ONE possible Metro Areas list. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps but, then again a more approrpiate comparison to those areas you mentioned is the BosWash megalopolis. I was mainly talking about continuous urbanization with no gaps. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Metro Area idea is not built on continuous urbanization with no gap but commuting and pop.density zones. Urban Area (NYC also) is not so large, you know that as you are Urban Area list keeper in Wiki. But megalopolis is an Metro Areas agglomeration, isn't it? To my opinion Pearl River Delta is more mature Metro area then Yangtze River Delta. Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Dongguan-Guangzhou chain actually fulfils all Metro Area conditions. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my question. I found the point in the PDF file that addressed the LA issue. I guess its all relative. The LA area, hemmed in as it is, is still one of the fifth largest and fifth least dense on the list. Its just the far outer fringes of the New York Area that is skewing the comparison. The "central 10K km2" of NYC is likely more dense than LA. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. See also the second chart here for a density profile comparing NYC and LA urban areas. --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rio has 15 million and isn t in the list!!! so bad!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.220.148 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Page name (possible move?)

It seems to me that this page would benefit from being renamed to List of metropolitan areas and moving the sublists (in the "see also" section) up the page, so that this becomes the go-to page for metropolitan areas. As a tourist on this page, however, I defer to the regulars :) Playclever (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The area of Karachi

I changed the area of the Karachi metro area to 3,530 km2 few weeks ago. It was reverted to the current (and questionable) size of 1,100 km2 by User:Polaron. On both the User:Polaron/List of metropolitan areas by population article, and the Karachi articles - the 3,530 number is given. If the 1,100 km2 is correct, then is should be changed in all three places. But it seems that the larger area is likely to be more correct - it's hard to swallow the idea that Karachi has roughly the same population as Beijing somehow crammed into one sixth the space... I am guessing that the 1,100 km2 number is the size of the city proper, not the metro area. Nothingofwater (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been three days with no response. I'll wait another day or two for some kind of feedback - and if i dont hear otherwise, i'll change the area of Karachi back to 3,530 km2 for consistency's sake. Nothingofwater (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, i just noticed that the List of cities proper by population article also notes Karachi's city proper area as 3527 km2. It seems kind of silly to have a metro area that is smaller than the city proper... Will change this now, rather than waiting. Nothingofwater (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the introductory text in the article. The list is based on a single source, including population and area figures. The cited source is one of a handful of studies that attempt to define metropolitan areas globally using a single definition. In the case of Karachi, it happens to be the case that the administrative boundaries of the city include significant rural territory (roughly three-fourths of the surface area based on comparing urban area and administrative area boundaries). It may be that we have to redefine the Karachi city proper in the Wikipedia list mentioned using smaller administrative units but it is not tecnically impossible to have a metro area (the functional city) smaller than a municipality (area under a single local government). Looking at an administrative map of Karachi, it looks like the towns of Bin Qasim, Gadap, and Kimari are not part of what the western world would call the "city proper" although they are technically part of the Karachi City District government. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Only twenty metro areas?

I remember when this article listed the largest 100 areas; now I see it has been reduced to twenty. Was there a discussion behind this change? (I looked through the archives, maybe I missed it.) In any rate, this article strikes me as considerably less interesting in this reduced state. --Peter Talk 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea. I came here expecting a larger list too. KyuuA4 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the main reason it was made shorter was so that we could have one source for the whole list. Depending on how you define the borders of each metropolitan area, you can end up with a different ranking, leading to non-stop edit wars. Using a single source for definition of the areas and populations creates a single, coherent list, but probably means that the list isn't 100, it's 20. If you can find a source showing us the top 100, that would be something to cosider. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, finally found the decision: this article was nominated for deletion in June 2007 and then redirected to World largest cities. Towards the end of 2007 it was restarted without discussion using the UIC City Futures Conference source. So for anyone interested, the pre-afd version is here [8]. I'll keep this idea on my mind in case I see a good source with a longer list, since twenty simply isn't very interesting.
On a separate note, I'm a newbie here—wouldn't it be appropriate to link afd discussions on the article's talk page, so that it wouldn't be as hard to find the decision making process? --Peter Talk 02:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be really great if the list gets extended to atleasttop 30 or top 40, that way it'll include paris! And isn't tehran already supposed to be on da list? PlatinumFire (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Only if the list was extended to 30 to 40, then Tehran would be added. Right now, nobody has found a better list to use from, so I'm afraid it's going to be only 20 metro areas until the source updates or someone finds a new better source that almost everyone accepts. Elockid (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Aglomerations and Modern Technology

Now, an Aglomeration of over 10 million people is not necessary to make an economy of scale. In fact, thousands of Corporations are leaving too much concentrated areas to more relaxed one like Boise (Idaho) Germany doesn´t have any important Metro Area but high tech projects are divided among a multiple net of cities.--83.63.180.125 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

largest population not largest

The page title is incorrect and missleading. This is a list of the most populous metropolitan areas not the largest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.80.229 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the title, "List of metropolitan areas by population" misleading? It doesn't look misleading at all. Elockid (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
But the page title does not include the word "largest". The title identifies that the areas are sorted by population, so at the top would be the most populous. Your criticism puzzles me. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong / Shenzhen

HONG KONG and Shenzhen are not part of the same metropolitan area. While both cities are quiet large, unfortunately they are not the same city.

While Hong Kong and Shenzhen are near in distance, they can't be considered the same metropolitan area.

1. There is no free transit of pedestrians or vehicles between Shenzhen and the Hong Kong Region. All pedestrians must either have a passport/visa or permit to cross the border between HK-China or China-HK.

2. A local train takes about 30 minutes to go from Kowloon (part of the metropolitan area of Hong Kong) to the border with Shenzhen. There are several small cities in between which although close to Hong Kong, aren't all part of the metropolitan area of Hong Kong either.

3. People can't commute freely between Hong Kong territories and Shenzhen. Chinese nationals have limitations to visit Hong Kong and can't engage in paid activities. Commuting between HK and Shenzhen for work on a daily basis is basically impractical.

4. The local trains from Hong Kong to the border with Shenzhen stop running at night and only one crossing (Lok Ma Chau) remains open 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnie2010 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Cairo

The population of Cairo here is between 2.5 - 5 million short. The problem is the lack of reliable census figures. No one really knows how large the population really is, but 14 is lower than most conservative estimates. A look at various sources off google give nothing less than 17.5 for 2009 population figures. As that seems to be the low figure I will go with that and edit the page to fix. comment added by jankyalias 8 October 2009 14:22 —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC).


Just read the warning on the edit page. As all the info comes from a single source perhaps it should be made more clear exactly what that source is - of course I could just be a fool and be missing something. At any rate I did not edit and leave someone more qualified on the current state of the discussion to do so.

jankyalias —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

What sources? Most of the sources I've seen put Cairo at around 12-17 million. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/delhi.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/delhi.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population/Archive_3&oldid=1147967384"