Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/Archive 2

message: Population of Osaka urban area is wrong with  17,514,959, its Nagoya is 8,764,837,        
and there is not it. Please do not change it without permission.
:List of metropolitan areas in Japan by population
Population of FukuokaーKitakyusyu urban area (Japan) is 4,990,000 people (2006).
:7th Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto metropolitan areas 17,514,959
:25th Chukyu Metropolitan Area 9,480,000
:59th FukuokaーKitakyusyu urban area 4,990,000
I think that we should make the other pages agree with each other. The value in List of metropolitan areas in Japan by population should agree with the value in this document for Keihanshin (Osaka). 
Please comment
Paullb 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban area population of Osaka and Nagoya 

message: :My opinion that we should restore City Population figures. Unfortunately, UN came unreliable source for urban area population. That review does not representing real figures. Front page for this article of wikipedia says "these figures include suburban areas immediately surrounding a major city and sometimes multiple major cities which may be close enough together to function essentially as one area.", what become not true with UN figures. UN counted some cities with metropolitan areas, some with agglomeration and some with just city propers that is absurd. Examples is Moscow (if Polaron is right on definition, however it wasn't 10,7 in 2003 within city limits, but much less) and London. CityPopulation figures is more close to reality. Please do not updating the article, before we come to consensus. I'm awating for replys. Elk Salmon 19:34MSK, 19 October 2005
:I have no problem with putting city population.de figures as long as there are definitions (and land areas) given for each metropolitan area. The citypopulation site does not indicate the boundaries of each area while the UN compilation does. I agree that the UN uses different types of definitions for different countries so they are not directly comparable. Polaron 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a population survey of cities that is 100% consistent would be amazingly hard, and downright impossible for some countries (not all countries take stock of the same things in their Census).  The UN Survey is both public domain and explains the sources well.  Please also see the debate below. DirectorStratton 15:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I found this article  while looking for information on some of these urban areas. It looks like a paper on metropolitan area definitions and why the numbers vary so much across different lists. It's very informative and those interested in making this list more reliable should read it. One of the authors, Richard Forstall, attempted to make a standardised definition of metro areas and has compiled his own list (only the Top 20 are in the paper). I've been looking for more information on his definitions but can't seem to find them online. Polaron 17:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Dispute 

message: Are people willing to go back to the citypopulation.de figures or not? Are we going to change the title to urban areas? At the moment the article is riddled with anomalies so we have to agree on some course of action! Jameswilson 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be anomalies as no ranking of metropolitan areas can be completely neutral. In any case, perhaps there should be some kind of voting as to which source to use. We should definitely stick to one source for the entire list though to prevent random people from changing figures of individual cities. We should also list the extent of each area as is done now should the source be changed. In addition to citypopulation.de, world-gazetteer.com is another possible source.  Polaron 03:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agrre about the impossibility of getting perfection here. I would prefer citypopulation as the figures are taken from actual national census figures. world-gazetteer used to be very good but its not updated so much and, more importantly, extrapolates the current population from the changes during the previous intercensal period, which is a defect in my view. Using citypopulation would mean omitting the area which I dont mind at all (seems to me population density is a separate topic) but that would be a problem for you? In an ideal world the UN would be the ideal source for this sort of thing, but they admit their definitions vary between cities which rather defeats the point of this list. If we did take the UN figures I think we would be unable (reasonably) to reject edits based on national censuses as they came along. Jameswilson 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with citypopulation as long as it can be made clear what definition the figure refers to. We don't have to put land areas but I think we do need to indicate the definition of the area associated to each figure. There must be people who are familiar with various cities enough to know the area definitions so we can put them in. In any case, my opinion is we should still put this up for voting but I'm not quite sure how to do this. And it might be good to hear from a few other people as well. Polaron 13:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know how to do a vote either! maybe recruit a few people from the Urban area page which is more active. Jameswilson 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What about moving this list to "List of urban agglomerations by population" and then creating a new list of metropolitan areas using citypopulation.de figures, which seems to be the alternative that most people who post here prefer? If anybody wants to go ahead and put in the citypopulation figures, please do so. If you know the definitions associated with each figure, put that in as well. Polaron 14:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens next? 

message: I have posted this debate on WP:RFC/HIST so that other people can comment. Polaron 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So which source should this list use? 

message: The figure given in that list is the one of Paris urban area (INSEE unité urbaine), Paris metropolitan area (INSEE aire urbaine) as defined officially represents 11,174,743 inhabitants on 14,518 km² as of the census of 1999. For more informations, please check Paris wikipedia page. If you are looking for an official link, you can find here a list of French aire urbaine on the INSEE website, the official body organizing census in France. Metropolitan 05:36, 13 March 2006 (CET)
:The urban area is the definition that the UN uses for its list. Citypopulation also uses the urban area while World Gazetteer uses the metropolitan area. I'll just add a footnote for Paris until the source issue is resolved. Polaron 02:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris metropolitan area

message: There are a number of contradictions between this page and the respective pages of the cities on wikipedia. For example, Cairo lists itself as having 15.2 million inhabitants. This page lists it closer to 11. 
:See here Polaron 14:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cairo

message: The wikipedia article on Melbourne says it has "a population of approximately 3.8 million (2006 estimate)"
The population given on this page is 3,663,000
I dont know how to edit the page so can someone else do it for me. Thankyou
PS. It was reported in a major Australian newspaper that the population infact burst the 4,000,000 seam a few months ago, but I would need to find a source and cant be bothered.
:Also, I am not referring to the Melbourne in America, this is the Melbourne in Australia
::Accroding to ABS, the mid-2006 projected population for Melbourne Statistical Division is 3,689,700 (using the model that gives the highest figure).Polaron 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne 

message: Could everybody have a look at List of languages by number of native speakers and especially its accompanying talk page. They face the same problem as here, ie even the best uniform source is not 100% reliable. They use ethnologue as a base but if anybody thinks ethnologue is wrong or out-of-date in a particular case it can be overruled subject to consensus. The talk page shows lots of examples of this process. Jameswilson 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible model for this page? 

message: I wonder why Randstad, Netherlands (7,5 million) isn't ion the list?
:The UN report lists the urban areas of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, etc.) separately. Polaron 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Randstad

message: I added this to the City page too, sorry for any cross-posting, but thought this is too important...
I haven't found yet a common list of cities, including english name, local name, with/without special characters, country name (local and international), lat/long etc. It's really a shame that in the year 2006 someone interested in displaying a selection of cities has to consult a dozen of different sources to get - unfortunately - as well almost a dozen of different ways of writing the city name or country name, some with lat/long, some without, some with the population numbers, some without, some with local wirting, some without, etc... Believe me, I already spent hours and days trying to set-up a more comprehensive, unified, harmonious set... but not with great success. I think it should be a place like this one here (Wikipedia), where it would be best situated. -- Luftikus143 13:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nearest - and upon first look pretty substantive - thing is geonames.org. -- Luftikus143 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its useful for smaller places but unfortunately it goes by administartive divisions not urban areas so it doesnt work for the big cities - for example it gives Paris as only 2.138.551. Jameswilson 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common, international list of cities (with population) 

message: AFAIK, the figure of 5+ million applies to the federal region Saint-Petersburg (region #78) which includes not only the city proper, but also some smaller towns in the suburbs of the city such as Kronstadt, Pushkin and Pavlovo.--Achp ru 19:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: City proper here refers to the entire administrative area (gorod). You are correct -- it does include all the communities under the administration of the Town Council. Polaron | Talk 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint-Petersburg 

message: I think that seattle should be put on this list. In the Wikipedia article on Seattle, Washington it says that the greater Seattle area is home to 3.8 million people. I have read outside sources that estimate it at 3,802,230.
:Seattle (urbanized area) has a 2005 population of 2,959,000 putting it at #106. Polaron | Talk 12:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle, Washington 

message: Data for the 2005 revision is now available online here. The full report including what definitions are used do not yet seem to be publicly available. There are some significant adjustments in a few definitions, particularly the Chinese cities. Also, at first glance it appears that figures now more closely resemble urban area populations rather than metropolitan area populations. It might be more appropriate to move the UN list to a List of urban agglomerations by population article and use a different source (maybe this one?) for a list of metropolitan areas. I made a table using the 2005 revision data here for reference. --Polaron | Talk 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polaron, I dont mind if you want to separate out "metropolitan" and "urban area" but I just have no confidence in that world gazeteer page for Britain. Use it as a starting point by all means if it seems to works OK for the places you know well enough to judge but I'll definitely reserve the right to "improve" the figures for places in Britain! 
Anyway I think we should press on (this page has been stuck for too long already). Nobody has found an ideal list. Use whichever list you prefer and then we can change particular figures ad hoc afterwards.
I know you are reluctant to sacrifice internal consistency by mixing-and-matching from various sources but in the absence of one single convincing source I think its a sacrifice we'll just have to make - ie, in wikipedia-speak, it will have to be a dynamic list, subject to constant revision as people come along with better figures for a particular city. Jameswilson 02:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll put in the UN figures from the 2005 revision as a starting point. I guess, as long as modified figures are based on figures by national census authorities then we can probably allow changes. Polaron | Talk 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes of course, any changes would have to be justified properly. The point at issue is not so much the figures for each of the component towns in an agglomeration, but rather which towns should be included and which are "too far out". 
In theory that is possible for the urban area definition - we should be able to agree on contiguity, but it strikes me its much more tricky for wider metropolitan areas ("travel-to-work areas") because there doesnt seem to be a common defintion. Jameswilson 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN World Urbanization Prospects 2005 revision 

message: This global list seems inconsistent with the list of largest European metropolitan areas.  Specifically, the Dutch Randstad and the Italian Milano (both ~7.5 million inhabitants) are missing from the global list, and the number for, for example, the Istanbul area, differ.  Baszoetekouw 09:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN splits the Randstad into its separate components. Are you Dutch? Is that UN interpretaion correct? Is the Randstad one continuous urban area? If one drives from Amsterdam or The Hague to Rotterdam is it continuously built-up or is there agricultural land? Jameswilson 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consistency with european list 

message: I can't understand why that whenever I change the Delaware Valley Population and Rank accordingly to what that page says, which is about 5,951,797 people according to that page, someone comes by and puts it back and says "revert to Un data." Just keep it as is! I am doing it according to US Census data.-Andrewia 17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire list is from a single source. Changing individual figures would make the list even less reliable than it is now. If there is consensus to use a different source then we'll change it. For now, the UN list seems to be a good compromise. You can add a footnote if you like but don't change the main figure/ranking unless it is a transcription error. --Polaron | Talk 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia/Delaware Valley 

message: After editing the cities page now the population of the two cities looks bigger than their metros. I'm suggesting to change them. The source is official goverment statistics; http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=229
::That link doesnt work for me. Could you check the URL please? Jameswilson 23:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll look at that properly tomorrow. At first sight I'm not entirely happy with the whole-province definition. The "Köy" column on that page seems to imply there is still a large rural population in the province of Istanbul. Should we be including those? My Turkish is non-existent though. If you speak Turkish could you have a look at the official website of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and see what population/area that gives? Jameswilson 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istanbul and Ankara

message: A while back, someone posted a question about the copyright status of this list.  Please know that under the United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, factual lists can never be copyright-protected, so as long as we stick to the list (and not, say, editorial comments attached to the list), we can use whatever source we wish. --M@rēino 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (c) issues 

message: where is Rhine-Ruhr in this list? --LaWa 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is split by the UN into 3 separate urban areas: North (Essen-Duisburg), Middle (Dusseldorf-Wuppertal), and South (Koln-Bonn). --Polaron | Talk 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  germany: [[Rhine-Ruhr]] 

message: This list is crazy. How can you exclude San Jose from the Bay Area. It doesn't matter at all what the UN or the census beurogh says because this is just obvious. Just drive south on el camino real (a street not even a highway) and see for yourself. There would be not one person out of the million that live in San Jose that will say that they are not from the bay area. Thats a better source than this census crap. look at google earth or any sattelite image. This is so obvious. The only way to tell you going into a new city is city limit sign. Anyways this is is a huge bunch of crap and should be deleted. More that half of all the info here is incorrect. When has Bogota ever been bigger than Lima. Never ever. Both the cities are both hundreds of years old and not once has Bogota been bigger than Lima. But then on this list it says that it is. There needs to be some administrator here to just delete the page and block anyone else from making it again.
P.S. To all the people trying to make their cities look larger than they really are; its not always good to have a really big city. Try living in L.A.
Vivaperucarajo 07:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have an official source for Lima, please cite it and make the appropriate change. In the case of San Jose and San Francisco, both cities are strong employment centers and is why they are listed as separate metropolitan areas. The Bay Area is essentially a region composed of several metropolitan areas. These metropolitan areas do share commuters and is why there is a larger Combined Statistical Area. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that both San Francisco and San Jose are big enough employment centers to have their owen separate metropolitan areas. --Polaron | Talk 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that definition, though, Newark shouldn't be included in New York City because it has its own employment center, neither should Yokahama in Tokyo, etc. 68.96.161.229 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes into the little details of how the urban cores are delineated. The San Francisco and San Jose urban areas are separate because, while the urban areas do indeed touch, their total contact boundary is less than 3 miles and they were historically different metropolitan areas (Criterion III-A) making them eligible to be split. The situation is similar for Los Angeles and Riverside. See this for urban area criteria and this for urban area boundary maps. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Riverside/LA is not the same. When you drive on the 91 freeway to Riverside, you're not driving through an urban area. They don't touch. 64.60.81.2 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Additional note: for Newark, it is considered a separate employment core but since it does not satisfy the criteria for the urban areas to be split, it is counted as a metropolitan division within the MSA instead. --Polaron | Talk 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy 

message: Census Bureau aside, I think it's clear that the 5 million-plus residents of the Inland Empire should count toward Los Angeles' total metropolitan population. 68.96.161.229 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles and Inland Empire 

message: As we are in 2006, I suggest to change the list according to 2006 figures. We are one year behind at the moment, therefore far from real numbers. The UN page may be according to 2005 but we can take a look at official goverment websites for 2006 estimates for every city. --John9834 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not replying sooner -- was preoccupied with highway articles for a while. If there is a reliable source for 2006 population figures, then we should definitely use them. The problem is that we probably won't be able to get official 2006 figures for *every* city on this list. The UN list only has 2010 projections and nothing in between. I'm ok with updating only certain entries as long as it is clear that those entries are using a different year. --Polaron | Talk 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the list 

message: ::To Americans. The urban area definition (continuous built-up area) is not commonly used in the US where the main statistic has always been the metropolitan area (roughly equivalent to travel-to-work areas).
However the US Census Department has produced some figures using the urban definition on an experimental basis (see here (scroll down)). 
This is useful for comparison purposes if nothing else, because the figures given for European cities such as London, Madrid, etc are generally given on the urban area definition, so its interesting to see how big US cities are when caslculated on this much narrower definition (ie excluding a lot of commuter settlements). See here for the US metro figures. Jameswilson 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Americans 

message: I don't really understand this redirect. "Agglomeration", or unbroken urban growth, would be the equivalent of the urban area, not the metropolitan area that is an urban area with its commuter belt added. thepromenader 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN list is actually a list of urban agglomerations. Once we can make a reliable list of metropolitan areas then we can separate the two. Please help and change the figures here if you have authoritative references for metropolitan areas. --Polaron | Talk 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good lord, I would like to help but pure statistics is a bit out of my league. If I remember correctly, someone on one of the pages I am working on did suggest a source like the one you ask for - I will get back to you as soon as I find it. thepromenader 16:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from [[List of urban agglomerations by population]]? 

message: THIS IS ALL WRONG. sOURCES ARE OLD AND INNCORECT.
:If you know of an authoritative, reliable, recent source, please share it with us. --Polaron | Talk 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALL WRONG 

message: Where in the current source did the UN claim the list as "Metropolitan areas of the world"? It seems they never reffered to it in that way. I think thats the reason why the list is having so many problems. I just want to clear if the UN did indeed make an official defenition of what is a "metropolitan area", (not agglomeration not uraban population but "Metropolitan area"). Like what the IAU did where they make a clear defenition of what a Planet should be. If the UN did not make such a thing then we should follow each Individual countries defenition of thier own Metropolitan Defenition. It does not matter if they varied from each coutry to country as long they are the official defenition of that country. This measurement is no different when a country is defining what their cities should be.
:You are correct, the UN list is properly called a list of urban agglometations. We are trying to move away from strict adherence to the UN figures but we want to make sure each new figure is associated to an official definition. One difficulty seems that many countries do not have official definitions. If you are aware of official sources, please do share them. --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this page name is misleading. But I disagree we should take official statistics when they are clearly based on a different definition. The main purpose of this page is for international comparison, an international league table if you like, so we need above all else to have like-for-like figures based on a common definition. Jameswilson 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Important Question. 

message: The Office of Management and Budget in the U.S. defines metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) based on Census Bureau data. These are the closest there is to an official metropolitan area definition in the US. The current UN list uses urban area data for US cities. I am proposing to change all US cities to conform to the MSA (and not the larger CSA concept) definition. If there are no objections over the next few days, I'll begin changing figures. --Polaron | Talk 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CSAs are composed of multiple urban cores so are not the usual metropolitan area concept. Also, the OMB clearly states in their definitions that MSAs should not be compared to CSAs. We should minimize the tendency to boost metro area figures and use the most conservative values. --Polaron | Talk 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do object to using MSA's here! Create that list by all means, but not here, unless you want to abandon the UN format altogether and change London to 18 million, etc, etc. MSA's are based on administrative boundaries not the actual physical limits of the built-up area. Perhaps we really do need two separate lists. Jameswilson 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave the urban area data then. In any case, most official metro area definitions, where available, are built up using small administrative units (typically municipalities) or approximated by a province/region. The US building blocks (counties) are indeed somewhat large. --Polaron | Talk 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was a bit terse there but I really thought it would be a mistake. On a more general note though, I think we may be reaching the point where we need to split this page and create two lists (one on an MSA-style basis, and one on an urban area basis). Although I personally prefer the latter, there is I think a demand for the former (as someone pointed out yesterday(?)). People from America and elsewhere who are used to MSA's come to this page expecting to find that. Reasonably enough, given the title of the page and the fact that thats what they are used to. But it would be a lot of work to put together MSA-equivalent figures for all the European cities. Jameswilson 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I seem to be in a very negative mood tonight, but the LUZ figures seem a bit strange for the two countries I know best. The Spanish LUZ figures are all for whole provinces - eg Santander 537,000 equals the population of Cantabria. In Britain though the figures for Leicester and Worcester (756,000 and 278,000 respectively) are smaller than the counties of Leicestershire and Worcestershire. Presumably some of the more distant districts of those counties have been excluded. I suspect the different approaches may have had more to do with ease of calculation (Spain lacks a district level of local government between municipalities and provinces/counties) rather than any "demographic" reason. Also, the list of cities is not comprehensive. In Poland just about every provincial capital seems to be included, but in other countries quite large cities are missing altogether - why include Worcester when you dont have Nottingham or Stoke-on-Trent? They would be below our cut-off point anyway but it doesnt fill you with confidence. Unless maybe participation in this EU project was optional for local authorities? Anyway do keep trying - I'm sure you'll find a list I like in the end! Jameswilson 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all cities were included in the program. But I think all of the EU cities that would wind up in the Top 100 international list are there. I think that if the province is a reasonably good approximation, they do use that (e.g. Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Naples). For Paris, they use the Ile-de-France region. For Essen, they use the Ruhr Area. For the others (London, Athens, Milan, Hamburg, Berlin) they build up the area similar to how MSAs in the US are delineated. The project is an attempt to create comparable statistics for cities across the EU. I think it is still in the preliminary stage so that's why only selected cities were included. In the absence of official figures, this might be the next best thing. --Polaron | Talk 01:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This sums up our dilemma very nicely. You are used to the building-block approach, taking municipalities (or some lower-level administrative units) or census blocks and adding them up. 
But every time I see that approach I automatically get negative and assume those figures cant be what we want here because I am used to the other system. Taking an aerial, nowadays satellite, photo to determine land-use and drawing a red line on the photo around the edge of the built-up area.  Add up all the census-blocks (enumeration districts) which fall wholly within the line of course (for the sake of convenience), but where a census block doesnt correspond with the red line, and they hardly ever do, the red line takes priority and its a question of the statisticians wading through the original census returns house-by-house to work out how many people live within the red line. 
To you this probably sounds ridiculous but we are used to the idea that the "real shape" of a town is the urban footprint rather than the administrative boundary. (This ia probably because administrative boundaries are changed so frequently in Britain). For example all our road maps show even small towns as grey blobs corresponding to the shape of the built-up area on aerial/satellite photos, rather than showing coloured municipal/parish boundaries with a symbol in the middle for the town centre.
This is why I was hinting at splitting the list to reflect the different approaches. For example, I was playing around with some maps of Brazil and it is clear to me that the Brazilian conurbations on the list are done on your approach (adding whole municipalities even if they includes rural hamlets). So by my criteria all the Brazilian figures on this page are too high. The MSA, LUZ, Brazilian system is perfexctly valid of course; its just different. Jameswilson 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should definitely create a List of urban areas by population or something like it. But for this particular list (of metropolitan areas), I think the LUZ might be ok to use. Metro areas are generally larger than urban areas for cities with good transportation infrastructure so the figures here being larger than the urban area figures is not really a problem.
Do you know of a good, reliable reference for international urban area figures? Some countries do tabulate urban areas (including the US) but many do not. There must be some international organization that tracks urban areas. If you have a reference, then let's create that urban area list. --Polaron | Talk 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know of one single source that brings them together. It should be no problem in Europe has all the countries should have accessible lists on their respective national statistics sites. As you say, the US we have too. I'll have a hunt around but most lists seem to be a mixture of both definitions when you analyse them closely (as with the UN list itself in my Brazil example). 
LUZ's seem to be "economic zones" ("economic dominance" rather than commuter, travel-to-work, zones). The Santander example the LUZ covers an area of just over 5,000 km2. Does that seem right for a central city of 200,000? (Santander is a port, summer resort and financial centre which punches above its weight in terms of economic importance within Spain). 
You'll know better than me how closely that matches the MSA concept, but I would suspect the the LUZ areas, at any rate in Spain, might still too big even for your (metro) purposes. Specifically, it seems to me that if all Spanish cities participated in the project, most of Spain would end up falling into one or other of the LUZ's. The only "gaps" would be the (ten?) provinces which happen to lack a large capital. From the figures it is clear tha the Santander LUZ directly adjoins the Oviedo one. Is that justifiable on an MSA basis? I dont think the population density (about 80/km2) in Spain is high enough to justify including so much of the national territory. Large parts of rural Spain are quite empty really (to a Briton admittedly). The overall density is less than, say, Ohio. Is 80% of Ohio's territory included within one or other of the MSA's. How much is left out? Of course Spain is only one country. Other countries' LUZ's might work better. And as you say it might be more rliable for the larger cities. Jameswilson 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A good comparison to your Santander example might be Charleston SC. Its city proper is about 110,000 with an MSA population of 595,000 (in 2005). The land area of the MSA is about 6,710 km2. So the Santander LUZ is not unusual if viewed as an MSA. --Polaron | Talk 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, thats a good equivalent then. Jameswilson 02:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move all US cities to metropolitan statistical area definitions 

message: For reference:
City     	Definition                               	Population (2001)	Area (km²)
London   	Greater London + 42 surrounding districts	11.62 million    	8,920
Paris    	Ile-de-France                            	10.95 million    	12,080
Madrid   	Province                                 	5.37 million     	8,023
Essen    	Ruhr Area                                	5.36 million     	4,434
Berlin   	State + surrounding kreise               	4.94 million     	17,405
Barcelona	Province                                 	4.80 million     	7,755
Milan    	Province + surrounding municipalities    	3.90 million     	2,767
Athens   	including surrounding nomos              	3.89 million     	3,807
Rome     	Province                                 	3.70 million     	5,352
Hamburg  	State + 6 neighboring kreise             	3.08 million     	7,304
Naples   	Province                                 	3.06 million     	1,171
So why do we not move for the EU cities to the LUZ definition?  It is the only EU-harmonized defintion by a neutral agency (Eurostat) and accepted by all EU national statistics offices?  JGG 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Audit II LUZ figures 

message: The list seems to alternate between ranking by number of 100 areas and by total population of top 100 areas.  I'd think one should be decided upon?
Country	Number of top 100 metropolitan areas	Combined population
       	10                                  	56,455,000
       	9                                   	80,100,000
...    	...                                 	...
       	2                                   	17,341,000
       	4                                   	17,001,000
:As the table headers are currently, and without explict definition, the table with the distribution of metropolitan areas by country should contain exactly the same top 100 metropoplitan areas as the main table, just grouped according to country. As a first consistency check, there should be 100 entries in each and the total population should be the same for both. And there shoudl indeed be no entry for European Union. An alternative definition would, of course possible, but needs to be explicitly stated, and linked ot the sources. Until the current implicit definition is changed, entries and rankings can be checked and corrected. (I did this for Germany as it has only 2 areas in the main table and will do so for EU).Tikiwont 08:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution by country inconsitent ranking basis 

message: I'm planning to use figures that seem closer to what other lists of metropolitan areas use. The default would be the UN figures. The proposed exceptions are:
*U.S. cities -- Use data for metropolitan statistical areas. The top 5 cities won't change too much but some of the smaller ones would increase.
*EU cities -- Use data for Larger Urban Zones from the Eurostat Urban Audit II program. See stats in one of the sections above.
*Metropolitan planning regions for:
**Seoul (already implemented)
**Taipei (already implemented) 
**Johannesburg (currently uses city proper)
**Lima (currently uses province)
*Urban area data for:
**Moscow (currently uses city proper)
**Kuala Lumpur (currently uses city proper)
*Province data for:
**Istanbul (already implemented)
I think these are the ones that where people come in periodically and change the figures and where people have complained on the Talk page specifically about. I will begin changing figures in the next day or two so if there are additions/subtractions, please let me know. --Polaron | Talk 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed list update 

message: Perhaps what this list needs is definition. Maybe we should define a metropolitan area as the area with a minimum population density (ie: the area around Paris with at least 100 people per square mile). This might cause some confusion because some areas would be merged together (BosWash), but at least it would give the list some order. And I know there is at least one credible up-to-date source out there that lists it in this way. So if we accept this proposal, our next question is "what is the minimum population density that defines a metropolitan region?"
:That definition is closer to an urban area and is more appropriate for a List of urban areas by population. A metropolitan area typically includes adjacent non-urban territory that is socio-economically tied to the urban core. --Polaron | Talk 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Metropolitan Area definition

message: Hi,
there is a big mistake about Milan.
the Urban Area of Milan, the real city is of 4.280.000 people.
the sprawling, the Metro Area is of 7.400.000 of people, as was for the first time officialy calculated by OECD / OCSE just 3 days ago.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/62/37720067.pdf
OECD Territorial Reviews: Milan, Italy
"Milan is often identified as a prosperous region and an international capital of fashion and design. Once a successful industrial city located in the northern part of Italy, Milan has grown into the core of a wider industrial metropolitan region that is home to more than 7 million people. The OECD Territorial Review of Milan recognises that Milan’s historical skills endowment and its advantageous geographic location could underpin its ambition to become a southern European and Mediterranean capital. At the same time, the Review demonstrates that Milan displays disappointing international performances and seems to have lost part of its long-established drive..."
:To try and minimize the tendency to overestimate metro area sizes, the list uses the Eurostat Urban Audit II data for EU cities (which is a single urban core definition). Note that the official labor market region of Milan has a 2001 population of 2.98 million according to istat.it. See here. --Polaron | Talk 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milano  official Metro Area 24 November 2006: 7.4 Millions 

message: Perhaps this is a silly question, but is there any particular reason why the table (at least when I looked at it; November 28th in the evening in the Western US) has so many holes for the population density? I was going to go through and correct this, but decided to post this in the talk page first. 
Ixnayonthetimmay 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holes In The Table?