Talk:Conurbation

message: Urban conurbation isn't silly. I've seen the terms 'urban conurbation' and 'rural conurbation' both used. Mintguy
:Does the San Francisco Bay Area qualify as a conurbation? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
::I find it strange that the New York Metropolitan Area (and perhaps even the Washington, New York, Boston Urban Corridor) are not included in the examples.  --WikiMartin 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Locals would know such things better than people half a world away. Conurbs seem to ne an unavoidable outcome of the automobile culture. I suspect that there are hundreds, of different syles. Alex Law 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: This list is getting outta hand. It's turning into a "List of every City Ever, Some of Which may be Conurbations or not but Who Cares". - Randwicked Alex B 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuked it. - Randwicked Alex B 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. As part of my personal crusade to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged for no apparent reason, this article has been disenstubified. If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than add actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "disenstubified" -- I love it! I think that "Disenstubify" belongs in the Wiktionary.  SFFrog (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-stubbed 

message: This seems rather unencyclopedic - like an environmentalist's manifesto.  If this is to be included, there should be info on why conurbations form and why people seem to like living in them.  Algr (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are a couple references, but the whole thing seems rather one-sided to me.  It refers to environmental and social concerns without addressing much else, then segues into a sort of semi-Marxist class warfare analysis that seems awfully speculative to me.  Fedallah (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a tag to this section, and to the article as a whole.  The whole thing is unreferenced, partial, and generally unencyclopedic.  It reads like a student essay, and a pretty poor one at that. If I remember to do so I'll have a go at improving it at some future date, but hopefully someone else better qualified will get in before I do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section strikes me as one-sided, political, unsupported by references, and probably containing inaccuracies and maybe even nonsense. For example, the writer whines about the loss of land and habitat for animals as people build habitat for humans in conurbations. But the alternative of building those same human habitats farther away from urban areas would still consume as much land or more with similar effects. I'd be in favor of deleting the entire section if it is not improved soon. (It has already been tagged about two months but maybe that is not quite long enough.) 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support 72.208.61.246 on this - I have again deleted the text as it is wholly biased and POV.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Term Concerns

message: Some examples cited in the article are not conurbations, but agglomerations. Conurbations don't evolve around a single city, but around multiple centers and bedroom communities don't count as centers. As such, London, Los Angeles and Brisbane have to go. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "have to go" is too strong - we should get a consensus first.  I don't know about LA and Brisbane - you may be right in one sense about London, but there are other major centres within the built-up area (e.g. Croydon), and it is defined in official statistics as a conurbation (I'll need to find a reference for that).  The whole article could do with a fundamental rewrite, but there are always going to be problems about people wanting to include or exclude their pet areas.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: South East Queensland is in a sense a conurbation of the cities of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, as they started distinct cities and merged through suburban sprawl. The other municipalities listed are just suburban areas that have always been subordinate to Brisbane. In the meantime I'll rewrite that section to clarify. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually maybe I won't, as it's not the best example and would be better deleted. The large "example" lists these articles tend to accumulate should be discouraged. It would be best to have just one or two "classic" examples for illustration. The Ruhr Area comes to mind as the granddaddy of conurbations. - Aucitypops (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, LA might be considered a conurbation, but the LA metro area isn't several medium-sized cities that have grown towards each other, but one big city that absorbed lots of smaller towns. Same with London. If we could consider London a conurbation (regardless what official statistics state - there is an expert definition of a conurbation not subject to local changes), then we could consider any megapolis with a few bedroom communities and edge cities a conurbation. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the definition is very clear. BTW, I was wrong about Brisbane, its metro area really is a conurbation and Aucitypops, Ruhr is indeed the best example. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: I propose merging with Metropolitan area.  The distinction that is sought does not exist.  Look, for example at the Dallas metropolitan area (sometimes called the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area.  Look at Los Angeles.  Look at the Midland-Odessa "metroplex". Look even the Albuquerque metropolitan area which subsumes Rio Rancho and Bernaillo in Sandoval County. --70.57.246.220 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. The two concepts are distinct.  The characteristic of a conurbation (an internationally recognised geographical descriptive term) is the physical spreading together of originally different built-up areas.  The characteristic of a "metropolitan area" (as I understand it, primarily a North American term) is a "zone of influence" over areas not necessarily physically contiguous, and/or an administrative area.  All the examples cited in the proposal are in the U.S., which has a number of unique features which do not apply elsewhere, e.g. in Europe.  Although there is obviously some overlap, the two concepts are distinct and require separate articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  I agree with Ghmyrtle.  Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. I'd oppose since I've found different definitions for a conurbation, but the current does not differentiate it in any way from a metro area. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The keyword in the definition is polycentric. Metropolitan areas aren't necesarily polycentric. Conurbations are a specific type of agglomeration, and not equivalent to the concept of 'metropolitan area', which is based on labour markets, etc., not on physical connectedness. - Aucitypops (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Support.  I've never heard the term conurbation before today in my 58 years. I don't see a need for it. I live in the Denver-metro area. Who here lives in a conurbation?71.218.228.204 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: i live in a conurbation. The New York State Capital District is fully polycentric where the cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy have their own separate urban centers and Albany doesn't quite dominate Schenectady or Troy 160.72.94.4 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: It shows in the wrong section, don't know why, but it's kind of weird like this. Junuxx (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British conurbations table 

message: In order to clarify what is being proposed above in terms of merging, I thought perhaps proposing a lead section might be helpful.
: A conurbation, also known as a metropolitan area or urban agglomeration, is a large area of closely tied communities and municpalities typically anchored by a one or a few major cities. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines a conurbation simply as a "predominantly urban region including adjacent towns and suburbs; a metropolitan area". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an extended urban area, typically consisting of several towns merging with the suburbs of a central city". Such regions may be legal entities established by central or provincial governments (e.g. Greater London), or may simply be unofficial groupings with varying degrees of recognition by the governments and the communities (e.g. the London commuter belt or the New York metropolitan area).
:The term conurbation, coined in 1915 by Patrick Geddes in his book Cities In Evolution, emphasizes the growth of neighboring cities until they form a region of unbroken urban development even though they remain separate municipalities. In some contexts, particularly in Europe, the term may explicitly exclude neighboring communities where urban development is not continuous (e.g. the Greater London Conurbation is distinct from the London commuter belt because of the green belt). In others, however, the term may be used to refer to much larger regions containing significant areas with minimal development (e.g. the New York-Boston conurbation cited by Geddes himself). The term metropolitan area is predominantly a North American term that tends to emphasize economic connections between neighboring communities more than continuous urban development. In some contexts, though, metropolitan area refers to a dense urban core at the center of a conurbation. Agglomeration is generally the most generic term and can be applied to any large grouping of nearby communities that are seen as being tied in some important way.
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed lead

message: I have put forward a proposal wrt to articles discussing conurbations/metro areas/agglomerations in Wikiproject Cities and am seeking feedback. It is tangential to the above discussion but I figure that those of you that had an interest in this issue probably have opinions on the proposal. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be of wider interest.  I have notified one group - WT:UKGEO - but there are other Wikiprojects elsewhere who may well wish to comment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Proposal you may be interested in 

message: I think we really need to expand the Canadian part of this article.  It still isn't any longer than the American part is.--Antigrandiose (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Horseshoe  

message: Why isn't China part of this? It's urban sprawl is continuing inland. I was surprised it was not included in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.33.86 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  China? 

message: *Never trusted this article. And just checked one of its claims in Google maps, the Vienna-Bratislava conurbation, which does not exist. Are pretty well separated, although neibourhing cities, and in the middle there are pretty well separated villages. Other claims are pretty much not that different. in the other way around, conurbation must be something different from what I understand as conurbation or this article is just crap. So sorry... --Pedro (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Very unreliable article

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Conurbation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "SC2011":
From Vancouver: 
From Greater Montreal: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Conurbation]] 

message: The British data is taken from urban areas, not conurbations. The British statistics are there for underestimated compared to Japan for example. It is serously ridicilous that Japan has Taiheiyō Belt mealopolis (not conurbation) with 82.9 million people, while London (Greater London Urban Area) has only about 10 million people. This list needs much more unified criteria! Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: The third paragraph of this article is a complete mess. Can someone please get to grips with it? Argovian (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd paragraph a total mess 

message: Can somemone explain why I find references to the name Liverpool Manchester conurbation from the University of Manchester here: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:89997, and in this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and in this book on Metropolitan Governence and Spatial Planning here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and we have no entries for it or any UK conurbation it lists Urban area's?--Navops47 (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Liverpool Manchester conurbation 

message: Why are these here--Navops47 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Where is mexico here? 
It belongs to north america, doesn't it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.198.41.246 (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico? 

message: Greetings! I've just concluded some copyediting on this article, along with a few, albeit minor, adjustments to the layout. I wish to proceed to remove the flag in the "See also" section. I suspect editors have, over time, addressed this issue and although the article could still do with some improvement, I'm of the opinion that the template can now be safely done away with. If there is anyone who thinks otherwise, kindly let me know. - BroVic (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with the layout of the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conurbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924002318/http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf to http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901061446/http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/ to http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505213723/http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf to http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is bloated with what is effectively a poorly structure list of cherry-picked urban areas that do not aid understanding of the subject. The list section fails most of the Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts. A better list of conurbations exists at List of urban areas by population. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg and rework needed 

message: I've started a discussion at Metropolitan area#What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?. No sharp distinction possible, it seems to me, and definitely not based on titles chosen by the settlements themselves. Arminden (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This, (mega)city, metropolitan area,... 

message: I am not sure whether the Chinese megalopolises Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, and Jingjinji should be considered conurbations or not. Dmdogs900 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  China megalopolis