Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: <font color="green">Not Good Enough</font>

message: U.S. and Canadian definitions for urban areas and metropolitan areas:
*Canadian urban areas
*Canadian CMAs (specific delineation rules)
*U.S. urban areas - Delineation rules begin on page 5 of the pdf file.
*U.S. MSAs - Delineation rules begin on page 9 of the pdf file (Section D). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Update data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lagos

message: 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)
thread_title:  Karachi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  THIS ARTICLE HAS TOO MANY COMPLAINTS I SUGGEST THAT WE JUST TAKE IT OFF. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-14 List of metropolitan areas by population]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  London 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chennai (India) 

message: 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)
replies: text: No particular reason. No one has just updated the figures :) --Polaron | Talk 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. MSA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Osaka

message: 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)
thread_title: Berlin

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  update 

message: 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 millionhttp://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/delhi.aspx (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, Washingtonhttp://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/delhi.aspx.
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. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 09:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Delhi]] 

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

message: 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 (9000 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Mexico City 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please don't edit the list, unless ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  London 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page name (possible move?) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The area of Karachi 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aglomerations and Modern Technology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  largest population not largest 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hong Kong / Shenzhen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cairo