Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population
|
|
Someone keeps artifically moving up Korean areas and moving down Japanese areas. Tokyo is the largest Metropolitan area in the world, Seoul is fourth, I've been consistantly replacing the wrong version on this site with the corected and fairly accurate (as far as I could research) version. And this keeps being changed. Busan also continues to be moved up with someone just guessing numbers then editing the city page and its population. They removed Los Angeles from the list making the central city Anaheim at #9 (which should actually be at #8 but Busan has been moved up to #8 artifically), if you look at the http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html site, you can tell the numbers up there for a number of cities aren't even close to correct. It's quite frusturating when you try to get the best possible information, and someone for some reason beyond comprehension makes ridiculous edits to the information in place.
- That's where you're wrong. Although most people say that Tokyo has the largest metropolitan area in the world, most of them don't have exact information. Most of Tokyo's population records have been inflated due to errors in calcualting the exact population of Tokyo itself and neighboring cities, such as Yokohama. Seoul, on the other hand, has a larger metropolitan area since it itself has a population of 16 million (Seoul Metropolitan government sources say so) and neighboring cities like Incheon, Seongnam, and Gwacheon account for nearly 10 million more people.
- Busan has grown in recent years due to migrant workers from neighboring regions and the new satellite cities around it. Changwon, Ulsan, and Pohang, all major cities with huge populations, all depend on Busan becuase of its powerful industrial capacity and their closeness to Busan itself. Hope this explains the changes.
- What sources do you have that can indicate that Tokyo's metropolitan area is in fact inflated and that there are errors in calculation. Almost every viable source I've seen has Tokyo at over 30 million people. Also why do sources (like the one I listed above that was updated less than three months ago) state that Seoul has roughly only 22 million (with the anchor cities listed next to it). Do you have a viable source that can back up your totals? I sure couldn't find one when trying to look up your information. Also for what reason was Los Angeles removed. And I can't find ANYTHING to back up your Busan numbers at all. Also why did the initial change to Seoul list it at around 34 million, then bring it down to 27? So please provide sources (not one of the many clones / imitations of the wikipedia site which copy their data from this site and thus have your population estimates) for your numbers, an explanation of why your Busan and Seoul totals have changed between your own edits and finally an explanation for the Los Angeles removal incident.
- Sorry. The Los Angeles incident was a mistake. You can put it back, if you want. But according to Korean textbooks on city populations and Wikipedia, Seoul has a much larger estimate and Tokyo a lower one since even adding up Seoul Metropolitan Area's three cities (Seoul (16), Incheon (7.5), and Seongnam (3.75)) passes twenty million, while adding up all of the Greater Tokyo Area (Tokyo (12), Yokohama (3.5), Kawasaki (1), and Chiba (3.5)) comes up to only 20 million. And by the way, I didn't edit any of those pages. Check those articles if you want.
- According to the Japan Statistics Bureau (http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c02cont.htm) (very end of the page), the Tokyo Metropolitan Area — defined as the area within 50km of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Office — population was 30,724,000 in 2000. The more common definition (http://www.demographia.com/db-tok1920.htm), namely the total for Tokyo, Saitama, Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures, gives 33,413,000. Jpatokal 16:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This wasn't me (the original poster) who put up the Japanese stastistics but it looks like with an actual verifiable source Tokyo is larger. I think the stats need to be changed back until some sort of a veryfiable online source used to verify the Seoul and Busan numbers.
I've replaced the numbers placed by that weird guy and replaced them with the rankings and statistics according to your source above. By the way, I'm sorry for what I did to the various articles related to the cities mentioned here. I'll try harder to make a more factual Wikipedia from now on. Leonhart
Adding to my post above, I'm really curious about how Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto comes up to 16 million when Osaka has only 2.6, Kobe 1.5, and Kyoto 1.5, which comes up to only 5.6. I'll edit this article according to this sum, and I'll fix it if anyone can tell me more about this particular subject. In addition, I'll be moving up Busan a bit, since it's true that Busan's population has been downplayed quite a lot.
- You are, again, confusing the -shi (city) with -ken/fu (prefecture) listings. The Osaka metro area is much larger than the three "cities", because most of their suburbs fall outside the city limits; as an example, Osaka-shi (221.82kmē) had 2,635,172 people in 2002 while Osaka-fu (1,892.86kmē) racks up 8,815,757. Jpatokal 16:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This is the original poster here, I have a suspicion that the Osaka numbers have been modified down on the wikipedia pages for the areas in question. Check out this source for JUST Osaka http://www.ofix.or.jp/travel/intro/Population.html. That number DEFINITELY needs to go up as every source I've seen has the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto area at at least 15 million, so that's my best guess.
- Again, the Japan Statistics Bureau (http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c02cont.htm) (very end of page) gives Osaka metro's population as 16,567,000 in 2000. I've edited the article accordingly. Jpatokal 16:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Qingdao in China should be included (population 7.49 million according to Lonely Planet Guide: China (2002)) [User:Wolfgang Hofmeier] Oct 19, 2003
Anyone know how to make tables in Wikipedia?
- Yes, and they're hideous. Please don't make this list into a table. -- Tarquin
- It has already become a table, so we might as well add the HTML table elements Docu 14:23 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
the Rhine-Ruhr area is missing in the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine-Ruhr
Some of the numbers look too large, e.g.,:
- London, Great Britain 11,850,000
Any idea what this includes? --Anon
Seoul is now the largest metropolitan area in the world, if graded according to population. Incheon and Seongnam, which form part of the Seoul metorpolitan area, have populations that are up to nearly 5 million each. The other regions of the Seoul metropoiltan area form about a total of about 9~11 million people. Also, the Busan metropolitan area is severely underestimated, while Osaka is severely overestmated. The Busan m.a.'s real population is higher by 6 million, while Osaka's actual population is 7 million lower. The numbers and rankings have all been changed, so no need to fret now.
- Once again, where are your sources for this?
What the hell. "Los Angeles, USA 16,800,000 incl. Riverside, Anaheim"
- Riverside and Anaheim are not even part of the LA metro area, let alone part of the city of LA. It is completely ridiculous to include Riverside as part of LA - it ain't in any stretch of the word. Riverside, Anaheim, LA and all cities in between are in the metropolitan REGION called Southern California (which doesn't include the greater San Diego area and therefore has a population of about 12 million). This type of exaggeration goes for the other entries here. This page might be useful if its name were changed to list of largest metropolitan regions but the term "region" might be too vague. --mav
- Are you distinguishing "metro area" and "metropolitan region" in some way that I'm utterly unfamiliar with? Also I've never heard this usage of "metropolitan REGION called Southern California"; to this Southern California native the name applies to a wide area including San Diego and Riverside and lots of wide-open empty space as well as the metropoles. --Brion 07:18 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
- Just using the definition that I use at work. Come to think of it this is different than the common usage. Metro regions do have legal definitions. --mav
- Interesting. Got a cite for those of us not lucky enough to work for the state secret definitions department? ;) --Brion 07:27 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
- I'll have to dig it up. I think it is based on continuous urbanized areas. So in 20 years when the two urbanized areas merge then legal def will conform to the common one. Patience grasshopper. ;) --mav
- I think the numbers for LA are from http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html, which lists "agglomerations" defined as "a central city and neighboring communities linked to it by continuous built-up areas or by many commuters. Some agglomerations have more than one central city (e.g. "The Ruhr")." This definition seems the most logical to me in a "list of metropolitan areas by population." Because of the massive degree of interconnectedness between LA, Riverside, San Bernardino, etc... it simply makes little sense to distinguish between them as areas of population density. Certainly people in LA make distinctions between these places, but I don't think the purpose of this list is to map areas that correspond to local ideas. For example, the San Fernando Valley is largely in the city limits of Los Angeles, yet some would be more willing to include Santa Monica (which is not incorporated) as LA than The Valley. One could even argue that this definition makes sense, as Santa Monica is part of the Los Angeles Basin, whereas The Valley is not. But, whatever cultural and legal distinctions between them, we can say that there is a continuous urban region including downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley (and significantly more). San Diego, on the other hand, continues to be separate from LA, and so makes sense as a separate "metropolitan area." Southern California, as I understand that term, corresponds to LA San Diego, and a host of other areas. California is normally split up into "Northern California" and "Southern California" (with the possible exception of the Central Valley). Consequently, Southern California must include all of California not in Northern California (and vice versa). I believe the term for the metropolitan area with LA as its largest city is "The Southland" (check out the wiki reference to Los Angeles).--strider
- Exactly, the stastical area "The Southland" just uses Los Angeles as the base city, not everything that is part of the Southland is considered to be suburban Los Angeles. The same goes with an area like Baltimore/ DC which is essentially two central cities with a combined metropolitan population. Despite the fact that there is a large desert area between parts of it, the Southland numbers are correct. I woudln't necessarily associate "The Southland" and the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area as the same thing though.
I took this off a web site somewhere which was labeled 'Largest Cities of the World'. It was on the Internet, therefore it must be right! <j/k> User:oarias
- But the statistics are all wrong. Just compare the number given by the US Census 2000 (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt) and you will know: New York--21,199.365; Los Angeles--16,373,645; Chicago--9.157,540. I think we shall use more reliable sources of infomation. --formulax
- There are two problems, first off those numbers are almost five years old, the second problem is that this isn't supposed to be a list of official stastics but as the page says "rough estimates based on population changes and rates."
I think the title is a bit misleading. What is "largest"? Area or population? Apparently it is population. There could be a better title, like... List of cities by population or something like that. --Lorenzarius 15:40 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- I moved this to List of metropolitan areas by population. 1) is it more clear as you state above 2) This has never been a list of city population; for example; the population on San Francisco is 800,000 not 7,250,000 (Oakland, San Jose and the other Bay Area cities are their own cities). --mav
In the United States, a metropolitan area includes the entire county. In the case of Los Angeles, for example, it would include all of Los Angeles County, and, since Anaheim and Riverside are included, it also includes Orange and Riverside Counties. I would have thought it included San Bernardino County, too, but I guess not. San Francisco includes at least six counties -- San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin, and possibly Solano County. -- Zoe
I think we're confusing terms. The mega-city article seems to imply that a "mega-city" is a large city+suburbs, while megalopolis is a conglomerate of cities. Both kinds are on this list. What would be a term to encompass both? Zocky 01:10 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
This article has come along nicely, but there still should be at Largest cities of the world page. Such a list does exist, and such a list should occur on wikipedia. I'll make one soon when I have the time. Or someone else can create it. Kingturtle 06:37 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
Also, this page needs references, and dates. What dates do these numbers reflect? Where did these numbers come from? Kingturtle 06:38 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
Thirdly, wouldn't it be useful to number the entries? I think so. Kingturtle 06:51 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
Some of the figures for this page seem wildly off. It would be nice to have some sort of source for these figures. Quite frankly as it now stands it is useless. Mintguy 21:57 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm revising, and using ranges based on a variety of sources, but it's hopeless to get a solid definition of a metropolitan area. For example, the Tokyo metroplitan area is cited as low as 20 million (National Geographic, 1999) and as high as 35 million (various websites), depending on exactly how far out to surrounding cities you go. This changes the order as well -- by some counts Tokyo is the largest, by some Mexico City is the largest, and so on. A provision method is to find a range of semi-solid claims and take the midpoint for ranking. Results should be up within an hour or so (so if possible please nobody edit for a bit, to avoid tedious edit conflicts). --Delirium 02:48, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Why? The figures used before were based on a common deffinition. If you change them based on a variety of sources, we can't hope to have a list acurately ordered by population. - Efghij 04:33, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
- But the ones here were clearly wrong in a lot of cases as well. If you can find one reliable source, though, go ahead and use it. The census link in the references of this article is probably the best US source, but I don't know of anything comparable for worldwide populations, and sources vary drastically (for example, Khartoum ranges from "not on the top 100" (i.e. less than 2.5 million) to over 6 million, depending on who you consult. --Delirium 05:53, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
The Times World Atlas numbers seem pretty acurate (although limited in their deffinition of "Metro Area"). Is there any reason we can't use them? - Efghij 17:42, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
I updated the numbers and cities to Demographia's numbers. In addition, I am putting 50 more urban areas that Demographia has listed. WhisperToMe 21:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The two sources referenced are from the United States. Can we have these numbers confirmed or augmented by using a non-U.S. source? Kingturtle 22:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- How about http://www.megacities.uni-koeln.de. That appears to be a current research page based in Europe, for the International Geographical Union. -- Anon, 11:40, 4 March 2004
The list is completely flawed. A few example: - population of Chinese cities is completely overestimated - London 13 million people?!! That must include the whole of South East England. The figure is usually estimated by decent geographers at around 8 million. 13 million is just propaganda. Was the article written by an English person? - Moscow 15 million people?!!!!! This is even more absurd. Maybe using Soviet-hyped data? Real figure is more around 10 million
I understand the problem is to have a clear definition of what is a metropolitan area. If data from each national statistics institute are to be used, then the list will be meaningless, since each country have their own definition of what a metropolitan area is. The only criteria that is valid for geographers and that is recognized internationally (including the UN) is that of the "urban area". An urban area includes all the urbanized area around a city center where houses are not separated from each other by more than 200 meters. That's the officially accepted international definition. If town x is a satellite town of urban area y but is separated by, say, 1 mile of agricultural land from urban area y, then town x is not part of urban area y. If the closest house from town x is within 200 meters from the furthest suburb of urban area y, then town x is considered part of urban area y. This is a plain and simple criteria. The notion of "200 meters" can be debated, but so far it is the criteria that is recognized and used.
Now, if you want to find the exact data for all the urban areas of the world according to the 200 meters criteria, there's a research group at the University of Avignon in France which have spent the last 20 years compiling statistics data from all around the world to produce an harmonized list of all the urbanized areas of the world above 10,000 inhabitants. The list is harmonized for the year 2000, using the 200 meters criteria. They haven't trusted local governments figures, maps and administrative lines. They have used satellite pictures to determine where exactly are the limits of each urban area, and they have compiled the number of inhabitants within these limits. This is a remarquable work, but unfortunately only few data are online (mainly Western European countries). Maybe if we ask them they will allow us to publish a list of the major urban areas of the world ranked by population. Here is a link to the website for those interested: http://www.geo.univ-avignon.fr/Site%20Avignon/pages/labo/index%20geopolis.html Hardouin 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Since such a list doesn't exist in the public domain.... err.... we can't use it.
- I have problems with the "200 meters" rule. In the UK (and possibly in other countries) zoning laws create artificial gaps between the main city and its satellites, that, given no planning legislation, would not exist. Also, 200 metres is narrower than rivers, parks, railroad yards and stations, highways, etc.
- Well, talking of public domain, this webpage should not even exist, because data come from statistical offices, and are not public domain. So Wikipedia could not list any statistics, such as GDP, population, etc., which would be rather absurd.
- As for the 200 meters rule, well... somehow you need to have a rule, otherwise people would be free to put the limit of the city wherever they please, such as in China where the municipality of Chongqing extends for hundreds of kilometers and include more than 30 million inhabitants! Also, without the 200 meters rule, from Rotterdam to the Swiss border you would have ONE metropolitan area all along the Rhine river, and that would be the most populous urban area in the world. A bit absurd isn't it.
- Moreover, roads, railroad yards, rivers are not counted when using the 200 meters rule, so it is in fact 200 meters of either agricultural lands, forests, or badlands. I am not sure whether parks are counted or not.
- 193.82.16.42 15:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Houston 7.95 million??
Everyone (including wikipedia) claims Houston's population at about 5 million. Where in the world is this number coming from?
- The U.S. census recorded Houston's Metro Area is 5 million. The source used in this article isn't the U.S. census and defines its metro area differently. :\ WhisperToMe 22:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there is a way to define houston and get that extra 3 million people. I'm pretty sure this is simply an error. strider
From http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312mfips.txt:
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 48015 Austin County, TX 48039 Brazoria County, TX 48071 Chambers County, TX 48157 Fort Bend County, TX 48167 Galveston County, TX 48201 Harris County, TX 48291 Liberty County, TX 48339 Montgomery County, TX 48407 San Jacinto County, TX 48473 Waller County, TX
That's the census bureau's official definition of the Houston metro area. I don't know what the total population of those counties is. RickK 04:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Actual dates from some cities
- Madrid, Spain. In 2003: Madrid city: 3,092,759. Madrid metropolitan area: 5,603,285 (98% of Madrid Province's population).
- Barcelona, Spain. In 2003: Barcelona city: 1,582,738. Barcelona metropolitan area: 4,667,136 (92% of Barcelona Province's population).
- Paris, France. In 2003: 11,354,000
- Santiago, Chile. In 2002: 6,061,185
- Beijing, China. In 2003: 13,820,000
- Tianjin, China, In 2001: 10,040,000
- Lagos, Nigeria. In 2000: 13,400,000
Blank space
Why is there so much blank space above the table? RickK 07:15, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Updated Figures
The updated population figures I added are 2005 estimates, most based on 2000 census' and growth rates. The source (http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=1118288079&men=gcis&lng=en&gln=xx&dat=32&srt=pnan&col=aohdq&pt=a&va=x) measures agglomerations, which are based more on a geographic, rather than political data.
- You should be aware that the vast majority of countries do not define or calculate metropolitan areas. The figures at World Gazetteer that you have copied in the article have been calculated by the person who created the World Gazetteer website, i.e. he is the one who decided what was the limits of metropolitan areas, therefore these data are not official at all, and great care should be exercized before copying them. I have perused inside the website, and it appears many data are correct (i.e. comparable to other credible sources that I have seen before), but some data appear wrong. For instance, Tokyo 36.5 million, or Rhein-Ruhr 11.8 million appear exagerated. More serious data put Tokyo closer to 30 million, and Rhein-Ruhr closer to 10 million. Hardouin 10:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that the term "metropolitan area" is ambiguous complicates the issue. What source would you contend is more reliable in defining the extent of these populations?