Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ankara

Should not be on this list. It is simply not in Europe. It is not politically in Europe, it is not geographically in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Winslow (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and it's also questionable whether Istanbul should have its entire population represented rather than just those on the European side. Europe is not some socio-economic construct that is open to interpretation, it is a preceisely defined geographical entity. Ankara and the eastern part of Istanbul are simply not in that geographical entity by any definition I know of.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably, Istanbul should not be on the list. The fact is that some of the city is actually in Asia, should disqualify it from entry. Afterall this is a list about cities entirely situated in Europe, not a list of cities partially in Europe and Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.65 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Athens

Athens is missing.

you are correct that Athens is a major city (3-4 mio) but this is a list of the city proper, only the administrative part of the city, and so Athens in this list would contain 664,046 within its administrative limits and a land area of 39 km2 (15 sq mi). Lactasamir (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the arbitrariness of the definition of "city proper" and "urban" and "metropolitan" areas, and the fact that they are quite different concepts in different countries, and since Athens has an urban and metropolitan population of over 3 million, it should be included Non credo (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Istanbul

Note that Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan are not in Europe and should be removed. Armenia has no land that falls within Europe. If these are going to be included, then all of Anatolia would have to be included as well (including Ankara, Izmir, Bursa, etc). Non credo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They are all recognized as European states by Council of Europe and the European Union. So is Turkey.[1][2] 178.155.238.96 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the remaining cities in Turkey should be included in the list. (As listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Turkey) However, I would disagree: this Wikipedia page is entitled "Largest cities in Europe" and not "Largest cities in the Council of Europe or the European Union". Europe as a geographical definition ends at the Caucasus, and consequently Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan are not part of it. Non credo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They are part of Europe and recognized as that by the Council of Europe and the European Union and many other institutions. furthermore they are all members of all European sport associations like football, Wrestling, Weightlifting and boxing and so on.

They are also members of major European culturel events as the Eurovision song contest.

You say that this is not a list of "Largest cities in the Council of Europe or the European Union" well you are right, it is not a list of personel views either, when large international institutions and sport associations reconize these countries as part of Europe, then that is what we need to reconize.

Regarding the other large cities in Turkey maybe they should be on the list, the reason for Istanbul is that the city was founded on the European side 2600 years ago and it has always been a European city, and even today more than 9 mio people lives on the European side in the city. The urban area on the Anatolian side where not Istanbul, but a town called Chrysopolis (today Uskudar) and only later recognized as a suburb.

But as i say maybe Ankara and the other cities should be on the list if more people on this talk page agress, but for now i don't see the need for it. Lactasamir (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, if that is the view then fine. But for consistency, the definition of Europe used here should be stated clearly in the beginning, and Anatolian cities in Turkey should be included as well. Non credo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus region, according to the many sources, is part of Europe. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg also is not in Europe but in the Asian part of Russia. And Stambul is only half in Europe, so only the European side should be taken into account for this list.--83.32.84.197 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg is located on the border of Europe and Asia, and therefore are welcome on the list. Lactasamir (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ankara, Baku etc. are not situated in the geographical Europe... Council of Europe, UEFA etc. don't matter: they are not based on geography, but on politics. Would you consider Vladivostok, on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, a European city? Would you consider Cayenne, in French Guyana in South America, a European city? Israel is a member of UEFA, so would you consider Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to be European cities? If Istanbul is included in the list, it should be included only based on the population of the city's European side. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with removing Ankara, this city is entirely located in Anatolia, but the other cities are recognized by all parameters as European cities, and all of Istanbul is a European city, fact! And regarding that the views of Council of Europe and UEFA do not matters, then you are wrong, personal views on the other hand do not matters. Lactasamir (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. The borders of geographic Europe are generally considered to be these: "A commonly accepted division between Asia and Europe ... is formed by the Ural Mountains, Ural River, Caspian Sea, Caucasus Mountains, and the Black Sea with its outlets, the Bosporus and Dardanelles." (National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th ed.). Washington, DC: National Geographic. 1999. ISBN 0-7922-7528-4. "Europe" (pp. 68–9)). This is a neutral definition from a respected source, not related to political organisations, based on pure geopgraphy. That is also the definition used in the Wikipedia article Europe (see map), and since this article is related to it, this article should use that definition as well. That definition is the most common one. Note that according to that definition the boundary is in the Caucasus mountains, while Baku, Yerevan and Tbilisi are all situated south of them. Thus your assertion that they are situated in Europe by "all parameters" is false. Their inclusion is merely your personal view. Membership in the Council of Europe or UEFA is not based on geography and membership in those organisations is not a testimony of belonging to geographical Europe any more than EU membership is. As noted, French Guayana is an integral part of France and thus of the Council of Europe, but would you say that its capital is a European city? USA is also an observer member of the Council. (Belarus, on the other hand, is not a member of the Council of Europe, yet it is situated in Europe.) Israel is a full member of UEFA, so would you include Jerusalem in this list of European cities? All these organisations were founded in the 20th century, so are you claiming that Europe didn't exist before that? And regarding Istanbul: you say that it is a European city in its entirety, but the officials of the city disagree with you. On the official English language website of the city Istanbul is described thusly: "The Western part of the city is in Europe, and the Eastern is in Asia." And if you're fine with removing Ankara, then why did you restore it? In conclusion, the title of the article is related to Europe as a geographical concept. If you want to create an article titled "Largest cities in the Council of Europe" or "Largest cities in UEFA", you are welcome to do so, but this article is not either of them. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jaakko Sivonen. This is about geographical Europe, not random organizations. What next, include Casablanca since Morocco participated in the Eurovision song contest? --Jmk (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Istanbul, I would include it due to its European part. If the European part of the city is big enough to be included in the list, I don't quite see why having some more population on the Asian side would suddenly make the city ineligible. --Jmk (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not me that put Ankara on the list in the first place, so the person who put it on the list can remove it, I simple just reverted the article. And regarding this discussion we will not reach a common understanding, sadly. But to dispute the neutrality of the article are simple just wrong. Turkey and the three Caucasus states are recognized as being located in Europe and so they are on this list. have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your first sentence, see WP:OWN: no single person owns the article or any individual parts of it. Everyone has a right to edit. You say that the cities in question "are recognized" as being located in Europe, but I have provided proof to the contrary. If you decline to respond to my arguments in detail, I will restore the version of article that respects the geopgraphic boundaries of Europe. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend :) do not start a edit war, if you read all comments on the talk page you will find the answer you are looking for. but as you can see in the article for Caucasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus you can see that the Caucasus states are located both in Europe and Asia, so they belong on the list. These states and cities are also on other Wikipedia articles regarding Europe, see below.

List of metropolitan areas in Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe

Largest urban areas of the European Union as Non EFTA Countries - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union

Regions of Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Europe

Eastern Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe

So these cities are on other Wikipedia list of Europe, so they are also on this article. You can always find sources placing them in Western Asia, but these states are transcontinental and belongs also in Europe. I have nothing more to say. Lactasamir (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"These states are transcontinental and belongs also in Europe". This argument is fundamentally off the point, since it is not the states, but the cities that are being discussed here. Russia is transcontinental yet nobody argues that Vladivostok is in Europe. — In general, if a source says that country X has an European part and an Asian part, it does not mean that the cities in its Asian part are suddenly in Europe (or vice versa). For example, you cite Eastern Europe. The first map there, File:Europe subregion map UN geoschme.svg concerning UN statistical regions, quite explicitly divides the transcontinental countries into two parts: for example "Countries of Western Asia with partial territory in Eastern Europe: Georgia and Azerbaijan" and "Asian portions of these countries". Tbilisi and Baku, located south of the Caucasus Mountains, are clearly in that latter part in the map. So, just as an example, this particular map lends no support to placing Tbilisi and Baku in Europe. Furthermore, the article never even mentions Tbilisi and Baku, so I find it rather odd to cite it here. --Jmk (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Caucasus as a geo-political area and the Caucasus as a geographical mountain range. The Caucasus article only says that the geo-political area is located "at the border of Europe and Asia". This is because the mountain range is usually considered to be the boundary between Europe and Asia (see the sources I have previously provided). While Chechnya, Dagestan etc. are located on the northern side of the mountains, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia are located south of the mountains. This is reflected in the map used in the article Europe. The Eastern Europe article only says that the Caucasus states are "sometimes" included in Eastern Europe - "sometimes" is not the same as "usually", and the article includes this map based on UN sources. That map does not include the three transcaucasian states in Eastern Europe. While the map recognizes that the northernmost small portions of Azerbaijan and Georgia may be included, the capitals of those countries are not located in the said portions. In a similar fashion the CIA World Factbook uses this division of European sub-regions, and leaves the transcaucasian states out of it. The most important other Wikipedia article is the article "Europe", since this article's title is directly associated with it. And from this map you can see the prevailing definition of geopgraphic Europe used in Wikipedia. Regarding your last statement, Wikipedia policy demands discussion if the reverting of a version is called into question. Since you have now said that you do not intend to engage in further discussion and since you have declined to answer many of my arguments and questions, I have for my part fulfilled the expectation of proper procedure, and I can thus proceed to edit the article again. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus, but the list must stay as it is :) Lactasamir (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to include Ankara, Baku etc. in the first place. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think after this discussion we may safely remove Ankara, Baku et cetera. Would you consider keeping Istanbul however? I don't see why a city would have to be "entirely" within Europe in order to be listed here. — Concerning Yekaterinburg I'm a bit confused. The city article says it is "on the eastern side of the Ural Mountains" which would place it completely on the Asian side under the conventional definition. Any insights on this? --Jmk (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul is a different case than Ankara or Baku. After all, the city (Byzantion/Constantinople/Istanbul) was originally situated entirely on the European side, and only later expanded into the Asian side. But its rank on the list is affected depending on if count only the European side or not. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rank it according to the European side population (if it is known to reasonable accuracy), then add a note about the total city population. --Jmk (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here the city's European side population is mentioned to be 8,963,431 in 2011. The source is said to be this official statistic. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

All of Istanbul population belongs on the list, it is one Metropolitan municipality and not two. Lactasamir (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources speak for itself. Baku - Yerevan - Tbilisi are on the other European list, and therefore also here. have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The list stay as it is, there are no consensus to remove the Caucacus cities, and off course Istanbul belongs on the list. Lactasamir (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Stating one's opinion is one thing and providing arguments for it is another. Above you have clearly said that you are not interested in discussing the issue. And there wasn't a consensus to include Ankara, Baku etc. in the first place. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are twisting my words, you are claiming that I am are not interested in discussing the issue, well what are doing here then? we are discussing the issue, all I am saying is that there are none consensus to remove the cities from the article, and we can continue to discuss this, but we will not reach a agreement, so lets stop it here, and lets be friends :) if more users of Wikipedia see a need for a change, then the discussion can continue on a later point. Have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Jaakko Sivonen was referring to your statement: "I have nothing more to say", which very much looks like an end of discussion. --Jmk (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus to include all-Asian cities, I have removed them. I left Istanbul as is, in the first position, but it could be changed to second place if we cite the European part population. --Jmk (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no consensus to remove these cities from the list. Lactasamir (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you can just keep reverting the removal even though you do not provide arguments that would support the inclusion? Besides, calling a good-faith edit "vandalism" is not very nice from you. --Jmk (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend :) I am always nice. Read all the sources. Lactasamir (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who has refused to answer to arguments backed by sources. You can't just keep edit-warring without discussion. Stating your opinion without proper arguments and disregarding other users' points and questions is not real discussion. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources :) and all the other articles where these cities are included into Europe, as seen above. Lactasamir (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, they're not very strong ones. UEFA includes some non-European countries for political and financial reasons. The Eurovision song contest is for countries in the European Broadcasting Union, which, despite the name, includes several countries outside what's commonly considered to be Europe. Israel regularly take part, Morocco entered in the past and Tunisia and Lebanon entered then made last minute withdrawals, while Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Algeria are all eligible to participate but haven't done so. (The Arabic speaking countries usually avoid the contest because they don't want to show the Israeli entry.) Istanbul should be included, as it's mostly in Europe but I think the best solution here would be to omit Baku, Yerevan and Tblisi, certainly from the table. If better sources estabishing that some institutions consider them European can be found, then a note in the text giving their population and ambiguous status would be sufficient. Valenciano (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If better sources estabishing that some institutions consider them European can be found, then a note in the text giving their population and ambiguous status would be sufficient.

I think you are right Valenciano, these large international institutions consider the three Caucasus states (and Turkey) as being part of Europe.

• Unesco World Heritage Site Europe and North America - http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?search=&search_by_country=&type=&videos=&region=1&order

• UN The UN refugee Agency UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48d2e6.html

• WHO World Health Organization WHO Europe - http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries

• Assembly of European Regions (AER) - http://www.aer.eu/what-is-aer/members-and-partners/member-regions.html

• European Youth Parliament - http://www.eypej.org/page.3.819.Contact-National-EYP.html Lactasamir (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Those organisations don't base their actions on geography any more than the Eurovision Song Contest does. Did you notice that the WHO list includes Kyrgyztan and Tajikistan among others? And you still consider it a good source for geography? This Wikipedia article concerns itself with geographical Europe, not political institutions like the EU or the CoE etc. Besides, the UN geoscheme excludes the South Caucasus from the definition of Europe (map). When dealing with geography, sources that deal with pure geography instead of politics are the best. Anatolia has never been considered a part of the geograchical Europe. All those organisations you have listed now and previously were founded in the 20th century, so I repeat my earlier question, which you haven't answered: do you think Europe didn't exist before the 20th century? If you admit that the concept of Europe existed before the 20th century, you cannot possibly consider 20th century political or cultural organisations to be the highest authority on the defition of a very old geographical concept. Also, tell me whether you consider Vladivostok to be a European city or not. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the problem that those lists are not purely geographical, they also are fundamentally off the point since they are about countries, not cities. For example, the Unesco World Heritage Site has a region called "Europe and North America", which contains all of Russia. It is obvious for practical reasons that such an organization may want to operate with whole countries, instead of splitting them, thus the regional boundaries are only practical approximations (at best; or arbitrary constructs, at worst). If we took the regions at face value, we would have to conclude that Lake Baikal and Volcanoes of Kamchatka are in Europe. I do not believe such conclusion would be generally accepted. If you feel otherwise, please say so and state your reasons. --Jmk (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, if we took the WHO regions as an authority about geographical areas, then Morocco, Iran and Pakistan are in the Eastern Mediterranean: [3]; while Mongolia is in the Western Pacific. I think this clearly demonstrates that these regions have absolutely no informational value for the subject at hand. --Jmk (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

These institutions are valid sources, if they include These countries into Europe, they should be on the list. Based on geography or politics, it does not matter, what matter is they include them to Europe. Maybe as a as a compromise we should not base the list on geography, but on countries recognized as being located fully or partly in Europe, besides that, the article do not at any point say that this list is based on geography. So as a compromise this should be a list of countries recognized as being located fully or partly in Europe. Lactasamir (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "compromise" does not mean that you get all you want, especially since you're going against the consensus here. And "the article does not say" is not a valid argument, since you keep reverting the article. The article should be based on geography because the article's name is "Largest cities in Europe", not "Largest cities in organisation X". As stated, you are welcome to create new articles for other purposes, but you can't change the nature of this article. That would be comparable to rewriting the article "Europe" based on the assumption that EU and Europe were the same thing. "Being located in Europe" is what geography deals with. Political and cultural organisations don't get to decide, where the geographic boundary of Europe is; they don't always abide by geographical boundaries, as we have shown you. Rather they stretch the boundaries for conveniency or for cultural reasons. And as stated, we're not talking about countries but about cities. Again, do you think Vladivostok (Russia is CoE member), Jerusalem (Israel is UEFA member), Casablanca (Morocco is EBU member) or Bishkek (Kyrgyztan is listed on that WHO/Europe list you linked to) are European cities? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"... this should be a list of countries ..." Are you seriously suggesting that an article entitled Largest cities in Europe should be a list of countries? I am baffled. --Jmk (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Again twisting my words, if the countries are recognized as being European, then the cities are located in recognized European states. If you do not recognize these institutions, then what? You do not recognized international institutions, and you do not want to compromise. they are recognized as being European states by these institutions,

• UN The UN refugee Agency UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

• WHO World Health Organization

• Assembly of European Regions

• European Youth Parliament

• European Union

• council of europe

And many more, and still you will not accept it. Lactasamir (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you please answer Jaakko Sivonen's question: Do you think Vladivostok, Jerusalem, Casablanca and Bishkek are European cities? Is there a reason why you are refraining from answering this? --Jmk (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lactasamir doesn't appear willing to answer. He is deliberately avoiding respoding to arguments and questions. I suppose he know's he can't win the argument. He is just recycling the same old statements, which have already been proven to be untenable. Political and cultural organisations don't have anything to do with geography, as proven by the example above. Lactasamir is discussing entirely beside the point: he keeps listing sources, but none of them are related to geography, which is supposed to be the basis of this article ("Largest cities in Europe"; again, not "Largest cities in organisation X"). We have provided sources related directly to geography, but Lactasamir has decided to ignore them entirely. Reading both the new discussion and the older messages, it is clear that both the arguments and the consensus of users is against Lactasamir's stance. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much compromise building as long as Lactasamir refuses to discuss the relevance and extent of the "sources". Note that none of the sources provided by Lactasamir is directly relevant to the question of Largest cities in Europe, nor do they even claim so. They do not discuss cities, nor lists of cities. While they are certainly valid sources for what they do contain (such as "what countries are members of the Eurovision"), they are pretty much irrelevant here, or at best, their possible relevance would have to be established by discussion. But that discussion is going nowhere as long as Lactasamir refuses to discuss it. — For what it's worth, it is easy to find sources that directly address the issue at hand, namely lists of cities in Europe, such as [4] (which never mentions Tbilisi, Baku or Yerevan). I am not claiming that this particular source is definitive or official, merely pointing out that there exist sources directly relevant, so it is not necessary to perform original research as Lactasamir seems to attempt. --Jmk (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise I have now included a note that various cities such as Vladivostok and Casablanca could be included if one did not list "cities in Europe" but "cities in countries partly in Europe" or "cities in countries that are members of an Euro organization". Such cities clearly do not belong to the main list since they are not uncontroversially "cities in Europe". --Jmk (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus region (including Baku, Tbilisi & Yerevan), according to the part (not all) of geographic sources (not to mention political, cultural), is part of Europe - it is enough. There is no one version of the borders of Europe and Asia. You can make a note in the article that many sources shows these cities in Asia. Istanbul according to the all standard sources lies in Europe, eventually also in Asia, so - Instanbul must to be in this article. Rest of cities of Turkey (i.e. Ankara) should be removed from the article. Subtropical-man (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to cite those sources? FWIW CIA Factbook says Armenia is fully in Southwestern Asia, Azerbaijan mostly there but "with a small European portion" (Baku is not in that portion), and Georgia likewise mostly in Southwestern Asia with a very small European portion (Tbilisi is not in that portion) though it "views itself part of Europe". --Jmk (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to decide for ourselves. The many sources all offer different ideas of what Europe really is even discounting a geographical or political and cultural viewpoint. Most of us would recognise Cyprus as being European, after all it's in the EU, yet none of it is considered part of geographical Europe. Similarly, Turkey has a greater claim to being European because of its small portion considered part of geographical Europe. Yet cultural differences and racism mean many in the EU don't consider it as European. And Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan could be said to be culturally European even if only a small portion is geographically European. Same, maybe, for Kazakhstan. Russian is truly bi-continental. And then what about Spanish enclaves in Morocco or parts of France in the Caribbean and South America? At least Britain's possessions in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, the Atlantic, Pacific, etc. aren't considered as integral parts of the UK unlike those in Spain, France and the Netherlands. I think we should consider Europe for this article as being the normal European countries (all those in the EU and what everybody always consider to be Europe) along with Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the European part of Russia. No Israel, Morocco, Kazakhstan and no far-eastern parts of Russia like Vladivostok. No Antilles, St. Martin, etc.. But, again, that's just my opinion.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lactasamir (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I Ask for semi-protection for this article, a unregistered user continous to vandalism this article claiming Turkish propaganda and That Istanbul (Turkey) And Armenia - Georgia - Azerbaijan in the Caucasus region are not a part of Europe. These countries are all recognized states As European by the European Union and they are all members of the Council of Europe, "The Council of Europe is an international organization promoting co-operation between all countries of Europe in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation".

Furthermore Turkey are a candidate country to join the EU, see Accession of Turkey to the European Union. So there are no reason not to in include these countries to Europe, they are also on all other articles recarding Europe in wikipedia. Lactasamir (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Japan is a Candidate into the Council of Europe. So according to your logic, once Japan joins it, it becomes European? I'm sorry but the Council of Europe are just some unelected bureaucrats, who can make arbitrary decisions, regardless whether the population it affects wants it or not.

In 1957, even Algeria was part of the EEC, the predecessor to the EU. Again, just something like that does not make a country European. Politics should not be a consideration whether some place is part of Europe or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.204 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to the above unfounded and incorrect allegations. My suggestions are for the improvement of the quality and consistency of this page, and I am including my comments in this Talk page, and am not vandalising the actual page. I am saying: 1) state explicitly the definition of Europe that you are using, and 2) include Anatolian Turkish cities if you are going to include all Council of Europe countries. Non credo (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Turkey is NOT considered "European" by the EU, and as for the "Council of Europe", it is NOT the EU. There's a distinct difference between the two. This article should contain cities that are within the EU, the actual definition of Europe, or as one previous poster said, why not include Sydney and NYC. Spouting this kind of inaccuracy is a nonsense and backed with no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.75.70 (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"This article should contain cities that are within the EU"?? what?? so you are saying that Island-Norway-Switzerland-Monaco-Andorra-Liechtenstein-San Marino-Vatican State-Ukraine-Belarus- most of ex Yugoslavia-Albania-Russia-Moldova and so on, should not be on this list because it is not Europe? The European union are not all of Europe, far from it. more than 230 million people lives outside the EU in Europe. and we all know that the EU and the Council of Europe are not the same! and yes Turkey are considered European by the EU, why do you think Turkey are a candidate country to join? Lactasamir (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it is not your contributions :) but another user who constantly claims "Turkish propaganda" and posting incorrect information without source, and that is not a way to behave on Wikipedia.

Again regarding the other large cities of Turkey i think more people on this talk page should agree before we add them. Lactasamir (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If Ankara is included, then Sydney, Montreal, Toronto, New York, Sao Paul, Buenos Aires etc. should be included as they are also "European" cities, even much more than Ankara (which culture is Central Asian)--83.32.84.197 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Culturally, Historically, and Ethnically, Turkey and Turkish people have nothing to do with Europe. Anyone who has ever picked up a history book shall clearly see, that during history, Turkey's goals was to end Europe and it's culture. I see it as rather unwise to claim that's something which should make Turkey belong to Europe. The Turkish language, customs, culture are very different from any European country, whereas it has many similarities to Middle Eastern countries, which is where Turkey actually belongs. If Turkish cities are included, then we may was well extend Europe's definition all the way to Afghanistan or something, because at this point there is no meaning to the definition of Europe anymore. As far as I recall, the opinion of the general populace has never been asked regards Turkey, and just because a few people at the Council of Europe say Turkey is Europe it doesn't make it so. It is their opinion, but is not some legally binding law that you must consider Turkey European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.204 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend :) with that kind of logic I can not help you. read the text before the article.

Turkey is recognized as a European country by all parameters, and Istanbul, are now, and have always been a European city. Lactasamir (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi to you too buddy :) Before I reply to your response, I must beforehand tell you that by no means do I want to offend you, or the country of Turkey, or Turkish people. I have read the text, and this makes this article a source that loses credibility, if it includes literal nonsense. Istanbul has ceased being a European city the very moment it has lost it's native European populace (i.e. the Byzantines are extinct, and as far as I'm aware, Turkic languages and ethnicities are NOT European by nature, therefore there is nothing left in Istanbul that connects it to Europe), and has been replaces with Asians. Turkey, by no "parameters" is a European country. While Constantinople has been a European city, the population that now occupies that place is a new civilization living in the ruins/remnants of an extinct civilization. I seriously advise you to go and pick up some History books, and also perhaps some books about linguistics and culture, and hopefully that will reveal to you, why Turkey has nothing to do with Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.204 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul

Istanbul is recognized as being European and Asian. 2/3 of the people are in the European bit. That means that of the 13.9 million, 9.3 million are in Europe. That would make it the second largest city in Europe. It should definitely be on the list! Wallie (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point, folk, I agree with this. The article conteradicts itself saying "The list includes cities geographically situated in Europe, using the conventional definition of its boundaries.", but at the same time includes the Asia Minor's 5 million Istanbullers who affect the order of the cities and make Istanbul the largest city in Europe. It is in fact the second largest in Euope geographically.--Evropariver (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this page for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you my friend :) and lets stop this edit war. Lactasamir (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one, who's been edit warring against consensus, even to 3RR level. Wikipedia's page protection policy does not consider, which is the correct version. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

While the article is being protected, I would now like to see arguments one way or the other. "Read the sources" is not an argument if the sources do not contain what is claimed; "the list stays as it is" is not an argument either. — For the record, I checked what Encyclopaedia Britannica, article Europe says: The eastward limits now adopted by most geographers exclude the Caucasus region and encompass a small portion of Kazakhstan... Further in the Caucasus article: The watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the backbone of the system, traditionally has been part of the line dividing Europe and Asia; but the whole region is so subject to Asian influences that there is now general agreement on assigning the Caucasus to Asia. — As seen in a map, Tbilisi is well south of the Greater Caucasus, thus clearly in Asia even under the "traditional" definition. What next, "read the sources" again perhaps? --Jmk (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg

If Yekaterinburg is to be added, I would like to see first some good sources that clearly place it in Europe. As I understand the city is on the eastern side of the mountains. Sources that say it is "on the border" are no good. I can cite sources that say San Diego and Tijuana are both "on the border" (of USA and Mexico) yet clearly San Diego is not in Mexico and Tijuana is not in USA. --Jmk (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1. USA and Mexico is countries with clear boundaries, there are not continental unclear boundaries
2. San Diego lies at the border with Mexico (in USA), Tijuana lies at the border with USA (in Mexico), these concepts are different from "on the border of Europe and Asia".
3. Also, there is another city on the border of Europe and Asia - Istanbul, give an example USA or Mexico - this is nonsense. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul is irrelevant here since a large part of it is uncontroversially on the European side of the strait. What part of Yekaterinburg are you saying is on the European side of the mountains? Please be specific. --Jmk (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"What part of Yekaterinburg..." - 1% or 80%, it does not matter. If even a tiny part lies in Europe, should be on list of cities in Europe. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"If". Well, is there such a part? Please cite a source and be specific. --Jmk (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A little late, I know, but the Yekaterinburg article is quite clear in its lead-in stating that it's in both continents.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? Can you be more specific? I find nothing "quite clear" to that effect. The lead-in just says vaguely that the city is "on the border of Europe and Asia", which may well mean just that it is on one side of the border. It says nothing about containing any area on the "other side of the border". — Now if you have a reputable source Yekaterinburg containing such an European part, please cite it. Thanks. --Jmk (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancyra

Why ancyra is not in the list? 95.114.83.114 (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Because Anatolia (i.e. Asia Minor) is not Europe. Read the previous discussion. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Move

I think this article should be moved to List of largest cities in Europe by population as per the names of similar lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.43.214 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Countries that are politically part of Europe

I added Ankara, Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan and other cities to a separate list under a new section as I don't think it's fair to exclude cities of countries whose borders lie within the political boundaries of Europe. There's no harm in adding them at all. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:BRD it is the original version that has to stay, not the changed one.

Now my objections:

• A list article like this one contains a list, not a collection of lists.
• The scope of this list is very well defined: it is Europe in its geographical boundaries, and this is explicitly mentioned in the introduction. The "political boundaries" of Europe are POV, and this is the reason why here in the past there have been so many edit wars. If you need to create a new list, (something like "Largest Cities in the countries belonging to the Council of Europe") feel free to do that, but please don't change this article.
• This is a list about the largest cities, so many of the cities that you added are not entitled to stay in the list, since they are too small.
• Valletta and Reykjavik are definitely in Europe (the first is capital of a state - Malta - in the EU and in the Eurozone) so they should stay in the first list (but they cannot, since they are too small). Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, BRD policy dictates that any version can be reverted and discussed on the talk page. When members fail to discuss their reverts on the talk page, they have automatically conceded this formality to whoever follows the policy properly. There's no such thing as an "original" version on Wikipedia.

Secondly, this article can contain either a list or multiple lists. There's nothing in any Wikipedia guideline that wouldn't permit this article to have more than one list.

Thirdly, the criterion of this article has not been clearly defined, which is exactly why edit wars have occurred in the past. The political boundaries of Europe aren't a "POV" anymore than the geographic boundaries of Europe are. As a case in point, you mistakenly think that the island nations of Iceland and Malta are part of the traditional definitions of geographic Europe, which they are not.

Lastly, most of the cities I added can easily find their way to the top of the first table, so your last argument is non sequitur. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, BRD says that in case of discussion one should revert to the last stable version. From BRD page:

Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). 

So you are going against BRD, not me. About the lists, you are right, I checked now, my fault. The geographical boundaries of Europe are uniquely defined, since Geography is a science. It is your task to find reliable geographical source that say that Malta and Iceland does not belong to Europe geographically. The last objection does not make any sense. Anyway, you should look for consensus about your edits, not me, since you are going against established consensus (see talk page above). Alex2006 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going against anything. Had you reverted the article and discussed it on the talk page, I wouldn't have restored the article to my version. Instead, you ignored BRD formalities so I took it upon myself to apply them first. In this case, I started the discussion after reverting your changes to the previous version. That's how it's done. You can read the BRD page in detail in your spare time and see for yourself.
Anyway, going back to the matter in hand, the geographic boundaries of Europe aren't agreed upon either. Yes, geography is a science but science isn't black-and-white. It's not my task to find a source that says Iceland and Malta aren't in geographic Europe at all. Even in the Wikipedia article on Europe, you will clearly see that the traditional geographic extent of Europe only covered the pensinular landmass of western Eurasia. The islands are obviously excluded. Malta has been considered part of North Africa for more than six hundred years, in case you didn't know. Anyway, that's not the point of the discussion. You cant revert an article version just because you didn't like it. You have to provide arguments as to why you're against adding the aforementioned cities until a consensus can be reached. I've made my rebuttals and stated that those cities belong to countries that are politically part of Europe. The political boundaries of Europe include island countries such as Cyprus and Iceland, as well as countries at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, such as Turkey, the Caucasus states and Russia. The list I added to the article is in a separate section and does not affect the first list at all. If anything, my additions to the article are a form of compromise for all the edit wars that have been ongoing in this article for the last two years. By having two lists, everyone is happy and edit wars can finally be put to rest. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, you went against a consensus clearly established some months ago. Please read the talk page above. Alex2006 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't. No consensus has been established, which explains my contributions to the article as no compromise has been reached even though others have called for a compromise before. Anyway, let's stick to the matter in hand. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nadia, you refer repeatedly to WP:BRD here on talk and in edit summaries, but you're misconstruing it, as several people have been telling you. The onus was clearly on you to hold off reverting when your WP:bold edit was reverted, and of taking it to talk to try to gain consensus. Let me lay it out for you:

BRD "nutshell": Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.

More fully further down:

Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.

You've been edit warring to enforce your opinion about "Europe" and your misreading of WP:BRD. Please revert yourself, and don't reinsert your edit until you've gained consensus for it. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I cant revert now, otherwise I'll be breaking the limit. Someone else has to do it. Well that's how I understood BRD. Anyway, I stand corrected, but I still believe my contribution will prevent future edit wars from happening. Also, I fixed other things in the first list as well, so it sucks that something that took me more than an hour to edit gets reverted in a matter of seconds. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR and you will find that a self-revert doesn't count as edit warring; on the contrary, it's a positive thing, in case you were edit warring before. It "subtracts" your latest revert. Do it yourself and get brownie points. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

OK, I see you already did. Good. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Just leaving a comment to say that I agree with Alex. The arguments have been repeated several times on this talk page. This article deals with geographical Europe. There are other articles for political definitions, like Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. If someone wants to create a new article on the largest cities in the Council of Europe, I'm sure they can do that. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Istanbul, why only the population beyond the fictitious border?

You must take Istanbul as a whole, I dont really see countries like Turkey and Russia divided into two continental populations when they are listed under "Largest countries in Europe". --85.99.139.188 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

But only 2/3 of Istanbul population is in Europe. The city itself in transcontinental. This needs lots more thought and discussion. If the article is limited to 'cities in europe geographically' then some decision needs to be made about Istanbul as a transcontinental city. And the bosphoros is a long established border, and quite clear in the landscape. At the very minimum, its peculiar status needs to be noted in the article to avoid confusion. 103.1.7.171 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Athens Population

The population of Athens is not 4 million, it is 789,166. The Larger Urban Zone is 4 million, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research, should be sourced or deleted.

Wikipedia used to have some sourced lists of largest cities, but they seem to have given way to fictional "lists" based only on individual users' WP:OR and WP:POV. It's really quite simple: whenever there's a list, there has to be a source. In this list, there is none. Where is the source that says, for example, that Madrof is the 6th largest city in Europe, Budapest the 14th largest or Belgrade the 24th largest? It appears that what people have done in this article is to take the population of different cities from different sources, and then put together a list. That is WP:OR through and through, as it's individual users, not any source, who make the list and claim a given city has a given ranking. Ideally, a source satisfying WP:RS should be found. If not, the article needs to be deleted. So called "Lists" entirely made up by Wikipedia users have no place here. Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First - there is nowhere POV. Second - every article about the cities have the same problem, not only articles of Europe/EU, lists of cities in any countries is also the same rank. Thirdly, just change word of "Rank" to name of "No" or leave the field blank. The term of "rank" suggests that something is the greatest or 60th, word of "No" or the field blank instead "rank" it will just list. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

POV in the sense that as long as it's not based on a source, anyone can change the list to inflate their city. And that other some other articles have the same problem is a moot point (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). So I repeat my question, which source is this list based on? As long as we present it as a list in order of population figures, there has to be a source for it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article used to build on Eurostat, that would satisfy the requirements for a list. Is there any reason not to use it?Jeppiz (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1. "POV in the sense that as long as it's not based on a source, anyone can change the list to inflate their city" - totally nonsense. According to your theory all articles without a source (automatically) can violate the principle of NPOV because if there are no sources, anyone can change for their own benefit. But, no one in Wikipedia do not treat in this way, if there no sources, in Wikipedia use templates of Unreferenced or fact, never Original research or POV.
2. Most other articles (list of largest cities) have the same problem - this is fact. Please do not take some essays. The problem needs to be solved in discussion about the whole problem, not just the cities of Europe - should be based on neutral point of view (not oppress or favor one continent).
3. Source of Eurostat is dead link from some time and does not show that the city is at what rank (largest or 60th or ...). In addition, the source have a 11 years old and is out of date. The data by Eurostat from 2004 are outdated. Subtropical-man talk
   (en-2) 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• So to summarize, you're saying that there is no source for the article and no source could be found. In that case, the article should be deleted.Jeppiz (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  No, in article there are sources. As regards the numbering of cities, I remove word of "rank". Now, officially this article (list) show cities are sorted by number of population. Sorting data alphabetically or by number is consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the list needs one source, too. And of course other lists, such as List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits.

1. I checked the first 5 cities: Istanbul ref missing; Moscow data is from Nov 2013 not Dec 2014; London mid 2012 not 2013; Sant Pet. uses refs from various years but none from Dec 2014; Berlin ref is not working. I checked some others -> similar.
2. From the history page you can see that editors change the numbers as they will without citing/changing sources. That is not "simply Unreferenced"; elsewhere when you change a sourced info, you vandalize the article and get reverted.
3. You never get accurate list when you use sources from different years (2010-2015).

BTW As for "officially this article (list) show cities are sorted by number of population" - this is very nice, ha ha, but not helpful. Let's rename it to List of cities sorted by number of population, as written down by various users, then. But this discussion is not constructive anyway. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because problem relates Wikipedia in general, not just the article. But thousands of users do not see anything wrong, such lists (ie. concern cities in countries, continents or even world) exist for many years, so. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

Hello! I wanted to explain why I denied the request for semi-protection of this article. What I see here from the IP was not vandalism; it was a mistaken but good-faith belief that the material they were adding was correct. So I did what none of the rest of you have done: I went to the IP's talk page and explained why their attempt to add Athens to the list was incorrect. It's a simple misunderstanding: they were using the metropolitan area population, rather than the city-limit population. Hopefully they will now understand. Up to now their edits have been simply reverted, without explanation, or with edit summaries claiming vandalism or demanding a reliable source. Try communicating next time - and maybe a little bit of WP:DONTBITE. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work. He had a dynamic IP so he probably didn't see my note. I'll semiprotect now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know on what definition is based the definition "Largest cities in Europe". For one thing I am certain, for "Europe", the Asian part of Istanbul is not part of Europe, by including it, it makes a contradiction and violation of the definition of boundaries of Europe. As for "cities" this may include many defintions. A city can be defined as a conditionally contiguous urban area, without regard to territorial or other boundaries inside an urban area. A city can be defined by the habits of its demographic population, as by metropolitan area, labour market area, or similar in a metropolitan area. A city can be defined by its administrative boundaries (city proper), anyway there are administrative borders of official metropolitan areas. There are not any articles for the largest metropolitan and urban areas in Europe(besides for European Union and a list of metro areas in Europe). I suggest listing the populations of any official agglomerations here, for example this of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (14.3 million) and of Moscow metropolitan area(19.4 million), as long as a city can be defined threeway. Excluding unofficial agglomerations of course.--Evropariver (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hello folks. Would anybody evidence that the whole Istanbul or Asia Minor is located in Europe? --Evropariver (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually the whole Istanbul is considered to be European in the same way as the British Isles are considered to be European. Lists don't separate its population into two parts, so you doing so constitues WP:Original research which is not encouraged in Wikipedia's guideline. The definition of "Europe" is mostly cultural and political. If we go purely by geography then Eurasia has no precise division lines to mark the borders of Asia and Europe entirely. The Ural Mountains and the Caucasus are not a precise geographic division because nothing separates them into Asian and European parts. Khestwol (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I understamnd your point, you think that Europe is a ficitonal and cultural division just because not like other continets the official division is by mountains from some sides not by water. However, this has an explanation. Europe is purely a geograpphical definition not culturtal. On East it could be divided by Don-Volga river-Arhangelsk border(purely and only by water), see this expalins it very good: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/09/geography-in-the-news-eurasias-boundaries/ . The devision of continets through water is the scientific definition, however the Russians and more accurately Peter I extended their domestic official definitions for the cotnint Europe to the mountains Caucasus and Ural, based on the king's own point of view to include some geogrpahically Asian areas into Europe. On the same way now you are trying to include Asia Minor in Europe and Europe will less look like a continent that way. But it is a continent and this what the article is about, about the geogrpahic scientific definition of Europe as it claims. Now the article contradicts itself, saying that follows the geographic borders of Europe and shows the map, but at the same time includes Asia Minor. Euope is a geogrpahic, not a cultural definition. The scientific defintion of the border is through these rivers Don and Volga, but on the plates in Russia officialy it is said "Welcome to Europe or Asia" when you cross the Ural mountains. There is such a welcoming plate on the Istanbul bridge to, on more thing that shows the OFFICIAL views - just this makes the part of Istanbul, east of the Bosphorus in Asia, officially and according to the majority views. Europe is a geogrpahic conception as any other continent it is divided by waters and has a minor piece of land that connects it with Asia, but Africa also used to be connected with Asia before the people made the Suet canal and the two Americas before the Panama canal. So what - we should include all citie shere located in Afroeurasia? Europe and all other continets are not like islands but resemble peninsulas. Today and whenever continents have been used as a geogrpahic defintion for the purpose of mapping the Earth and travellling, that is geogrpahy not culture. When you study geogrpahy, the first thing you study are the continets. When you study culture, the continets and their borders especially are really off-topic. According to all definitions of Europe throughout history, Asia Minor and the Asian part of Istanbul have ever been in Asia. this has not changed so far. I thought it would be simple to understand with this cite dividing which population of Istanbul is Asian and which Euopean, this link calculates the official population of the European and the Asian part of Istanbul as of December, 2013: http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/tr-TR/0-Istanbul-Tanitim/konum/Pages/Nufus_ve_Demografik_Yapi.aspx --Evropariver (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have locked the article for 24 hours since the two of you were getting into an edit war. Both of you had done 2 reversions in the past 24 hours; additional reversions could have gotten you blocked, and I would rather prevent that. In fact you have been engaged in a slow-motion edit war over the past two weeks. Please work out your differences about Istanbul here on the talk page. I will ask for advice at some related Wikiprojects. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings all. I usually only work on US Cities, but a request was made for comments regarding this dispute, so I thought I'd take a look at it. First, as another user requested back in 2014, the name of this article should really be List of most populous cities in Europe" or something to that effect, since it is a list, and it about the most populous, which is a more specific term than "largest", which can also refer to area. Second, to the admin, it might be beneficial for someone to group all the various discussions regarding this into one "mega-discussion", since it seems to keep coming up.

Now, having got those two things off my chest, on to the discussion. This is a very unusual circumstance, and might be unique. Other cities which straddle a continental divide (e.g. Yekaterinburg) have some wiggle room in the exact boundary. Istanbul, on the other hand, has a clear delineation point, the Bosporus Strait, which is clearly the boundary between the two continents. Both sides have arguments in their favor. On the one side, why not count all of the population for Istanbul, since it is a single, distinct city (unlike East and West Berlin, before reunification). However, it is the uniqueness of Istanbul, straddling the continents which argues against this. The difference between European and Asian is a purely geographical one, not racial or ethnic. To me, it would be disingenuous to ascribe the portion of Istanbul's population which is in Asia to the European total. Istanbul should be listed on the most populous lists of both continents, with the apportioned amounts given in each case. That would be like attributing the population of Nogales, Arizona, to Nogales, Sonora. I know the argument will be that the difference there is that those two North American cities are separated by hard political boundary. But that's exactly the point. Two sections of Istanbul have a hard boundary. And you can't count population which exists in Asia, as part of the total population of the European section of the city. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In List of European countries by population and List of European countries by area etc. we are not excluding the "Asian" parts of countries like Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), etc. So we should also not exclude the Asian part in this list for Istanbul either. Khestwol (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. Basically, the question is also how to interpret the title. Do we read this as "largest in Europe" meaning A. "population inside the boundaries of Europe", or B. as "largest population of cities that are basically European"? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:onel5969 makes a very good point about the title of this article; it really should be "list of..." and I will move it after we get the current dispute resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. For WP:CONSISTENCY with other similar titles the title of this article should be "List of most populous European cities". Khestwol (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, and extremely cogent point, Khestwol, regarding articles which deal with similar issues. And, quite frankly, an argument I was unaware of prior to you bringing it up. I guess my response is that those articles should most likely be altered as well. However, I went to List of European countries by area, and that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The list is by order of the largest area, and uses ONLY the area in Europe by which to place them in order. Then there is a note about their total area. This list should follow suit. The order should be by European population, with a note regarding total population. I think the List of European countries by population should also be changed to more accurately reflect the actual situation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment This now involves multiple articles so I will make this discussion into a Request for Comment. First I will move this page to "List of European cities by population" to make it comparable to the "countries" articles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe? MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Current practice:

• This article, List of European cities by population, has used the population of the entire city until recently, but that practice has been challenged with regard to Istanbul.
• The article List of European countries by area counts only the European portion of the country.
• The article List of European countries by population counts the entire country.

Please see the discussion "Istanbul" immediately above this RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start things off with a brief rehash of my position on the above referenced talk page. Only the portion of the entity which is in the continent should be counted for that continent, and the order in the list should be by that number, with a mention of the total in a "notes" column. As is done in the List of European countries by area article. It seems disingenuous to count the population which is in Asia as part of the European portion of the city (or vice versa). European Istanbul is the 2nd largest city in Europe. And not to open a can of worms (all right, pass me the can opener), this should also extend to List of Asian countries by population. How is Turkey ranked the 3rd most populous nation in Europe, when (I believe) the majority of its population doesn't live in Europe? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: That "list of Asian countries by population" is a bigger can of worms than you think. I deliberately didn't mention it here, because it seems to simply OMIT countries which overlap the continents. How can you have a list of Asian countries which does not include Russia?? --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet it does include Turkey. Go figure. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's using a similar methodology to the one I'm proposing, although less specific. They exclude countries where the majority of the population is not in Asia (Russia), and they include countries where the population is mostly in Asia (Turkey). I think that it's a small step to make an alteration to countries like Turkey's number, and then include the Asian portion of Russia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• In counting populations, when most of the city/country is in Europe then I strongly suggest to count the entire population, including the smaller portion which is in Asia. We are doing this already at List of European countries by population, and we had been doing this in this article about cities until a recent disruption by a user. Interestingly, in List of European countries by population we have currently countries like Armenia and Cyprus which have no portion in Europe (considering that the dividing line between Asia and Europe passes through the northern edges of Georgia and Azerbaijan as shown in this map, leaving the entire Armenia in Asia, but making both Georgia and Azerbaijan transcontinental). I think we should remove Armenia and Cyprus as these countries have no portion in Europe. Khestwol (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Armenia and Cyprus should be removed. But my emphasis is on making Wikipedia more accurate. And it's more accurate to report continental populations which actually exist on that continent, in a similar fashion as does the area list deal with area. Is the current method incorrect? No. Is it accurate? Again, no. To do it like the area list is simply more accurate. And then I think the List of European countries by population should also be changed.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with User:onel5969's logic that we shouldn't lump all the asiatic population of Istanbul into the European population, but I also see the risk in splitting the population, which could be misleading to readers. Would it be possible to split the box or put some kind of asterisk there, to say for example, "Population in Geographical Europe, X,XXX,XXX, out of Total Population X,XXX,XXX"? I notice this has already been done with the pop-up box 'a' next to the Istanbul entry, but perhaps this distinction could be made more clearly in the list? So to answer the OP's question - why not both, in the spirit of accuracy? Whether or not to dethrone Istanbul from the top spot for Moscow should be the reader's decision, not ours to decide. OT, a lot of these numbers appear to include urban agglomerations, which goes against the article's stated parameter that only pops within city limits are to be included. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alt lys er svunnet hen - Did you take a look at List of European countries by area? Would some format like that, except for population work for you? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes! I should have looked at that first. I do like how that page deals with the issue. However I also see that the table for this page (population) already has a 'notes' section which is looking quite squished and unreadable, as it is. I have almost no knowledge of table formatting, but would it be possible to fix the "notes" without detracting from the rest of the table? I like how there are pics for each city, but the other boxes seem to be taking up more than their fair share of space. Anyway, yes I do think we should try to emulate the 'area' article in this matter. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting the table column widths is usually simple, so that wouldn't be an issue. The two populations columns could be shrunk, and the notes column could be doubled (or more) in width. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Better yet, we can simply put the notes into a footnote, as I did with the London note, and then we don't even need a "notes" column. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I object to the idea of giving only the European population of Istanbul. The title of the article is "list of European cities by population", not "list of cities by European population". "European Istanbul" and "Asian Istanbul" are not two different cities: there is only one city, Istanbul. The question is whether Istanbul is "European" or not. Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Cobblet has already said everything I wanted to say. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• The most useful solution, the most informative for the reader, is to include the whole population figure, and provide a note to explain any breakdown or other caveat. This provides the pedants among us, ie us, with the info to craft statements such as "Moscow is the largest city entirely within continental Europe". This approach allows including places like Melilla with a note "Melilla is Spanish but not actually in Europe" (following the Armenia precedent in List of European countries by population). Batternut (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As per the map Armenia (notice its purple color) has no part in Europe; including it will also mean including Anatolia, therefore all of Istanbul, and Ankara etc in Europe. Khestwol (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official population?

Just above the table, there reads: The cities are sorted by the column labelled Official population.
However, the table does not have column with that text. So, which column was meant? 82.141.95.48 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Brussels

In 2015, the municipality of Brussels had 175,534 inhabitants. Using the population of the entire Brussels Region is an error. This has been mentioned before; see Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits. — 37 ^(talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

A Russian user from Moscow has changed the list to make Moscow the largest city. No explanation was given, and it seems to be a case of socking as well. Any reversion by the same user or a sock of theirs will go to ANI. BRD calls for discussion, not explained and repeated nationalist POV-pushing. Jeppiz (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I made changes because the ranking of cities is misleading. I have read the discussion above and agree with the opinion that only the European part of Istanbul should be considered as relevant in the ranking because the article deals with Europe, not Asia. I have provided references to support my position. These references have been ignored by the user Jeppiz who have been undoing my edits and deleting references a number of times.Denghu (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion above was "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant", but your edits did not show the full population. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC

• Maybe restoring my edits and indicating Istanbul's entire population while ranking it second in accordance with the population of its European part would be accurate?Denghu (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps something like that, though the result might be confusing. Perhaps you could demonstrate it somewhere? Batternut (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if colour-coding as used at List of European countries by population might help? Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz: I did find Jeppiz's revert comment somewhat inflammatory, and not very informative. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I also find Jeppiz's revert comment somewhat unfriendly, yet I am more insterested in improving the accuracy of the article so that my edits are not targeted. I would go for colour-coding but would also resume the discussion concernting splitting the population of transcontinental cities because some users might ignore the colour and remain unaware of the geographical borders of Europe and whether or not they are relevant in the ranking.Denghu (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

I would like to resume discussion whether or not the population of transcontinental cities should be taken into consideration in the ranking of cities in this article. My argument is that the title says "European cities" and there are conventional borders of Europe. Therefore the ranking should be based only on the population of the European part of transcontinental cities because the article does not mention Asia or Africa. This approach would make the data in this article more reliable and accurate. Colour coding would also be helpful, however it is not enough. Denghu (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think a wider discussion is worth-while, as it relates to more articles than just this one perhaps it could be worth raising at one of the interested wikiprojects - WP:EUROPE or WP:WPLISTS...? Batternut (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I start a discussion there? I am new to this.Denghu (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice on opening RFC's is at WP:RFC, and on challenging closed discussions is at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Btw, List of urban areas in Europe has the same issue. PS I'm new here too! Batternut (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Denghu: should the same approach as you describe also be applied to the country lists, eg List of European countries by population and List of Asian countries by population, featuring the transcontinental countries of Russia and Turkey? Likewise Europe which you have just edited to place Moscow above Istanbul, though in the politics section the population and area stats for Russia and Turkey remain the country-wide figures rather than the those for just the European parts? Batternut (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, factually it is more accurate to consider only the population/area of European Russia and European Turkey in the list of European countries by population/area. It simply doesn't make sense to list Turkey as a European country with a population of some 80m when most of its territory is geographically in Asia. The same goes for Russia. This seems to be a wider issue than I had expected and a broader discussion is necessary. The goal is to make Wikipedia articles more accurate in dealing with issues like this one. Denghu (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Could I point out we already had an RfC on exactly this topic in the autumn, and the close was to include full populations. One cannot choose to ignore RfCs, as Denhgu is doing, just because one doesn't like the outcome. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, if one doesn't like the outcome, one can resume the discussion, especially if one didn't take part in it and if the discussion involved just a few contributors. If you are satisfied with the current solution, it doesn't mean other people are expected to like it and remain silent.Denghu (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, came across this by chance. I would like to point out the obvious, there is only one Istanbul and it's considered a European city. I recognize that it is a transcontinental city but it is still just one city. Thus it should be included on only one page and since it's located here it ought to be presented as a full entity. Therefore I could only recommend using the entire population of Istanbul. If necessary note the population split in the comments. As per RfC. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Istanbul is indeed one city, however the article deals with European cities, not transcontinental cities (Europe and Asia, Europe and Africa). This issue has to be addressed because factually the current ranking is inaccurate. Either the title of the article has to be changed, or the ranking adjusted to conform to the geographical notion of Europe, or two tables made for cities fully in Europe and for transcontinental cities which is a separate case.Denghu (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the issue has been addressed. That's what an Rfc is, an opportunity to present different views ans reach a decision. That's what we've already had, and the decision was to count Istanbul as one city with all of its population. Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The article title is fine, the single table is fine, Istanbul shouldn't be cut into pieces, this level of nitpicking is not necessary, the footnote completely solves the minor problem. Let's all move on and stop trying to get people blocked because they made an edit or two that you didn't like. Sepsis II (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

Gonrah (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) The position of Belgrade in the list is wrong. It is placed 16th with population of 1,166,763 while the 17th city in the list (Barcelona) has a population of 1,602,386 which is much higher. It is the same with all the cities until position 27 (Rostov-on-Don with population of 1,104,000). So, in order to fix this, Belgrade has to be moved down the list on position 26.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Becky Sayles, he doesn't need to, the error is in the article. Take a look at the table with Belgrade on it and then above and below it, it's been put together wrong. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I already saw the table, and the source. It does not appear to reflect the number in the table correctly. 1166763 corresponds to Насеље Београд, but it is not clear from the document that this corresponds to the city limits. 1659440 corresponds to Београдски регион, which seems to translate to Beograd region, which would make the placement in the table correct. I cannot say that based on the source provided that the requested edit is actually appropriate. But if anyone else feels more comfortable with translating Serbian...  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Becky Sayles hilariously, I happen to speak Serbian (though Cyrillic is a pain for me). I'll take a look tomorrow and notify you of what I find. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually quickly; Насеље Београд -> Naselje Beograd -> Town of Belgrade and Београдски регион -> Beogradski region -> Region of Belgrade. Hope that helps. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles No ref is as no change to the figure is requested, Mr rnddude and Gonrah are right. It's just about correcting the position in the table. The clue is in the description of the table: "The cities are sorted by the column labelled Population within city limits". You don't need to read the existing reference. Batternut (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If translation is needed, I have provided it in my last comment. Насеље Београд/Naselje Beograd would refer to the Town of Belgrade, this would be the population within the city's limits. Whereas Београдски регион/Beogradski region or the Belgrade region would be referring to both the population within the city limits and all the surrounding regional populations. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Batternut While your analysis seems reasonable, I believe it may be incomplete. The edit request does address changing the position in the table. But as an editor responding to the request, it is necessary to adhere to applicable policy. Based on the original request, it appears that there is an error in the ordering. This could be because the numbers do not correspond to the populations within city limits listed, or because the figures listed are incorrect. Moving Belgrade down to 26th on the list would suggest not only that 1166763 is the correct and verifiable figure based on the translation provided above, but also that each of the other cities figures are correct and verifiable because assigning an order indicates their relative position on the list. Just starting with Barcelona there is a problem as the source cited does not appear to list Bercelona. Given that the page was protected due to edit-warring/content dispute, it would seem inappropriate for a responding editor make the requested edit without addressing underlying and related issues. This should probably have reliable sources as well as a consensus established before being requested again.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Becky Sayles Really! I think it places the bar too high to expect passing editor Gonrah, noticing that the ordering of entries in a table doesn't match the figures in the table and trying to tidy it up a little, to go and check a shed load of references and fix any discrepancies by means of locating new RS. The ref for Belgrade's figure is RS, and confirmed by Serbian speaker Mr rnddude. If the figure is acceptable, the position should match the figure. If you doubt Barcelona's figure, or any others, either fix it or put a "content is disputed/unverified etc" warning on the page. If you really want an rfc to move 'G' to between 'F' and 'H', then I'll do it for you, but surely that's a hammer to crack a sesame seed! Batternut (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To put the matter to rest;

Becky Sayles and Batternut

So I've taken a close look at the reference, and, here's what I can say.

First; Beograski Region or Region of Belgrade with a population of 1,655,940 is split into the groups of Gradski or Urban population of 1,344,844 and Ostali or everyone else/remainder/other at 314,596. This is not really too important.

Second; Naselje Beograd, is referred to in the census as the settlement of Belgrade. A distinctly odd choice, it's sort of like saying the settlement of Brisbane or settlement of Paris, like, these places aren't settlements, they're towns (or cities) but I think I've found the reason for it.

Note; Naselje would correctly translate to settlement, I used town because, why would it refer to Belgrade as a settlement? Well read on and you'll find out.

Third; Right beneath Beogradski Region there's another entry, Beogradska Oblast, Grad Beograd or City of Belgrade and it has the same population as the first Beogradski Region. Now you would think that the City of Belgrade refers to the City of Belgrade, but, no it doesn't. This is because, the City of Belgrade is it's own administrative division and doesn't fall or break down into any districts. So, what has happened is that the administrative division is separated from the actual city. In essence, the City of Belgrade (administrative) is not the City of Belgrade (city). So what is? The Naselje of Belgrade, the Naselje as a settlement refers to the City proper.

Right, so let me tackle the many Belgrades problem, to make it short here, I can breakdown each of the individual values into the correct corresponding thing (I guess).

1. Beogradski Region, refers to all of the population in the district of City of Belgrade, 1.6 million.

2. Beogradski Region (Urban), refers to the entire urban population of the district of City of Belgrade also 1.6 million.

3. Naselje Beograd, refers to all of the population in the town or city proper of Belgrade, 1,166,763.

Which is the correct value for this article, the third one. The administrative division has 1.6 million people living there, but, the actual city-proper has only 1,166,763 people living there.

The last bit of business, WP:OR, I also went ahead to try and find a citation for all of the above work (part of which is my own, part of it is Wikipedia, and only the values are RS). Page 12 of the census is written in both Serbian and English. Thank god, cause while I can read cyrillic, I translate it into latin letters in my head to do so. In other words, it's like reading a cipher.

Here's a select quote from the bottom of page 12; "Settlement Belgrade represents a part of the City of Belgrade and it includes the whole territory of six urban municipalities (Vračar, Stari Grad, Savski Venac, Zvezdara, Rakovica and Novi Beograd) and parts of the territories of four more urban municipalities (Voždovac, Zemun, Palilula and Čukarica)."

Note that the City of Belgrade is the administrative division.

now refer to Page 15 which gives you an exact image of what constitutes the settlement of Belgrade in the upper right hand corner. The shaded area is the city proper, while everything else, is the outer farmlands or plainlands that belong to the city but are not part of the city-proper. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Great work dude! Batternut (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at for example Barcelona; I found this unambiguous, provisional, population of Barcelona for 2011 for both sexes and at all ages[5]. Around 1,611,013, which I hope helps. Note, you'll have to scroll down a bit to find Barcelona, ignore the 5.5million figure for Barcelona at the top, that's for the entire municipality. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the requested edit is under discussion, and autoconfirmed editors who would be able to respond appropriately to carrying out the edit if sources back it up. Don't think this needs to stay open for more visibility. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. Done. Batternut (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For the Russian cities of the article, updated statistics and references

Batternut, hopefully these statistics and sources will satisfy the need of the article. I will note quickly that I couldn't find Perm or Niznhy Novgorod and that Volgograd is last year's statistic. Hopefully these will help. They're all in Russian cyrillic, but, if you ctrl-f the value I provide (without commas) and then just translate whatever is written in that section, you ought to find that these figures are indeed correct.

What I found;

I have found Saint Petersburg 5,225,690 for 2016 [ [6]]

I have found Volgograd 1,017,451 for 2015 [7] Refer below

I have found Voronezh 1,032,382 for 2016 [8]

I have found Ufa 1,121,429 for 2016 [9]

I found Rostov na Don for 2015 1,117,341 but not the reported 2016 one [10] Refer Below.

I found Samara, 1,170,910 as currently reported, its in an excel file (31.03.2016), here as close as I can get you to it [11]

I have found Kazan 1,216,965 [12]

I have found Moscow, 12,330,126 as currently reported, its also in an excel file (06.04.2015), here is again as close as I can get you to it [13]

I can confirm Perm, 1,041,867 refer to the fourth link (excel) here; [14]

I can confirm Volgograd, 1,016,137 for 2016, you'll need to translate the whole page. [15]

I can confirm Rostov-na-Don, 1,119,875 for 2016, you'll need to translate the whole page. [16]

What I have not found;

I also couldn't find the statistic for Nizhny Novgorod, although it hasn't been included anyway.

Here you go, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nizhny Novgorod is not yet uploaded, which is why I did not update it. Rostov-on-Don for 2016 is here [17] at the bottom of the page. Perm is the fourth link here [18], also the only Excel link there. Volgograd 2016 is here [19], also at the bottom of the page. --Turnless (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those, I'll take a look at them shortly and update the list. I'll let Batternut review them, and he'll update them, if not, then I can do that myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Splendid. Am going to start wrapping this up, and the other reverted edits. Batternut (talk)

Turnless, Mr rnddude, It is done, pending your satisfaction... Batternut (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Batternut, I appear to be satisfied, thanks for going through and fixing up the article. Turnless, thanks for helping me find the necessary sources and translating Russian. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping me with inserting and finding the sources as well! --Turnless (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What about Novosibirsk? Wiki itself calls it "the third-most populous city in Russia, after Moscow and St. Petersburg" --180.183.75.182 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Expansion to 50 cities

The current list is very random at ending at 36 cities. I think that extending it to 50 cities would make more sense. 50 is a good number for a list of cities and would be more consistent. --Turnless (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If anyone agrees with the expansion, can anyone help figure out what are the next largest cities of the continent. Thanks! --Turnless (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the particularly late response to this Turnless, I had completely forgotten about this proposal. If you want to have a community discussion on this, since nobody seems to have responded yet, I can take a look and see whether an RfC would be appropriate or if there's another venue for this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go the other way, and cut it off at cities over 1 million. This removes the three last cities.

The problem with this list is the sourcing of data. Presently the article cites individual sources for each city, then combines them to form this list. This is problematic as it relies on editors having added all cities for the ranking to be accurate. The further the list is expand, the more likely that a city will be missed out, resulting in incorrect rankings. The other thing I would say, is because the date is not the same for all figures, the data is not comparable and the rankings are potentially incorrect. The only solution to this would be if there was a combined source listing all the cities.

Rob984 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with a RfC on the issue to see what other users think. --Turnless (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Amsterdam

A recent edit by an IP has suggested that Amsterdam has been skipped in the article with a population of about 1 million, if this is correct, then Amsterdam should be on the list. If not, then nevermind. Just making an good faith note of it since the editor placed the comment on the article where it does not belong. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It's only 800,000 according to its article. Rob984 (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Athens

An IP pointed out a glaring omission in this list. There's no mention of Athens anywhere, and at a population of apparently 3 million it should most definitely be included here. I'm making a not of it here if anybody gets to it before I do. Will strike this comment if I handle it myself. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Municipal population is only 664,046 according to its article, so the list isn't long enough to include it. 3 million is its urban population. Rob984 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... so it is. In that case, carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tbilisi

Hey, Tbilisi is in Asia, not Europe. Could someone update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.176.6 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg

Yekaterinburg is in Asia, not Europe, east of the Ural Mountains. AdmiralHood (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Istanbul

Enough with this already.. Turkey is not part of Europe. I know the argument, and in that sense obviously the UK and Iceland should not be considered part of Europe. It's an Asian country. Onoufrios d (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople is on the European side of the Bosphorus. There was a time when the Turkish state almost reached as far as Vienna, but that did not mean that the Balkans had magically become part of Asia. Geography is independent of politics. Toddy1 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, geography is independent of politics. But half of Istanbul is geographically located in Asia. So then you need to specify a population of less than 15 million and remove Istanbul from the top of the list. The population of the European part of Istanbul is much less than the population of Moscow. Nokiandr (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; Istanbul and most of Turkey is in Asia just like much of Egypt is in Africa and most of Russia is in Asia and if Moscow was in Siberia wouldn’t be in Europe either Nlivataye (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)