Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits/Archive 2

Largest city in Europe

As a transcontinental city straddling Eurasia, Istanbul, as a whole, has a population of around 15,519,267 people. While the European part of city, which has 25 districts, has a population of 10,067,617, and the Asian part of the city, with 14 districts, has a population of 5,451,650. However, Moscow, the most populous city entirely within Europe has a population of around 12,615,279 people, larger than the European part of Istanbul, which has 10,067,617 people. The list is about European cities by population within city limits, but Istanbul's Asian part's population is also included in the list, which shouldn't be included. Without it Istanbul becomes the second-largest city in Europe, after Moscow. Danloud (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know... Istanbul is administratively a single city, there is no legal distinction between it's Asian and European side. Turkish metro municipalities legally have the same boundaries as the provinces themselves. Districts within the province do not have any kind of autonomy in metro's and all fall within the larger metro municipality, which is IBB. I have made this same argument on the now defunct Istanbul(province) page, and since then we have gotten rid of that article. Anyway, on the article it clearly states that "Note: The cities are sorted by official population." , and the official population of Istanbul is -according to official Turkish Census Bureau- is around 15.5 million. If there was an official administrative division of the city as such (Istanbul in Europe), then it could be very appropriate to list only the European side's population. But since we are taking only the official figures when making this list, along with Wikipedia policies that prevent us from calculating it ourselves (no original research), the current figure creates a problem. It is my opinion that we should provide the full population of Istanbul on the article. The footnote [a] should be enough. Of course this is a political issue, so it would be very hard to stay neutral on this topic and find a right answer, understandably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

73.202.30.21 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

- I agree that for Istanbul, only the European population should be considered, which is about 10,072,000 people. Else this list does not make sense, since the rest is in Asia. Istanbul is tricky since it is a transcontinental city, but categorizing it as entirely in Europe makes no sense for the purpose of this list. Eccekevin (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 Nlivataye (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

LONDON

London isn't a city. There is "The City of London" but that's one of the smallest cities in the UK. London is a metropolitan region that comprises boroughs, one of which is a city in and of itself (City of Westminster) and it is administered by the City of London. But if you go to the UK page you are told, quite clearly, Birmingham is the largest city in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom

It might be, for this list, a "special note" might be added for London pointing out whilst many people THINK of London as a city it technically is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B00D:8B00:7073:3B00:E29:D7C2 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Outside the City of London, Greater London is still run as a single city. GL has a Mayor and Assembly responsible for the entirety of Greater London. The only difference between the City of Westminster and the other London boroughs is in name only. Westminster has no more power than Camden or Lambeth. City status in the United Kingdom is only ceremonial and completely different than city status in the United States and other countries. Greater London may not be a single city on paper, but in reality it is.Bjoh249 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Greater London:

Although Greater London would appear to be a city, it lacks any formal recognised city status in the UK and has not been granted an official city charter from the monarch.[10] Instead, Greater London is officially a metropolitan region, not a city.[11]

References

Very well said - I came here to say the exact same thing. Please remove the stupid claim that London is a ‘city’ immediately! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Picture of Paris

For your consideration. The current picture of Paris on this page stands out in a negative way. All other cities have photos of beautiful skylines and Paris (which has a beautiful skyline as well), only has a close up photo (with part of Le Louvre, without pyramids and the Pont Royal on it). If you'd pick a close up photo, why not the Eiffel Tower or Arc de Triomphe, but even then: why would place a close-up photo for Paris, while every other city on this page has a skyline photo.. Summarized: This is not a photo of Paris, it is a photo of Pont Royal which in no way gives a good impression of what Paris looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.20.190 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Transcaucasian cities

Twice I removed Tbilisi from the list because I consider it as Asian (and not included Baku and Jerevan I consider also Asian). I'd be OK if all 3 are included: there's no reason why only Tbilisi should be included, but I'd like to see them with note saying they can be considered Asian. So please let it be or include all 3 of them.--188.75.177.218 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What you “consider” Tbilisi or other cities to be is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that some respectable definitions do place it in Europe and so removing it entirely is simply wrong. The argument that all three cities should be included or neither is simply absurd. First of all, not all definitions include all three. There are some that place parts of Georgia in Europe but do not extend all the way to Yerevan (one following Kura River). Secondly, if you think other cities qualify for inclusion, nothing is stopping you from including them. Deleting one just because you think they all should be here is childish, destructive, and contrary to the spirit of this encyclopedia. Lastly, please do yourself a favor and stop repeating what you personally “consider” European, this is not a personal blog.--185.70.55.119 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I consider them as Asian because I learnt that in school and they're Asian according to most definitions. In Europe the most common boundary line is northern of Caucasus: Kuma–Manych Depression or the base of Caucasus, worldwide the more common variant is on crest of Caucasus; but neither of them includes Tbilisi to Europe. According to this article, the Kura river hasn't been used as Euroasian border for 2500 years. The boundary lines that include Transcaucasian region in Europe exists, but most of them include all 3 states completly to Europe and therefore Jerevan and Baku should be included here, too. Because most definitions consider these 3 cities Asian I don't think they must be here, however they can be here (but with a note), but it's nonsence to include only one.--188.75.177.218 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, your opinions are your own and what you “consider” to be the boundary has little bearing here. Not everyone uses the Kuma Manych definition so there is no reason to prioritize that above all else. To reiterate, if you think it is more fair to include all three capitals, then do so. You have no right to erase content just to make a point and just because you think other cities could be included as well. If you think others should be included, show some respect and actually take the time to contribute that content instead of ceremonially removing somebody else’s work just to make a point.--185.115.5.247 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As the other discussion below is closed, just dropping here my two pennies as I feel the urge to have it noted for the record. The discussion is really held very arbitrarily along only one aspect: the (imagined) pure geographical definition of a border between Asia and Europe. There is no consensus here as there is no universal consensus within the geographical profession either, as some reactions proved. The discussion below is very typical (I wont go further in qualifications just to stay nice). Anyways, an important aspect not even mentioned once if I read correctly, is that all three South Caucasus nations are associated with multiple (yes, not one, but multiple) pan-European political organizations. F.e. leading organizations such as OSCE, CoE, and not least of all, just like "Asian country" Cyprus, are considered to be within the geographical limits of the EU and could technically become EU members, by design of the EU treaty (which doesn't apply to any country beyond the South Caucasus, East and South - nor to any country West of Ireland or Iceland, so the EU has at least a clear nation bound definition). Moreover, also in sports they are part of pan-European cooperation such as UEFA and so on and are taking part in European, not Asian championships in all sports. I can't recall these three are tied with major political (or sport) pan-Asian organisations. Yes, they are "borderlands", where no clear and cut definition can be given of what constitutes Europe or Asia, geographically, culturally, politically and in supra-national association. The sheer resistance to an open mind on all these factors by some is baffling. We are not talking about including Lusaka, Lima, or Damascus. But three capitals of countries that the European Union, thé embodiment of what Europe constitutes considers within the territorial reach. And many other organisations also consider to be part of the "European family" regardless some vague and arbitrary discussion about a border which bears no professional consensus anyways. Just include them, and leave it at that. Labrang (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

For Baku and Jerevan, the article would need statements about geography, because I do not think that the article currently qualifies as Wikipedia:Popculture.

This is a list of cities in the geographic region of Europe. Sports and the EU do not imply geography.

The European Union could in theory encompass nations of the Francophonie, etc, and not just geographically European nations. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Athens is missing

Can someone add Athens to the list? It's definitely in the top 10 Norad73 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As the Athens page says, the population is 664,046. FromCzech (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Exclusion of Tbilisi

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.

---

Should Tbilisi (Baku and Yerevan) be added to the list? Is there a conventional boundary between Asia and Europe that should be used? FromCzech (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Put a note next to Tbilisi: Although sources say it is "European" in "cultural" contexts, this would create a "contradiction" with the formal definitions, so without a note it would have to only be included in Asia. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out what was mentioned below, it is not only in "cultural" contexts this comes up in, there are in fact geographic definitions that include it in Europe, which are pointed out above. The note has been added, saying placement varies.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The note would be better if it showed which sources put Tbilisi in Europe. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

An unregistered user repeatedly adds Tbilisi into the list. In July and August 2021 Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan were also added by an unregistered user and removed by various users. As was explained in the edit summary and similarly in the Talk page at the time, most agreed southern border between Asia and Europe is the watershed of the Caucasus Mountains and the Kuma-Manych Depression and according to both of them, Tbilisi is not in Europe. Therefore it is included in the List of Asian cities by population within city limits. It is also clarified on List of transcontinental countries#Asia and Europe which parts of Georgia or Azerbaijan lie geographically in Europe.

I think it has already been sufficiently discussed and justified and removing Tbilisi (Baku, Yerevan) is a uniform approach across Wikipedia. A different border should definitely not be used for lists of European and Asian cities. FromCzech (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What you describe is only one definition of continental boundaries but, alas, it is not the only one: “Europe's eastern boundary has been the subject of much debate. One widely accepted scheme draws the dividing line along the crest of the Greater Caucasus range, putting the portion of the region north of the line in Europe and the portion south of it in Asia. Another puts the western portion of the Caucasus region in Europe and the eastern part (the bulk of Azerbaijan and small portions of Armenia, Georgia, and Russia's Caspian Sea coast) in Asia. Still another scheme identifies the Aras River and the Turkish border as the line of continental demarcation, thereby locating Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in Europe" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Caucasus)

I wish things were as clear cut as you suggest but they are not. From what I can tell, this has been discussed endlessly and I see no point in adding more to this discussion because there is no universal agreement on this topic. It is a perfectly viable solution to keep Tbilisi on the list with a sufficiently detailed explanation that its placement may vary based on continental boundaries. We should not censor alternative views from other reliable resources just because they don't fit your own or somebody else's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:19A3:D9F3:73A3:AD4 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I never said there was no other definition, just that these are the most commonly used, which your source also confirms ("One widely accepted scheme..."). Other approaches are rare and your use of them on this page is obviously purposeful. I agree that geopolitically Georgia is a European country, but geographically Tbilisi is in Asia. There is no any "sufficiently detailed explanation" on List of Asian cities. It is also not clear to me which definition of the border you are using and why you are not arguing about Baku and Yerevan. FromCzech (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I was reading something in the National Geographic Magazine, which said that Tbilisi has "become one of Eastern Europe’s most innovative cultural capitals" (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/ten-places-that-deserve-more-travelers), which is partly what sparked interest specifically in Tbilisi's placement. Feel free to add other Caucasus cities as it seems they had been added in the past. According to the definition cited by Britannica, they may well qualify.

To your point about commonality, even if something is commonly used, it does not mean that it is without alternative or that it should be unquestionably used without any reference to other viewpoints. Which is why keeping Tbilisi with a note is the most viable option given the general trend of including it in Europe in everyday use (and considering some geographic definitions, like the Aras river referenced above, do actually place it in Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, "given the general trend of including it in Europe in everyday use" is a geopolitical approach. "Reference to other viewpoints" makes sense if these viewpoints are equivalent, not if one is rare and is not used by the professional or lay public. It is enough if this viewpoint is mentioned on Boundaries between the continents of Earth. The presence of Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan is simply confusing for the majority of users, if you look at previous discussions and edit history, and the majority don't want them here. Many people probably do not even know about the existence of an alternative border. And then there's still the inconsistency within Wikipedia. Focus on these issues and don't keep repeating that there is some another point of view, because it was never questioned. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The resources I have referenced are not by any means geopolitical and there is no evidence that inclusion of Caucasus is “confusing for the majority of users”. This page probably has thousands of viewers and, of those, there is only a tiny portion of opinionated readers who have found their placement here bothersome and removed them. There also seems to be a comparable number of those that want the opposite, otherwise this issue would not be a perennial problem as it appears to be. If someone is “confused” about the placement of these cities, they should do what all other reasonable, literate people do and read footnotes, which will explain that the placement may vary based on definition. They can't erase things just because it doesn't fit their opinion or because they "do not even know about the existence of an alternative border". I'd like to think that the purpose of any encyclopedia is to educate people, rather than to cater to their preconceived notions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

United Nations views it as part of Asia. CIA World Factbook say "geographically it is Asia, only Georgians view themselves as part of Europe". Britannica, as we have already said, mentions that it is most often classified as Asia. These are the sources we should stick to.

From what I traced from the edit history of last years, Tbilisi has not been included for the majority of the time, and the leading text included a note that conventional boundary between continents is used. It disappeared during the ping pong of editing and vandalism in August 2021. To avoid confusion and different interpretations (and because you like explanatory notes), I will put the note back there. If there should be a change and Tbilisi should be included, then only on the basis of consensus. FromCzech (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Eastern European Group according to United Nations

I apologize for being so persistent but your arguments simply do not make any logical sense. First you speak out against geopolitical/political definitions of boundaries, and now you’re citing United Nations, which is a geopolitical organization. Even that is highly misleading because the UN’s position also varies. For example, here’s a UN division of regions that places Georgia in the Eastern European group. It includes Georgia in Eastern Europe, even though EU-member Cyprus is listed in Asia. (You can read more at United Nations Regional Groups).

My point is that regardless of whether you look at geographic or geopolitical definitions, there is no single, unquestionable definition that should apply everywhere and it will not become so just because total exclusion of certain areas appears to be your personal preference. The most impartial way to address this is to keep Tbilisi with a detailed explanation. Anything short of this is simply misleading and one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So once again: United Nations is a geopolitical organization, which has official methodology for delineation of geographical regions. United Nations Regional Groups are, as the first sentence on the page says, geopolitical regional groups. So let's agree that the UN has both geographic and geopolitical regionalizations, which are different, and we won't mix them together.

I returned the explanatory note about used boundary there, but you again removed it with edit sumary that there is no such thing as a "conventional" boundary. This is completely contrary to what I have been writing all along. So once again: according to conventions, Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan are geographically outside of Europe, the border along Aras is unconventional. See the given references in my previous response and see the 1 and 2 wikipages, where did you copy the quote from Britannica and the geopolitical position of the UN. FromCzech (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the stable version is the one without Tbilisi, and you shouldn't keep putting it back there until the discussion ends. And I hereby inform you that I have asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion. I was hoping someone would join in the discussion on the request in Wikiproject:Cities, but unfortunately not. FromCzech (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Physical map of Europe including the Caucasus along Aras boundary

The reason I even mentioned United Nations is because you brought it up as an argument to totally exclude Tbilisi. You can't have it both ways, cite a geopolitical organization when it suits your argument but dismiss it when it proves the opposite point. There is nothing "geographic" about that resource you are pointing to. The UN link you referenced even says that particular regional definition is merely for "statistical convenience", so it is hardly a geographic authority.

Regarding conventions, there are clearly some geographic conventions that place it in Europe, such as the Aras river definition referenced by Britannica. And depicting this definition on maps is not unheard of (see referenced example)

And regarding discussion, there is clearly a double standard. Somehow no discussion is needed when people erase information that doesn't suit them, which has happened numerous times from what I can tell. The issue of Tbilisi has recurred numerous times and it will continue recurring because total exclusion is clearly not viable, hence inclusion with a footnote. From what I can tell, it has been here on and off, without even a footnote, so footnote is the right direction. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Heading in UN source says "Geographic Regions". It is not excluded that the UN has a geographical and geopolitical perspective. For me it is clear thing, for you obviously not.

The map you posted is from 1916 and hardly can be an evidence for what is today conventional. "Conventional" means widely accepted, as Britannica explicitly says. Britannica mentions three schemes with the Aras river as the third. For me it clearly support what is conventional and what is not, for you obviously... not. But I'll leave that to someone else to judge us.

CIA World Factbook was rather not commented by you. Then there is this entry on National Geographic's website if you were interested in the company's attitude, and not just one wording in an article by one journalist.

Tbilisi was always removed because there was the explanatory note about boundary which is used, to avoid confusion. Nobody added it with edit summary that there is no such thing as a conventional border. Should I say that you erased that note because it does not suit you? It was there much longer than Tbilisi, and yet you see the injustice of erasing Tbilisi. FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It is simply not true that Tbilisi was "always removed". It has been here time and again, but repeatedly removed by people who believe in these one-sided arguments that total exclusion is the only solution. Moreover, nowhere does it say that articles have to follow one particular definition or the other, however convenient that may be or however you may personally like it. I cited that map to make a point. It is not the only map that exists. The fact that it is from a century ago does not discredit it. On the contrary, it confirms that inclusion of Caucasus is not something "new" that I invented but rather an existing and longstanding precedent, regardless of whether everyone agrees on it or not.

The CIA factbook is not a geographic authority, nor is it consistent. For example, it lists Cyprus under Europe, even though many definitions, including one you like, would place it entirely in Asia. This just confirms my earlier point, which is that definitions vary even among organizations. And you can't have it both ways, citing CIA when making an argument that Caucasus has to be excluded, but ignoring other aspects of CIA's definition, such as the fact that it conflicts with your "convention" on Cyprus.

For UN, that particular UN source is from their statistics division. I don't see why think statisticians should be taken as experts on geography, the two are not the same, especially when they explicitly state that particular definition is for merely "statistical convenience", whatever that means. I see that you are a statistician, so perhaps that is why you like that particular source? But as I said, there is no consistency on this even within UN and we should account for this fact with a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just in brief, and I suggest waiting for a third opinion:

• As of 2018, the city is not included, and when someone added it (and usually without justification in the edit summary), it was soon deleted with a justification.
• Fortunately, we're talking about Georgia, and the CIA's view of Cyprus is irrelevant. Their opinion on Georgia is clear.
• The UN reference is used across Wikipedia, incl. already mentioned Boundaries between the continents of Earth#Modern definition. We already discussed that it is OK to have different geographical and geopolitical definitions, so I don't know why you are pointing out inconsistencies, when they are two different things. A geopolitical definition can change rapidly over time, so it does not fit the definition of statistical regions at all, and a fixed definition is necessary. This is also why this methodology has a high weight and is used even outside the UN.
• And please, finally create an account so I know who I'm talking to. It's hard to take you seriously like that, especially when you haven't even learned how to sign comments.FromCzech (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

How these organizations/sources view other countries is not irrelevant because it is indicative of whether they follow the geographic definitions that you're citing them to support. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot cite these organizations to support one particular continental definition and ignore the fact that there is clearly no agreement or consistency even within said organizations.

Separately from this, I must ask you to show some respect and stop disparaging or dismissing me just because I'm not editing from an account. The very first sentence of your very first comment emphasized how I'm "unregistered" and now you continue to emphasize this point. You think your arguments are worth more because you have an account with a pretty interface?

"Some registered Wikipedia editors and administrators treat IP address editors as (at best) unwelcome party-crashers or as potential vandals. Some ignore the opinions or revert the edits of IP address editors simply because they are "anonymous". There is no Wikipedia policy which supports this treatment...The treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is counter to Wikipedia policy and the spirit of anyone-can-edit collaboration."[1]

So I don't really need to prove anything to you personally. My arguments speak for themselves. Yours are full of factual and logical inconsistencies. This article is apparently of little interest to most users (hence why nobody responds to your third opinion request) and you are simply allowed to do as you please based on cherry picked, one-sided arguments. This has to stop one way or another. There has to be some accountability beyond just the fact that you have a nice looking account.--2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You started looking into what I am and pulling into the discussion – see the mention with the statistician. So I'm sorry that I perceive it as unfair when I can't get an idea of what you have to do with the edits on this page in the past and what your personal bias is for this issue. FromCzech (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Europe: As per Wiki, "The modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct." Agree with 2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41; modern construct, as described above, puts Tiblisi, Baku and Yerevan in Europe.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mwinog2777: Per Wiki and per cited sources in the discussion (UN, CIA World Factbook, Britannica, National Geographic), modern definitions still put most of Georgia (and whole Caucasius) in Asia. FromCzech (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Wiki:The South Caucasus nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are included in definitions or histories of Eastern Europe. And EuroVoc map. Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also from Wiki: "Eastern Europe is an ambiguous term that refers to the eastern portions of the European continent. There is no consistent definition of the precise area it covers, partly because the term has a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic connotations." Since it's ambiguous I choose Europe. We have to choose something.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

We have already chosen, the cities are on Asian list. So you vote for moving the cities from there, right? Description of the map on the South Caucasus page (File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png) says that "B" and "F" lines are the modern mainstream definitions. And South Caucasus is not included in Template:Regions of Europe. EuroVoc includes the Caucasian countries, but on Central and Eastern Europe they are not. Consistency within Wikipedia is in favor of not incorporate the Caucasian cities into Europe. FromCzech (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Russian victory in 1813 and the Treaty of Gulistan which moved the border of the Russian Empire well within Transcaucasia." Russia annexed Georgia in 1796, and Bahu in 1813. Two centuries of European acculturation. Two centuries of geopolitical and cultural history have weight in this determination. Even if as you claimed:"Consistency within Wikipedia is in favor of not incorporate the Caucasian cities into Europe," there are those that disagree, and wish to change Wikipedias continental identification of these cities/states that straddle. I am one of those.Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I already mentioned that I agree that Georgia is geopolitically Europe, but this is about determining the geographical border. Otherwise, you would have to include Kazakhstan, or other Asian states that were part of the USSR. And according to the current political situation in Russia, to think about annexing the whole of Russia to Asia. FromCzech (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Man-made geographical boundaries are whatever you say they are; different maps, different answers; look at the maps of Eastern Europe redrawn after WW2. And look at at this map from an offical branch of the E.U. We don't need an artificial definition drawn up remotely by who knows who, likely some academic geographers of the 19th Century. Let the consensus decide where Tiblisi and the others are. If the consensus says Eurpope, it's in Europe. If consensus says Asia, let it be. More opinions would help. I think we've all said what we have to say at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_sub-regions_(according_to_EuroVoc,_the_thesaurus_of_the_EU).png#/media/File:European_sub-regions_(according_to_EuroVoc,_the_thesaurus_of_the_EU).png. I agree completely with @Jonwilliamsl: below. And I hope that @FromCzech: doesn't again delete my comments.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I cited only modern, currently used definitions, according to which the page has been designed so far. But now there is pressure to change the geographical criterion to a geopolitical or cultural one. I would also like more opinions, but despite the traffic of this site and past disputes, it has been difficult to attract anyone here.

P.S. It's the exact opposite, look at edit history. I added my reply on 05:37, 20 July 2022 and you removed it eight minutes later. And now you don't like that I put my comment back there? FromCzech (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia

Europe: In Boundaries between the continents of Earth#Asia and Europe, Georgia and Azerbaijan are both mentioned as being transcontinental but culturally European. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jonwilliamsl: I couldn't find any mention of such a border on that page. Can you please be more specific? How is the cultural borderline defined? Does that mean that all the Russian, Turkish or Kazakhstan would be included too? In the past, the cultural border was condemned, because it would lead to the list being extended to include other cities from Russia, Turkey or Kazakhstan, and the overseas territorial of France, etc., would also theoretically fall there. FromCzech (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@FromCzech: Per Wiki, "...every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct." One just can't ignore culture in countries that straddle the borderline; the weight of this information tilts the scale to Europe for this editor..Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems that there's no single way to define the line between Europe and Asia using solely geographical methods--hence the 18(?) different borders on the above-mentioned page. Therefore, cultural as well as geographic considerations (the geographic considerations would exclude Vladivostok and Cayenne for example) must come into play. Questionable transcontinental cities that are culturally European--as Tblisi and Baku are both described as being (and logically Yerevan would be too, since it's between the two of them)--should be included in this list. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the image and there is 10 possible boundaries, out of which 7 concerning Caucasus; according to the explanation in the above-mentioned pages and in the image itself, the most common is F. The effort to combine boundaries is the expedient introduction of such a boundary that suits the interests of the individual who proposes it. Wikipedia should not define its own boundaries, but adopt existing ones based on available sources. FromCzech (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The existence of this map (and the other map with additional options at the same place) proves that there is no single "natural" place to draw that line. The available sources tell us that this line is hazy. Line A and line E exclude all 3 from Europe. Line F includes Baku, lines G, H and I include Tblisi and Baku, line J includes all 3. Culturally European cities which are geographically questionable--and seems quite clear to me that the geography is questionable--should be placed in Europe. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Jonwilliamsl well said. The totality of evidence suggests that inclusion of Caucasus cities in Europe with a good explanatory footnote is the most neutral approach. Total exclusion is extremely one sided. Ironically, everything FromCzech has referenced thus far can be questioned by other authoritative sources, even by sources within the same referenced organization (e.g. UN). The problem is that this user seems to have already made up his mind and is using hand-picked sources to substantiate this preexisting disposition. I have no other explanation. As an example, see what's happening at Template:Twin towns. FromCzech supports total exclusion of even those countries that are unquestionably transcontinental and all because of the same "statistical" definition of Europe that he has shared here as well. There is no rule on this encyclopedia that says every page should follow a single "statistical" definition of geography, whatever that even means. The whole things is absurd.--2600:1700:20:1D80:11A6:94A4:BDDF:5294 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with above: "The whole things is absurd." Enough already with the outdated academic geographers of the mid-19th Century; enough already with the hobgoblin of consistency. The cities will be where Wiki puts them. And, the decision appears to be moving in one direction. I am disappointed we do not have more opinions, however.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Both. What prevents us from having these cities both here and in the list of Asian cities? They are already in that list btw. Alaexis_¿question? 11:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Asia: Georgia and Azerbaijan have small northern bits of their territories falling within Europe, if we consider the Caucasus watershed as the boundary between Europe and Asia. Armenia falls entirely within the Asian mainland. Point is, since this city is not "geographically" located in Europe; why should it be added? Because of cultural reasons? In that case, Europe is also often divided by ethnic groups, and these countries would be not included by many in that category since these peoples are not considered European by most. If we were to add Tbilisi - then why is Yekaterinburg, a Russian city miles away from Urals, excluded? It is arguably much more European in every sense, considering it is a Russian city. Even French overseas territories and Vladivostok in the Russian Far East are culturally European. So going with the geographic definition is the best choice. Stuntneare (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There are geographic definitions that include it in Europe, which you would see if you had bothered to familiarize yourself with what is already written above. But you don't seem interested in facts, instead you're making baseless assertions, such as that "these peoples are not considered European by most". Who are you to speak on behalf of "most people" and what they believe in? Did you conduct a statistically sampled survey of "most people"? This is nothing more than personal bias, which is confirmed by your other comments ("Yekaterinburg...much more European in every sense, considering it is a Russian city"). Since when is Russia the golden standard of what it means to be European? It's not.--2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't get all riled up. You seem to be from Georgia. Anyway, your country is not included in most modern maps of Europe since its geographically so eastern. Georgians do not ethnically fall into the main European ethno-linguistic groups (Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Celtic etc.). Universally, it is not considered European. You reverted my edit claiming that apparently Tbilisi was always present in the article before its "removal" - no it was not. Actually, it has not been present in the article for over a year now. Even before, it wasn't. Everytime its added, it gets removed, because the majority of users and GEOGRAPHY tells us that Georgia is not in Europe. And do not put words in my mouth; I never said Russia is the "golden standard" of being "European", definitely not by politics. But going by culture, history, demographics, and geography, it is, since 40% of Europe is Russian territory, up to the Urals. You ignored my main point. I said why should Tbilisi be included in this article, despite being in Asia; and other cities like Baku, Yerevan, Izmir, Ankara etc. be excluded? Add them too. For impartiality. Stuntneare (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comparisons with cities like Izmir and Ankara are inappropriate. As evidenced by maps provided on this page, there are in fact geographic definitions that place the Caucasus in Europe - the same cannot be said of Izmir and Ankara, at least not that I have seen. Also language families have nothing to do with this. Basque is not part of any of the groups you mention, neither is Greek just for the sake of argument, Maltese is a Semitic language, and Ossetia, which is geographically in Europe, speaks an Iranic language.--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D19:371F:876B:55F4 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The definitions you are mentioning are obsolete, and are not used in the 21st century. Its quite fascinating how old some of these maps are, dating back to pre-WW1 times. The entire Caucasus was a part of Imperial Russia during this period. The most agreed upon modern boundary between Europe and Asia are the Caucasus Mountains, which puts Georgia in Asia - along with the two other South Caucasus countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan. One thing to note here is that, the northern part of the Caucasus is in Europe - the southern part is not. Anyway, since Tbilisi is added... I believe Baku and Yerevan should also be added with the same note. Otherwise, the whole thing just seems sketchy. Stuntneare (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Old doesn't necessarily mean "obsolete", and less common doesn't necessarily mean that it should all be purged in favor of only one definition. I intentionally provided these "old" maps to show that there is longstanding historical precedent of including Caucasus because there were some who argued earlier that inclusion of Caucasus was a modern development (which it is not). In any case, nobody is stopping you from adding other Caucasus cities, feel free to do so. (I tried but I'm not good at using this so looks like I somehow messed up the whole table)--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D19:371F:876B:55F4 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source given in the note show that Tbilisi is sometimes considered European. We should give credence to this designation per NPOV. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Europe according to Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, which includes Caucasus. Better quality image found here.

For those of you who do not care to read everything that's written above, here's another map from a reputable source, Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, clearly including Caucasus in Europe, with the rest of the surrounded area faded out. You can see a quality image here. So there's clearly a longstanding precedent of Caucasus being included, and for that reason its total exclusion is unjustified and one-sided.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Tbilisi is universally-accepted as Asian, and not European. If people want to talk loosely about a "cultural Europe", then they still need to specify. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read arguments provided above, including various geographic definitions, it would be apparent that there is no universal agreement. You saying so doesn't make it so. Arguments made by @Mwinog2777: and @Jonwilliamsl: speak for themselves and don't rely on such extreme generalizations. --2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding: my comment is to be interpreted as needing a note. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"One definition of Europe marks the Caucasus Mountains as its border, putting Georgia firmly in Asia. Other definitions place the whole Caucasus region, including Georgia, in Europe which is where most Georgians feel it belongs." Tiblisi is NOT universally accepted as an Asian city. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Tbilisi cannot be included in the list without a note saying it is not considered European by every major organization like the United Nations and the CIA. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these organizations is a geographic authority. Secondly, there is no agreement even within various UN bodies (see United Nations Regional Groups), which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the above arguments. There is already a note attached to Tbilisi explaining that continental placement may vary.--2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The note wasn't there when I made my comments. Thank you for adding it. I support that decision for the article. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the note has been added to explain the differences.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Wrong city area used

In this artikle there are used different areas of the cities, for example for belgrade it states the population of the metropolitan area but if we do use the metropolitan area for every other city then athens is a lot bigger than it is stated. 37.122.166.216 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Odessa

Odessa/Odesa should be added in, because it has 1,015,826 people, over 1 million, using the source that the list uses for Kyiv and Kharkiv. Jrg (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The table 7.19 on the page 308 says 998,163 people. FromCzech (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

oh i was looking at the present population document instead of the resident population document whoops Jrg (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the source of the information. On January 1, 2022, 1010,537 people lived in Odessa. http://www.od.ukrstat.gov.ua/ Arbornaos (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is in the text. The explanation of the difference is above. The link you provided does not include the number you quote. Unfortunately, the current population is well below 1 million anyway, so there's no point in debating it and trying to get it back there for a short time. I wish it were different. FromCzech (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of the list

A list like this is misleading, because the estimation of the population depends on how the city limits are drawn. That's why Paris is far down the list for example, and why St-Petersburg in its article is claimed to be "the 4th largest city in Europe" after Istanbul, Moscow and London although it is far smaller than Paris. To estimate the population of a city you sometimes need to add together the population of several administrative units, like he Paris case and many others. 188.151.59.108 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC - Which cities should be included? Tbilisi, Yerevan, Baku?

Should the Caucasian cities be included in this list?

Currently there is no clear approach to cities in Caucasus (Tbilisi, Baku, Yerevan) and it causes edit wars. There has been a lot of discussion about it here but it's too long to read and despite the lenght it gives no clear guidelines about their inclusion/exclusion. So I think we should solve it once and for all. In the end it should end up in FAQ as Istanbul ended. The only consensus that has arised from the discussions so far is that they shouldn't be included without note about their unclear placement to Europe. --Pan Někdo (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We need answers to the following questions: Should we include only one, or two, or all? Should we include them in the main table or should we make another table for them? If we include them in the main table should we rank them or let them unranked? And if you can think of any other possibility add it here as well.

Here are my opinions: We should include them all or exclude them all (I am in favor of excluding them all). There is only one definition that puts some of them to Europe and some of them to Asia and it even isn't a very popular definition. I don't think we can say their culture is European or Asian without saying the countries are European/Asian in the first place so I don't think argumentation about their culture is of much value.

I don't think it's good idea to put them in separate table or at the end of the table. However, I can imagine to include them without ranking. --Pan Někdo (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Geographically, all capitals of the South Caucasian states are located out of Europe. None of them should be included. And if Tbilisi is included, then all three should be included. In my opinion, either they can be added with a note, or they should be excluded as a whole. Calesti (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Excluded. I still think none of them should be included because they are out of Europe and because they distort the ranking. Baku doesn't even fit on the map of Europe. Instead of adding them into the table, they could be mentioned in the lead with explanation and link to List of Asian cities, or, as it was proposed, in a separate table after the main table. FromCzech (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They "distort" the ranking and don't fit on the map? Then get a bigger map. I have a newsflash for you, Europe doesn't end in East Berlin. Total exclusion of the Caucasus is a fringe view, an opinion, a preference, nothing more. Plenty of indications that support the opposite but why keep beating a dead horse.--2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not directly related to this but for what it's worth, I have actually seen some shameful maps of "Europe" that don't include much of Ukraine. For this reason, in my view "they don't fit on the map" is not a great argument. It only shows preconceived, entrenched biases and lousy attempts to justify them.--2600:1700:20:1D80:C8C3:64FA:327F:BE5F (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude all None of the cities are in Europe. I still don't understand why only Tbilisi is included. Calesti (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you by any chance related to User:Stuntneare? Just curious. --2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Include all of them with the same note as what Tbilisi currently has. What is the benefit of ignoring volumes of information already discussed on this topic quite recently and instead repeating the same tired talking points that have been voiced probably many times before? There is no universal agreement on continental boundaries. Also, distinction between geographic and "cultural" Europes is very muddled because the whole Europe-Asia boundary is itself a “historical and cultural construct” to begin with. Adding these cities with the same note as Tbilisi is the most neutral approach. This way they will be on both European and Asian lists, as suggested some time ago by @Alaexis: As a courtesy also tagging @Mwinog2777: and @Jonwilliamsl: who have made valid points about this topic.--2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is to not have these discussions any more. The current situation with only Tbilis is (IMO) the most ridiculous one and when tried to add Baku and Yerevan it was immediately reverted by FromCzech. So any change to this article regarding these 3 cities currently requires long discussion with someone who insists that the current state is better. In the past simmilar problems were with Istanbul and it ended up in FAQ on top of this talk page. If we came up with an consensus we could add this issue in the FAQ and prevent these pointless discussions.--Pan Někdo (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The first discussion was about whether to add Tbilisi or not, no consensus was reached regarding other cities (not sure if also regarding Tbilisi). Pan Někdo proposed approaches that may be "more neutral" than the current one, and can satisfy both parties (put them in separate table, include them without ranking). We would avoid the absurd claim that Baku is in the top 10 European cities, when it doesn't even fit on the map. FromCzech (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole issue of "not fitting on the map" is totally artificial. There are plenty of maps that would fit Baku, such as this map or any other map of your choosing. This is not an insurmountable problem as you make it seem.

Putting Caucasus cities into a separate list is reminiscent of segregation.

If the problem with ranking is that Baku will outrank Paris, and you find that "absurd", then perhaps not ranking it is an okay solution. However, I think doing that is very risky because it seems you're "bothered" to see Baku near the top, similarly to how some people are "bothered" to see Istanbul at the top. Something shouldn't be de-ranked just because it bothers certain people. But I suppose de-ranking is still better than a segregated list if nothing else is agreed to.--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D:BB27:272B:27AD (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I find the argument about fitting the map really dumb. The current map includes all of Syria and Lebanon and nobody argues they are European. Simmilarly for many purposes it's useful to use map of Europe without Iceland and it doesn't mean it isn't in Europe.

I don't think it would be useful to put these 3 cities in separate list (although it's an option) because the purpose of sortable lists is to offer a comparasion of the listed items. If we put the 3 cities to separate list it wouldn't be as easy to compare them to other. If we want to have these 3 cities included but don't want them to distort the true European ranking it's better to include them without ranking rather than putting them separately.

I agree that the size of Baku isn't anything that should change our approach. But please don't compare this issue to segregation, putting a city to different "category" doesn't harm anyone and even isn't bad (unless you consider Europe superior). --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The note with the map was just to demonstrate how remote Baku is in the context of Europe. I agree that the segregation argument is off the mark. Listing the Causasian cities in the main table with an explanatory note and no ranking is a reasonable compromise. FromCzech (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I found out that simmilar problem is with List of sister cities in Europe: currently only Georgia is included there. I assume most arguments would be the same and therefore I linked this disccussion in its talk page but if you have something relevant only to that page put it on its talk page. --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Include all three cities with an explanatory note. Since Tbilisi is ranked, the other two must be ranked as well for neutrality. Khestwol (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Don't use the current state as argument. Unless someone comes with strong valid argument supporting only Tbilisi it will be treated exactly the same as Baku and Yerevan. The question that should be answered is "Should the 3 Caucasian cities be included? If so under what conditions?". --Pan Někdo (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  At least, everyone seems to agree that the three cities must be treated in the same way. Khestwol (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Listing the Causasian cities in the main table with an explanatory note and no ranking is a reasonable compromise" and seems that it's the only possibility that all of us can (at least to some degree) agree on, so I added them and removed ranking from Tbilisi. --Pan Někdo (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Largest cities

. I don’t see Athens which is largest than the most cities you mentioned here . Population estimated around 4.000.000 2603:7000:AC40:1BA7:E181:AC4C:2953:C2CA (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas of cities

The list should also take into account the metropolitan areas of the cities and not just the municipalities. For instance, Athens metropolitan area has a population of around 4 million people though it is not included in the list. Same for Thessaloniki metropolitan area with around 1.2 million population. Stratos psomiadis (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bucharest population

@Galehautt: Hello. Your repeated return of the population of Bucharest in List of European cities by population within city limits and List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits is ignoring what I wrote in the edit summary, plus the reasons you give in your edit summary are false.

Date: Census is from December 2021, not 2022, as you state in the edit summary. You leave the date July 2022 in the table, but overwrite it with the number from December 2021. The Census has a different methodology compared to the estimate, and it also does not include the migration of Ukrainians in 2022, which may be the cause of the difference. As I already wrote, for other countries, numbers are also periodically replaced by estimates, because the census is only once every 10 years. The Bucharest page may use that figure for 10 years, but here the most recent numbers are used.

Territory: if you opened the statistical yearbook that is used as the source, it does not contain metropolitan areas but municipalities (with the title of municipiu and oraș) and counties (in the case of Bucharest, the territory is identical). So, like the other cities in the list, the LAU2 level is used.

It also doesn't make sense that you only fix Bucharest and not other Romanian cities. You cannot overwrite a source that is still in use. Even if you were right, the numbers must be comparable and not from different sources. If you are more versed in Romanian methodology and have other estimates for 2022 from the Romanian Statistical Office, I would like to look at them, but they must include all Romanian cities and must not go back to the outdated year 2021.

One last note: using capslock in edit summary is childish. Capital letters do not make false information true. There are more civilized ways of communication. FromCzech (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The reference date for the census is 1 December 2021, but the data was actually collected throughout 2022. You should read more before you post or edit. You should check the wiki page for Bucharest. Galehautt (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I said, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't be bothered to fix the figures for all the other Romanian cities at the bottom of the list. If you wish so, you can do this yourself. I was primarily concerned with the top 10, I did not even scroll further. The thing is, Wikipedia doesn't have in-article standards. Wikipedia has inter-article standards. When I edit, I try to follow the standard that is present in other articles. Lists on Wikipedia are of secondary grade, they simply group together pages of their own. And so, going by this logic, I think it is not good when a list gives a different figure and # than is established in the article for the city itself. Galehautt (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Of cource that the data was colected after the reference date. This also applies to estimates that are processed after the reference date. This is about the reference date, and the one for the census is 7 months earlier than the latest estimate.

You have to be bothered for the complete list if you don't want your edit to be counterproductive for readers and for a bot to have to correct deleted references after you. If your figure is not comparable to the rest of the list, it should not be here. The lists are certainly not secondary and their content may differ from the pages contained in them, if the methodology differs and/or if the list is updated but individual pages are not. FromCzech (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is you. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and you engaged in arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is you. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The practice on the wiki is that the most recent official figure is published. The Census is once every 10 years and becomes obsolete, so the official estimate becomes more accurate than the census after that. Only those countries where newer figures have not yet been published show the figure from 2021, so it is an irrelevant argument for our case. If the December 2021 data processed in 2022 are newer for you than the July 2022 data processed in early 2023, it is not possible to reasonably discuss which data is more current.

Reporting to ANI deals with your inappropriate behavior, not the content of this page. FromCzech (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The "practice on the wiki" is that it has to be consistent. The data from the most recent census is, well, most recent, it has not become obsolete and you've failed to prove that it did. What you're doing right now is making Wikipedia inconsistent and you should be banned for doing so. Galehautt (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I see no counter-argument and the discussion has fallen silent @FromCzech I suggest sticking to the changes recommended by me and another non-logged user a few months ago, 2 users in total. Galehautt (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It started to be trolling and personal attacks, for which you got banned, so there was nothing to discuss. FromCzech (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not get banned. I received a 7-day cool down and an instruction to take it to the talk page. And the last word here remains mine, you fell silent. So the changes will be constructively dismissed or reinstated. Galehautt (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian is Asian, not European

How come Russian cities on europe top list? Russia is not european but Asian… 2A09:5E40:500D:130:A924:6A1F:36CA:FB19 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia is located partly in Europe and partly in Asia. Only cities from the European part are included. FromCzech (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Um Russia is the biggest country in Europe. Undashing (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgian cities are included but not Yekaterinburg?

Wtf is this? Armenia is not even geographically in Europe. How are they included but not Yekaterinburg, which is mostly populated by slavs? Undashing (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on earlier discussions and consensus. Yekaterinburg is located in the Asian part of Russia. FromCzech (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No territory of Armenia is in Europe. Why is it included? If you're going by culture, then Siberian cities should be included, since it mostly populated by Slavs. Undashing (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read the July–August 2022 and November–December 2022 discussions. Some definitions of Europe include the Caucasus, so a compromise was made and cities were included but without ranking. There is nothing controversial about the definition of the Asian part of Russia, and Yekaterinburg does not belong here. The Slavic population does not matter. FromCzech (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Some definitions include entire Urals of Russia as well.

The offical map of Europe in their wiki page does not include Armenia and only small part of Georgia is in Europe.. Undashing (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo and location columns

The photos are nice looking, but they take up a lot of space and reduce the number of rows that can be viewed at a time. Same goes for the location column. I don't know who's clicking directly on the locations of each, when there's already a map at the bottom of the list.

I would propose removing both columns to create a much tighter-looking list. Wizmut (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally the "Eurostat 2011" column seems to be an artifact of when this article was created, before it used official sources. One column of many different official sources is enough. See List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits Wizmut (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Turkish cities

If cities that are not in Europe such as Yerevan and Tbilisi are included into this list then how come Turkish cities like Ankara that have a population of over 5 million aren't included? 88.243.132.62 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Because some people like Trancaucasian countries to include into Europe and therefore some quite relevant Euro-Asian borders place them to Europe. That's not the case of any other Turkish city beside Istanbul.

--Pan Někdo (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Either all the cities of the countries with land in Europe should be added, or only the cities in the European continent should be added. Baku and Ankara are not added because they are in Asia, but Yerevan and Tbilisi are added even though they are in Asia. There is a double standard. Everyone uses Wikipedia according to their own interpretation and this is wrong. Yuant37 (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree in substance. Many Europe articles use both the geographic definition and the expansive, cultural definition. For example, Area and population of European countries lists the numbers for the European portion of transcontinental countries, but for countries which lie outside the most common border, their entire stats are listed with an indicator.

This list already does well to mark the maybe-Europe cities as un-ranked, which tells the reader that definitions are unclear.

Now, we could be stretching it a bit if a huge Metropolis forms on the eastern edge of Siberia, but none of the existing cities that could be considered culturally or politically European seem like a stretch to me, at least for inclusion with a disclaimer. Wizmut (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)