Wikipedia

Talk:List of city listings by country/Archive 1

< Talk:List of city listings by country
(Redirected from Talk:List of city listings by country/archive1)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Luftikus143 in topic Common, international list of cities
Archive 1

Cities (alphabetical)

NOTES

Any guidelines on which cities belong in this listing and which don't? I ask because I noticed that SeaTac, Washington was just added, which is a smaller suburb of Seattle. Should other cities of that size be added, or should SeaTac be removed? -- RobLa

Yes what are the guidelines for inclusion ?
The list is not balanced - Spain is given too much prominence apparently.
Kpjas

I don't see the point in the by-country listing on this page. Shouldn't they be spun off into separate "Cities of X" articles? - Khendon 08:58 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

There is a separate, and (more?) complete listing of Cities of the United Kingdom. I have added a link to it rather than duplicated it. If this is a list of "world class" cities, I should probably remove my addition of Wells but add Sheffield.

Why can you find more Spanish cities in List of cities than in List of cities in Spain?

Fixed. -- Mic

Even though topically correct there is really nothing to disabiguate from by creating a separate List of cities by country. It abandons the set of links already established to the article and the List of metropolitan areas by population can easily be added as a link. I feel that more harm than good was accomplished by the move and I'm reversing the change. -- Mic 19:23 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)


Hong Kong

I removed Hong Kong from the city list because the Hong Kong SAR contains plenty of areas that aren't part of the city itself, and the entry as written is based on the CIA factbook and covers the whole SAR, including the fishing villages on Lamma Island :) Just for the record, none of this is meant to imply that HK isn't Chinese. --Robert Merkel

That's very true. Hong Kong SAR contains plenty of areas that are not urban at all. Hong Kong's built up areas are concentrated and clustered in only a small percentrage of its lands. Furthermore the landscape is rather mountainous, making some places remote to access, and some even have got not road access, tho they're not on islands. New towns are built in bay-convert valleys (land reclamation). Many villages and towns are outside the urban area, and on islands connected by ferries. --14:36, December 11, 2004, UTC

How is this for Hong Kong the city? --rmhermen

The urban areas of Hong Kong constitute of the "metropolitan area" (a term by Hong Kong's planning department) and the new towns. The "metropolitian area" covers the Victoria City plus the sprawl across nothern shore of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon including New Kowloon, and the new town of Tsuen Wan. There are eight new towns apart from Tsuen Wan. -- 08:05, December 13, 2004, UTC

I disagree. Hong Kong has been referred to as a city as long as I could remember. The term SAR only distinguishes it as a Special Administration Region which does not affect its status as a city of China. BTW, Hong Kong is not the only SAR in China, see ShenZhen. The boundary of the city should be defined by the juridiction of the city councils which includes the entire SAR, not just the urban area. It is true that the city is subdivided into many districts. So does New York city. Can you say New York is not a city because of its five boroughs?

Colloquially Hong Kong is referred to as a city. But it's never defined in official documents. Shenzhen is not an SAR (special administrative region), but a perfecture under Guangdong, with a "Special Economic Zone" covers more than half of the perfecture. The only SARs in the PRC are Hong Kong and Macao. --14:39, December 11, 2004, UTC
Colloquially Hong Kong is reffered to as a city, like the conurbation of London. Hong Kong has no official definition for the term "city". -- 07:06, December 13, 2004, utc
Hong Kong has abolished the municipal councils, and the former Regional Councils cover not only the urban areas in the New Territories, but also the villages in the rural areas. -- 07:09, December 11, 2004, UTC

China (mainland)

Besides, the western concept of city does not apply well in the Chinese government system. In China, there are several "cities" that are directly administrated by the central government, i.e. some cities (including Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai etc.) are at the same level as provinces politically even though geographically within a provinces. It is kinda confusing for people who don't know the system. A direct administrated city is big enough to cover multiple prefectures and villeges, town and smaller cities. One may argue that it is not a city any more, but it is run as a city. So you have to be very clear on how you define a city in this article, by the government structure, or by the urbanization? The fishing villages on Lamma Island are not villages in the same sense that Greenwich Village is not a village within New York, NY.

I'd recommend reading Political divisions of the People's Republic of China. In a nutshell, Beijing (Peking), Shanghai, Tianjin (Tientsin) and Chongqing (Chungking) are province-level municipalities. They're further divided into cities and districts which are county-level. Perhaps we can treat them as the stadt-Länder like Germany, or Australia's ACT. Ordinary provinces are divided into perfectures, and are further divided into cities and districts which are county-level. This practice is perhaps developed by thousands years of history.
But then bear in mind Hong Kong and Macao are different. They are former European colonies, and the colonial systems were pretty much preserved. Administratively SARs are first-order divisions, i.e. province-level. Afterall the SARs are not considered part of mainland China. -- 14:45, December 11, 2004, UTC

Hong Kong (cont'd)

See http://www.worldsat.ca/con_products/hk_bg.html and notice only a small part of Hong Kong is urbanized. The city is 95% green. The heavy urbanization on the upper left corner of the picture is outside Hong Kong in Shen Zhen.

That's very true. Over 40% is reserved and designated as country parks. And many non-country parks area are not built-up, or urbanised. -- 14:47, December 11, 2004, UTC
Actually not 95% green, but only 17%, roughly 184 km2 of land is built-up, including land from the sea by reclamation. -- 17:41, December 11, 2004, UTC

Redundant city listing

I took out the redundant city listing at the bottom of the page (not by country). I reproduce it here if there is something not redundant. -- David Levinson

Non-sovereign entities

I notice Huaiwei has reverted my edits because Hong Kong's sovereinty is held by the PRC. Some entities listed here are not sovereign either. Would anybody consider removing Niue and West Bank and Gaza Strip (well, at the time being) from the list?

Hong Kong's listing has been moved to come under that of China. That is point one. The second point refers to the entire conversation above...should Hong Kong even need to have a listing of "cities"? I am even considering far more massive changed to that page, so we shall see how it goes.--Huaiwei 15:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not one single mass of city like many other cities to, but then let's deal with how we should handle non-sovereign entities first. I do not agree that Hong Kong and Niue should be remove from the list. But then if we have a concensus that Hong Kong have to be listed inside the list of China, then shall we do the same with Niue? Should we do the same if there's a list of Bermuda, for instance, in future? - 17:27, December 11, 2004, UTC
Hong Kong IS a single city currently. At least that is what the Hong Kong SAR government thinks so today, and that is what we are reflecting. The case of Niue is interesting, because unlike Hong Kong which is moving towards less autonomy (arguably), Niue is actually being accorded more independence, and it is considered an independent country with "free association" with New Zealand. Bermuda, btw, dosent exist in the list, and you can have the liberty of removing it if it makes you feel better should it pop up next time. :D --Huaiwei 17:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hong Kong SAR government has never defined Hong Kong as one city. Even if you're referring Toronto as a city you're not only referring to the City of Toronto, but the cities and towns that make up the GTA or Metropolitan Toronto. (especially before the amalgation in 1998)
Full sovereign countries are those having its own diplomatic relations, and have the right to join UN (except the ROC). Niue isn't a full sovereignty yet. If there's really a list of Bermuda I guess I will keep it and put Hong Kong back onto the list. -- 18:38, December 11, 2004, UTC
Was I talking about Toronto, or HK? Other cities such as in the US have official demarcations of city boundaries and status, as well as their metropolitan areas. Does HK have this?--Huaiwei 06:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there anything of your message to deal with the subject of this string of discussion? -- 15:48, December 12, 2004, UTC

List of neighbourhoods

I wonder one a list of neighbourhoods is included here. Would it be better to move it to List of neighbourhoods listings by country if there's any? One more note: discuss before removing. -- 15:08, December 11, 2004, UTC

Another note: discuss before adding? lol. Why have you added HK without consultation?--Huaiwei 15:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nobody can anticipate whether or not a certain addition of information is controversial before adding in. But reverting already means there exists disagreement. -- 17:29, December 11, 2004, UTC

None of us are born yesterday. You have already seen how much your insistance in treating Hong Kong as a conglomerate of independent and distinct cities, and the entirety of Hong Kong as a country seperate from China, and reflecting that stance in your edits, has been facing opposition throughout from multiple members, including even those from Hong Kong. Continuing to enforce that singular idealism when you have seen prior opposition is clear-cut defiance and irresponsibility.--Huaiwei 17:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there anything of this message to do with the list of neighbourhood? I have never insisted Hong Kong as "a conglomerate[ion] of independent and distinct cities", and I still don't quite understand what do you mean by "independent and distinct cities". I have explained many many times why Hong Kong and some other non-sovereign entities should be listed under the category of "countries" or more politically correct "countries and territories". As far as I know Hlaw, Jiang and you keeps reverting my edits, and I guess only Hlaw would perhaps be from Hong Kong. -- 18:45, December 11, 2004, UTC
Ironically, your "explaination" of why Hong Kong should be listed, was based on your believe that Hong Kong is constituted of multiple distinct and seperate cities, is a conglomerate, and in addition, is seperate from China. We have consistently disputed this, and your evidences to back up your claims has also been rejected as insufficient and unsatisfactory. This is hardly a case of us reverting your edits without giving you a piece of our minds, and you are hardly a pitiful and innocent victim. You have been given more then enough explainations and chances, but you continue to wreak havok here.--Huaiwei 07:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there anything to do with the subject of this string of discussion? -- 15:51, December 12, 2004, UTC

Should we kick neighbourhood lists? They are not cities. -- 03:24, December 13, 2004, UTC

Huaiwei has reverted my edits on neighbourhoods. Are neighbourhoods cities and have to be listed here on a "List of city listings"? -- 07:11, December 13, 2004, UTC

Different meanings of the term "city"

QUOTE "Was I talking about Toronto, or HK? Other cities such as in the US have official demarcations of city boundaries and status, as well as their metropolitan areas. Does HK have this?--Huaiwei 06:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)" ENDQUOTE

Hong Kong has no official definitions for "city". Only one of the demacated territories, the City of Victoria, has got the word "city" in its name. You can argue that even entire Hong Kong is not a city, if you insist on whether there is official demarcations.

I talked about Toronto and GTA / Metropolitan Toronto because there are colloquial meanings of the word "city", which do not have to co-incide with the official definitions. -- 15:50, December 12, 2004, UTC

I do not know much about Toronto, and hence I dont wish to comment on that, but I am not that unfamiliar with Hong Kong as you probably think I am. The term "city" affixed to a historical relic of an old city boundary which is no longer relevant politically or administratively is of little concern. Yes, you have legistalation demarcating the boundary, but you appear to take it hook line and sinker as thou that legislation alone is supposed to redefine everything we understand of HK as a city today. That legislation, I have to remind you, merely demarcates the old boundary of what was once Victoria, today subsumed under modern Hong Kong. This can be done purely for historical records, just as other cities also occasaionally formalise the boundaries of their original cities for no other purpose but heritage concerns and so forth. Taken in contemporary contexts, do we continue to exercise these boundaries in adminstration and politics? Clearly the answer is no for Victoria City, which you refuse to acknowledge.--Huaiwei 02:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"the old boundary of what was once Victoria, today subsumed under modern Hong Kong". I'd rather say the urban area of Victoria City has expanded beyond its eastern and western boundaries and covers the nothern shore of Hong Kong Island. The term "Victoria City" is still used in some administration matters, for instance, the plots within the City's boundary. -- 04:21, December 13, 2004, UTC

QUOTE "Ironically, your "explaination" of why Hong Kong should be listed, was based on your believe that Hong Kong is constituted of multiple distinct and seperate cities, is a conglomerate, and in addition, is seperate from China. We have consistently disputed this, and your evidences to back up your claims has also been rejected as insufficient and unsatisfactory. This is hardly a case of us reverting your edits without giving you a piece of our minds, and you are hardly a pitiful and innocent victim. You have been given more then enough explainations and chances, but you continue to wreak havok here.--Huaiwei 07:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)" ENDQUOTE

If you compare the maps or the space images of Hong Kong and some other urban areas (metropolitan areas) such as Singapore, NYC, Guangzhou, San Franciso, etc., you'll probably find that Hong Kong is not a single urban mass. That's why I insisted Hong Kong is not one single city.

I've never said and believed that they are "multiple distinct and separate cities, is a conglomerate", as I, frankly, still cannot understand what do you mean by "distinct and separate cities". Would you mind making a definition of what makes cities "distinct" and "separate" from each other? -- 16:01, December 12, 2004, UTC

I cannot believe that anyone can actually draw boundaries to define a city by looking at satellite maps and marking out discontinous urban areas as seperate cities. This is simply absurd to say the least. You insisted for example, that Kowloon and Victoria city are different cities because they are seperated by water I suppose. I asked you...how about in New York City, whereby the urban area is similarly split between Manhanttan, Long Island, Staten Island, and so forth? And you failed to explain Istanbul. You gonna redefine their city boundaries for them?
Urban areas which are discontinous are therefore different cities? Interesting. I suppose by your logic, the converse must be true as well, that all continous urban areas should be one city?
Hong Kong's urban area was fragmented, simply because of geography for more reason then any other. That it has mountainous areas confining urban areas to be squeezed into the shorelines, and depending on land reclamation, and by the adoption of the new town planning concept in the development of satellite towns in low rise areas away from the main urban centre, creates the urban makeup of HK we have today. Amazing, hence, that you appear to take the contemporary satellite image of Hong Kong, and somehow proclaim that fragmented urbanisation has to mean a collection of different cities, without even noting the topography and development patterns over time!--Huaiwei 02:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not all continious urban areas are one city, can be unrelated, conurbations or megalopolises. But then can discontonuous urban areas be one city? I don't know.
Hong Kong's new towns are not low-rise. The population density, and the plot ratio can be as high as in the business hub. I am not saying that they are "different, distinct and separated" cities, but it is not like the pattern of many other cities. Furthermore there are many unurbanised areas in Hong Kong, in remote areas and on the outlying islands. -- 03:31, December 13, 2004, UTC
I am open on this issue. But one may find Hong Kong's pattern is quite different from the majority of other examples. -- 03:26, December 13, 2004, UTC

Doesn't "city", as opposed to "Metropolitan area", or "conurbation", or some such, imply that we are using the term precisely? For instance, London is never referred to in its article as a "city", but always as a conurbation, with the term "City of London" limited to refer to, well, the City of London. john k 18:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take your argument. But colloquially or informally the term "city" refers to many things, such as "metropolitan area" or "conurbations", or "megalopolis". -- 03:28, December 13, 2004, UTC
Interestingly London is referred to as the captial of the UK, and is listed in the List of capitals and List of capitals and larger cities by country as a city. The London article is in the categories of Cities in England, Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games and GaWC-defined Alpha World City. Is Greater London officially designated as a city? --08:10, December 13, 2004, UTC
Or is the City (of London) the capital, and hosted the olympic games instead? --03:19, December 14, 2004, UTC
Both the articles "London" (referring to the broader concept) and "City of London" are in the category of "Cities in England. -- 03:22, December 14, 2004, UTC

Non-sovereign entities (cont'd)

QUOTE "Ironically, your "explaination" of why Hong Kong should be listed, was based on your believe that Hong Kong is constituted of multiple distinct and seperate cities, is a conglomerate, and in addition, is seperate from China. We have consistently disputed this, and your evidences to back up your claims has also been rejected as insufficient and unsatisfactory. This is hardly a case of us reverting your edits without giving you a piece of our minds, and you are hardly a pitiful and innocent victim. You have been given more then enough explainations and chances, but you continue to wreak havok here.--Huaiwei 07:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)" ENQUOTE

Hong Kong's proximity might make you feel that (or believe that) Hong Kong is part of mainland China, which is not true. In many areas Hong Kong's (and Macao's) autonomy are even greater than some non-sovereign entities. Hong Kong and Macao has their own judiciaries, their own currencies, their own legislatures, their own customs and immigration control, etc. Hong Kong and Macao residents need a passport-like document to cross the border to mainland China, and vice-versa. All these are already enough and substantial to have Hong Kong and Macao listing with other non-sovereign entities, under "countries and territories". And that's the practice in politics and journalism. -- 16:04, December 12, 2004, UTC

This paragraph of yours just reaffirms what I have been saying about you higher up this page, and which you dismiss as irrelevant. I dont assume that Hong Kong is a part of People's Republic of China due to proximity alone. That would be really trivial and superficial of me. But I notice you have been playing with words to suit your agendas. Probably due to your strong desires to "promote" Hong Kong and increase its visibility across wikipedia (which isnt neccesarily a bad thing, actually), you systemetically change the term "People's Republic of China" to "Mainland China," and then gleefully add Hong Kong in the same listing as a seperate category. If there is a need to increase the visibility of any one entity here, it can be done with better respect for established conventions, as well as exercising some personal responsibility. Any of that is clearly more diserable then what you have been doing.--Huaiwei 02:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Don't put any hat on me. I am just following the convention used in politics and in journalism. People list Hong Kong statistics or facts under the category "countries" or "countries and territories", but not as a subset of mainland China (or PRC). I read newspapers everyday (not only one paper, not only local ones), and I understand well how they deal with Hong Kong. -- 03:20, December 13, 2004, UTC
You sound like I dont read newspapers regularly too (not just local, not just one), and dont deal with statistical databases and that kind of stuff in my years of existance on this planet. For one, there is no "convention" in politics and journalism that Hong Kong should always be listed as indepedent from the PRC. If you indeed read widely, then I must say I am quite astonished as to why you think there is a "standard" in that regard. Moreover, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper.--Huaiwei 03:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the convention to deal with "countries and territories" should not be necessarily linked to newspaper or to other common conventions in everyday lives. Tell me why should dependencies and territories listed under the states holding their sovereignty? -- 04:10, December 13, 2004, UTC
Quite simple really. Look at this page. Or are you going to bring up Taiwan, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Niue again?--Huaiwei 04:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then would you mind telling why Hong Kong and Macao are different from Bermuda, Channel Islands or Turks and Caicos Islands? Niue isn't a sovereign state itself too. West Bank and Gaza Strip isn't sovereign as well, but could be arguable. -- 04:55, December 13, 2004, UTC
Ask yourself. Would you be happy if we call HK a "dependency" or a "colony"? And again I ask....how many of these other entities you listed involved a power transfer from being a colony of one country to an inseperable part of another, plus a 50-year "status quo" clause? You do not seem to realise that HK is no longer a colony of Britain, and is now a part of the PRC or something?--Huaiwei 05:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We're talking about something at present. The way Hong Kong and Macao are operated, and their connections with the sovereign power, are somehow equivalent to those entities. Nobody would consider Hong Kong and Macao the same as other places in mainland China.
Who knows whether it is "inseperable"? Is Scotland "inseperable" from the UK perpetually? Who can tell.. -- 05:49, December 13, 2004, UTC
It was written in the basic laws (inalienable) for the sake of writing. Even UK wouldn't have consider losing the colonies all over the world when they colonised them. Those guys in Peking are often saying Taiwan is inseparable, but can they guarantee anything? -- 05:52, December 13, 2004, UTC
Algeria was considered metropolitan France, but not as a colony. But what had happened? What about Québec? New Caledonia? Even Montenegro and Serbia are separating. -- 05:56, December 13, 2004, UTC

(reply to -- 05:56, December 13, 2004, UTC)

Good that you have finally shifted the conversation back to a consideration of the present situation. But the same questions applies. How relevant is HK's situation to any of the other examples you listed, and any other on Earth other then Macau? HK's situation is like Scotland's? I didnt know Scotland was a colony of another country before it was given a 50 year status quo grace period. "Nobody" may consider HK the same as other places in China, but its not like Beijing is the same as any other place in China either, was it? That line is just plain vague and emotive to me.--Huaiwei 06:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not comparing Hong Kong with Scotland. I was using Scotland and other examples to illustrate nothing is "inseperable".
I have listed out the eligibility for non-sovereign entities to be listed as "countries and territories". You have suggested no reason why Hong Kong and Macao should not be listed according to those definitions. (In case you don't remember, a place can be listed seperately from the sovereign power if it has self-rule, its own customs and immigration control, ties with other countries or territories on its own, and perhaps its own currency.) -- 06:22, December 13, 2004, UTC
How is it that you can keep imagining that I have not debucked your claims when I clearly had? And btw, you sure HK has absolute self-rule?--Huaiwei 06:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have refuted Hong Kong's and Macao's status like other non-sovereign status by saying that they are colonies transferred back to its original sovereign power, and they have no choice to be independent. These are history and future. But you didn't debuck about the present way of operation and their connection with the sovereign power, which my claims based on.
Read the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao, and compare with the constitutions (or equivalent) of Puerto Rico, etc. -- 06:59, December 13, 2004, UTC
Perhaps you can tell us what similarities you have found?--Huaiwei 07:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind, but there're only you and I in this discussion, and I'm feeling like you won't be convinced unless you read the source by yourself. I guess it's more likely that you'll think it's not biased. Feel free to ask if there's anything unclear or uncertain with those stuffs. :-P -- 07:27, December 13, 2004, UTC
The articles Kingdom of the Netherlands and Politics of Aruba also provide valuable information for making such an evaluation. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are self-governing, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands is responsible for denfense, foreign affairs, citizenship and extradition, and the supreme court. In contrast, Hong Kong and Macao are responsible for extradiction, and the citizenships are distinguished from that of mainland China. Hong Kong and Macao has their own courts of final appeal, the highest court, i.e. completely independent judiciary. -- 11:38, December 13, 2004, UTC
Aruba is an associate member of the WTO, but Hong Kong is a full member. -- 10:39, December 15, 2004, UTC

Bermuda and Cayman Islands and Chechnya

Hey folks don't tell me Bermuda and Cayman Islands are countries. Chechnya is arguable but it is not like Abkhazia or Somaliland. There are more than a dozen of similar ones, and you guys gotta be consistent, either list them all or drop all them out. I notice Hweiwei keeps moving some but not all of units of such under their corresponding sovereign countries, and trying to make a difference of all these units along an arbitary line. Sounds like there's something hidden or unknown agenda, or to fulfil something.

They have been moved. I didnt even notice Chechnya in the list until u guys pointed it out, so I dont know what "agenda" is involved here?--Huaiwei 09:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for moving. But Chechnya's status is arguable. On one hand it did achieve independence tho not officially recognised by many countries, on the other hand it is now just like other republics in the Russian Federation.
I cannot understand why you treated these entities differently. Tell us why and how do you draw the line.
I agree it is arguable. In fact, I think it should be moved to the Russia page now. Before I can do that, we need to expand Russia's list so that this listing fits in thou (such that it is listed by subdivisions in Russia). That is the only reason...nothing more.--Huaiwei 11:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's alright to have a list of Chechnya. -- 20:11, December 15, 2004, UTC
Why?--Huaiwei 20:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Towns in Singapore

To Hwaiwei would you mind telling are the towns and neighbourhoods distinct from each other in their own right? Are these towns listed in laws or any government documents? Thank you.

Check out any detailed local map of Singapore. There are 22 New Towns here with fixed boundaries, and they can be found in any planning document of the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore, or in the town boundary maps of the Housing and Development Board. They are no different from the new towns in Hong Kong, and in fact, if you guys want to be picky and insist on the existance of "Victoria City" and so on today, perhaps I should also now insist on the existance of a seperate "Singapore City" within the Island nation of "Singapore," since we do have such a historical entity too?
Seems like some folks are beginning to really try to stir up some shit now.--Huaiwei 21:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a list of city lists. Are towns and neighbourhoods in Singapore cities? Are they distinct and separate from each other, and from Singapore?
I recon that in a listing like this, the aim is to be able to list every city existing on earth by Country. Singapore belongs to some of the rare instances whereby a city is an entire country, and hence, the entire country is listed as an entity. However, other members have subsequently asked if this confuses people into thinking that Singapore has sub-cities, and hence a link to the towns and neighbourhoods of Singapore was added too. I do not mind if the sublink to neighbourhoods is removed, but the entity of Singapore as a country as well as a city stays for sure.
If we were to look at things historically, thou, the city of Singapore actually does have a boundary which is only in the southern corner of the main island. The colony of Singapore founded by Stamford Raffles, for example, only occupied that small area until a subsequent threaty with the local rulers allowed jurisdiction over the whole of the main lsland and adjacent islets. Subsequently, the suburbs is either arranged into New Towns, or the remainder in a vague reference to neighbourhoods. Contemporary Singapore no longer enforces the old city boundary.
Same thing for Hong Kong, with anon trying to argue that there are sub-cities in there today when there are non. Hong Kong today is but one city comprising of downtown areas on both sides of the Victoria Harbour (although predominantly on the HK Island side), and with a collection of New Towns forming like pockets in other low-rise and inhabitable areas of the city. Contitutional references to "Victoria City" is merely a record of the old historical boundary of the original entity on Hong Kong Island, and is no longer considered a distinct city from Hong Kong today in every sence of the word, be it adminstratively, politically or by jurisdiction.
Hence, if he wants to talk about "consistency" here, but fine. We should be un-doing his lone attempt in creating "cities of Hong Kong" and "cities of Macau" when they are non today, just because he wants to see them listed seperately from the People's Republic of China!--Huaiwei 18:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a list of city lists. If Singapore has got a list of city/ies, put the list here. If not, try to create one, or do the same as France or Nauru, and put on a note to tell the readers why she/he got into such a lists of towns and neighbourhoods instead of a list of cities.
I have encountered a handful of websites listing statistics (say population, population density) of different places in Hong Kong separately, but as one set of data for Singapore. All these are implying definitely something. Among these websites this one is the most clear ones. Another one would be Geographia that I've shown to you some time ago. Take a look of Demographia if you've time, particular this document (pdf format), but bear in mind information in this document is not that accurate.
Is the Singapore City still demarcated by law or any official means? (just being curious, I don't think it's necessary for a city to be a real city. A city is a city and do not have to defined by administrative or political measures.)
The "downturn" of Hong Kong is not "predominantly on the Hong Kong Island", and the New Towns are not low-rise, though they were formed in the non built-up areas of Hong Kong's territory.
Go and see the List of dependent territories before further challenging Hong Kong and Macao's statuses as territories. -- 18:40, December 16, 2004, UTC
It is indeed strange why you like to depend on informal websites for city demarcations, a topic which is usually not even debatable. Everyone knows, that in just about any country, they official accord urban areas city status, or any other lesser forms such as towns and hamlets, and these usually includes boundaries demarcating and diffrentiating them from each other. The United States, for example, publishes an official list of cities, as well as metropolitan areas, as the counties they occupy. China, too, publishes official lists of various levels of cities from the municapalities to the county levels. My question remains...does HK publish similar documents on the various "cities" of HK?
So a city is not a city if the government do not set a definition, am I right? -- 19:59, December 15, 2004, UTC
Why are you asking this?--Huaiwei 20:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Coz you define a city by its official status or recognition. -- 20:30, December 15, 2004, UTC
If you are interested in finding data on Singapore which are broken down into its subdistricts, please refer to the lists and maps by the Housing and Development Board [1], or the Singapore Master Plan of the Urban Redevelopment Authority [2]. Detailed information about planning subdistricts, many of whom are inclusive of New Towns can also be found here [3]. The Department of Statistics [4], in its main census, the last one having been taking in the year 2000, does contain statistical data broken down by the planning boundaries stipulated by the URA. This information is not found online, but is available in the Census 2000 publication in hardcopy.
Thanks so much. In Hong Kong the statisitics are broken down according to the districts, which for some districts, cover both urbanised areas and rural areas. The statistics are not presented according to towns or villages. -- 20:00, December 15, 2004, UTC
Which is why I am curious. Why do you call them "districts" now, when you seem to want to insist that they are individial "cities"?
Districts are not the cities or towns. -- 20:31, December 15, 2004, UTC
"Singapore city" as a historical entity has maps demarcating its original extent. Refer to Jackson's plan of Singapore (1823), which was drawn up 4 years after the colony's founding. A few months later, a second threaty signed in 7 June 1823, bringing most of the rest of the island under British posession. That Singapore, too, has a history of border changes may be of note in historical accounts in wikipedia, but it is another thing altogether when trying to distinguish cities in the contemporary context. Contrary to what you say, there ARE indeed formal declarations of settlements as "cities" or not.
That's not very like the case of Victoria City and Kowloon. Victoria City was defined as part of the first colonised area, i.e. Hong Kong Island. Is the limits of the Singapore City founded in 1819 (am I right?) stated in law today? When did the urban area of Singapore expands beyond this city limit? If the limit was stated in law and was scrapped, when was it scrapped? Is the lands (plots) within the City treated differently with the lands outside its boundary? -- 20:05, December 15, 2004, UTC
The two dosent need to be similar in terms of how they are demarcated. So long that both boundaties are no longer treated as administrative/political boundaries today, then they should simply not be done so. The downtown area of contemporary Singapore, too, is well recognised as the orginial extent of the city, and it is difficult to say when the urban area of Singapore extended beyond this limit. The boundary defining this early Singapore, representing the zone of British control, has effectively been removed since 7 June 1823 as stated above when their juridiction extended to the whole Island. Quite obviously the British arent supposed to be trending and settling into areas not under its control prior to 7 June 1823!--Huaiwei 20:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just to point out that they are not alike. The line of control is not like the limit of the City of Victoria. Is the boundary of Singapore City stated in law btw? -- 20:33, December 15, 2004, UTC
I said HK's New towns are built in the low-rise areas of HK, and that, of coz, refers to the relatively non hilly areas of Hong Kong. That the towns skirt around the shores of the islands and the mainland, is evident enough. Proof to me that you have a town built smark in the middle of those mountain ranges, and we shall see again. Secondly, when I refer to "downtown" of Hong Kong predominantly on HK island, I refer to the fact that most of HK's commercial areas, especially grade A offices, are located on Hong Kong Island. The Kowloon side is comparably relatively low-rise and run-down, with non-formalised commercial activities the most significant of these areas. Of coz I was being too vague in my earlier statement, but I dont see how it is "wrong."
So low rise here means less mountainous? The new towns are not in the hilly areas because many of them are built on reclaimed lands. But then some of the new towns are surrounded by mountains or hills by three sides.
There are also a lot of office buildings and hotels in Kowloon near Tsim Sha Tsui. Kowloon is relatively not that densed because the former HKIA is in Kowloon Bay, and there was restrictions on height and plot ratio for buildings in Kowloon. -- 20:09, December 15, 2004, UTC
How does "non hilly" not include reclaimed areas? You seem to be trying to test my knowledge of HK or what? lol And so what if some towns are surrounded by mountains? Are these mountains city boundaries?
That the main office space are located in Hong Kong island is beyond doubt. I dont see why there is a need for further discussion in this.--Huaiwei 20:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The mountains are the natural barrier and therefore the planning limits of some of these new towns. Who knows when you're using low-rise to refer to non-hilly, or to shorter buildings. -- 20:36, December 15, 2004, UTC
Yes there are more grade A offices on the Hong Kong Island than in Kowloon, but it is not like "predominant" or "main". -- 20:38, December 15, 2004, UTC
Finally, did I argue that HK is not a "territory"? It being a territory dosent make it a country thou, nor does it argue that it is not one city.--Huaiwei 19:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then are Aruba a country or a territory? -- 20:10, December 15, 2004, UTC
Does this matter? Are we talking about Hong Kong or Aruba now? And do you not realise a "territory" can actually mean anything from the plot of land my house sits on, to an entire country and beyond?--Huaiwei 20:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's a definition of territory in politics. If you define "territory" in this discussion in that way then it's meaningless to define, and this discussion is nothing meaningful. -- 20:38, December 15, 2004.

Bermuda and Cayman Islands

British overseas territory are not part of the United Kingdom. See the article British overseas territory. -- 11:16, December 15, 2004, UTC

Dont even know who added them, but they are not lists anyway. They were completely removed.--Huaiwei 11:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mainland China

There is a dispute over the listing of the List of cities in China, which is a list of cities in mainland China. Huaiwei considered it as a list of entire China, and moved the link to be placed at "China" instead of "mainland China" (see the differences). — Instantnood 20:08 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)

Go see that page for yourselves everyone. It clearly is a page for "China", which includes the areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China as well as the Republic of China (Taiwan).--Huaiwei 10:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_city_listings_by_country&oldid=10682015

This is the version I preferred (see also its differences with the current version). — Instantnood 02:34 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

  • yes, this version, instead of special casing HK and Macao BELOW the PRC, it makes the PRC non-clickable and then puts HK and Macau at an equal level with the rest of the country. HK and Macau are special, and deserve sub-entries. they are not equal to the entirety of the rest of the county.

Common, international list of cities

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I haven't found yet a common list of cities, including english name, local name, with/without special characters, country name (local and international), lat/long etc. It's really a shame that in the year 2006 someone interested in displaying a selection of cities has to consult a dozen of different sources to get - unfortunately - as well almost a dozen of different ways of writing the city name or country name, some with lat/long, some without, some with the population numbers, some without, some with local wirting, some without, etc... Believe me, I already spent hours and days trying to set-up a more comprehensive, unified, harmonious set... but not with great success. I think it should be a place like this one here (Wikipedia), where it would be best situated. -- Luftikus143 13:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The nearest - and upon first look pretty substantive - thing is geonames.org. -- Luftikus143 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_city_listings_by_country/Archive_1&oldid=1004768605"