Talk:List of urban areas by population/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New York/Philadelphia/Hartford

I'm from the US, and I can tell you that the grouping of New York/Philadelphia/Hartford is down-right ridiculous. It is not hardly a contiguous urban area, rather a collection of loosely connected metropoli, and that is obvious in that its land-area is so much bigger than other's on the list. --Criticalthinker 00:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Geopolis criteria tend to be lenient but it is at least consistent worldwide. All figures are based on analysis of aerial/satellite images. If you know of a reputable source that has a worldwide, consistent list, we can use that instead. --Polaron | Talk 01:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could say that this is anywhere near consistent when the New York area averages 8 times larger in land-area than most of the others on the list. --Criticalthinker 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to would agree with Criticalthinker. I actually had a coworker who lived near Trenton (30-minute drive from Philly) and commuted to work in New York, I still don't consider Philly close to New York. Philly and Hartford are both about two-hour drive from New York, if you consider that distance for New York, why not add 2 hours to each side and get to Baltimore and Boston? Add one more to Baltimore to get to DC. --Voidvector 07:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you that this area is not a single metro area but this list is about the connectedness of developed areas, not travel to work areas. There is a substantial gap between Philadelphia and Baltimore, and between Springfield and Worcester. The Geopolis criteria is mainly about having buildings/dwellings not more than 200 m apart. It is because the urban sprawl of these adjacent metro areas have now become in contact with each other is why they are considered by Geopolis as a single contiguous conurbation. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree about grouping New York City and Philadelphia. If your going to group those two together, you might as well group Bakersfield USA, Los Angeles USA, San Diego USA, and Tijuana, Mexico together as one megalopolis as well with a population of 24 Million. Also, this is suppose to be a list of Urban Area's. An urban area is typically smaller than the Metropolitan Area, so I think New York and Philadelphia should be divided into two separate Metropolitan Areas. Mrsmith93309 09:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Randstad is really needed, it has about 10 million(!) inhabitans so that will mean they get place 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.100.44 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That statement is not necessarily correct. There can be continuous urbanization across different urban centers. Metropolitan areas are based on commuter flows while urban areas are based on the existence of buildings. The list is based on the Geopolis research data. It is not our place to define these areas as that would constitute original research. --Polaron | Talk 13:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken some action on this and modified the list to reflect the numbers from the article New York metropolitan area. Actually, the previously numbers as far as population and land area went seemed to be wrong anyways. -- Suso (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Some home-country knowledge would surely add to the usefulness of this list. I'm an American and a trained geographer. Almost all Americans who have lived in or spent a good deal of time in the major U.S. cities would regard New York and Philadelphia as distinct (despite a point of contact at Princeton); and Hartford as a distant city almost unrelated to New York or Boston (which it is halfway between). Most but not all would lump the whole Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) into one "city." Baltimore and Washington could go either way, as one consolidated urban area or two. Los Angeles and San Diego are quite distinct (again despite a point of almost-contact between Temecula and Fallbrook). The rankings should reflect these "social facts." I could keep going but the ongoing disputes about smaller clusters of cities, such as those around Cleveland, do not affect the list of biggest cities in the world so I'll stop. 162.84.252.224 (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

---

Milan with 4.750.000 on the list. Estimate Census of OECE - Spring 2007 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/62/37720067.pdf

Demographia has released new estimates for 2008.

I shall update this article in a couple of hours.Aurichalcum (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Update finished.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographia population estimates for 2008 have been slightly updated. Now Jakarta ranks second.

http://www.demographia.com/db-wlargestua.pdf http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua2015.pdf 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Aurichalcum (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Belgrade

What about Belgrade, Serbia? According to 2008 projections, it has over 2,100,000 residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deja 037 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Toronto horseshoe area has 8.1-9 million people

why is Chicago and New York city allowed more area that other cities ? the horseshoe area around Toronto has an inner ring (about one third the area of Chicagoland) that has 6.4-6.5 million people and an outer ring (a little bigger than Chicagoland) that had 8.1 million poeple in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC) also, like 15 million people live around the shores of lake ontario. Joho Maps ranks toronto 28th with 9.2 million people in its metro area.

Vancouver

in 2878 square km's it has 2.5-2.6 million people. that area is about half the area of Atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Toronto

The urban area for Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa is listed at 5.9 million rounded. However, adding up the populations of the three urban areas according to Stats Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_urban_areas_in_Canada_by_population, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=801&PR=0&SR=1&S=3&O=D) it comes to 5.7 million rounded.

These numbers are from 2006, so it is probable that it is now 5.9 million. However, unless someone can find some official numbers to source, could someone change it to 5.7 million? (Posted by Electrify85)

In other news: There is no way that the area of GTA+Oshawa+Hamilton is 2,279 km². No way. Just the GTA (Toronto+York+Peel+Durham+Halton) is larger than that, at 7,125 km² (per its own article). Without Halton, it's still larger than 6,000. I am not correcting at this point since I don't have a correct figure, but including Hamilton and environs will take the area into five figure territory. elpincha (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that this list is about urban areas and not metropolitan areas, which is a different concept. The land areas, in sq.km, is 1,748.57 for Toronto, 367.32 for Hamilton, and 162.48 for Oshawa. This gives a total of 2,278.37 sq.km. Once again, this is for urban areas, only including continuous built-up area, excluding the large parts of rural space that the wider 'Census Metropolitan Areas' include. However, it can always be discussed if it's correct to count these three urban areas as one. In official census statistics, they are counted as separate areas. More 2006 Census statistics for urban areas in Canada is found here.--Pjred (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Houston Dallas and Fort Worth anyone?

I love how none of these appear anywhere on this list, The actual population of the concrete city limits of houston would put it on this list, much less the metropolitan urban area. This article needs to be removed, wikipedia has enough lists of cities by population. JEMdev (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dallas–Fort Worth is ranked 53rd with an estimated population of 5,160,000 within an area of 3,959 km² (combination of Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington and Denton–Lewisville urbanized areas), while Houston is ranked 61st with an estimated popuation of 4,550,000 within an area of 3,463 km² (combination of Houston and The Woodlands urbanized areas).Aurichalcum (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen (and most southern Sweden)

The Oeresund area (Danish capital Copenhagen Metropolitan Area and the westeren part of most southern Sweden - Scania), surrounds the Sound (with motrorway and regional train bridge) with 1.85 million on danish side and 0.95 million - total of 2.8 million on about 5000-6000 (land-) sq.km.

This article treats the population of urban areas. Demographia defines the urban area of Copenhangen as an area of 648 km2 with 1,525,000 inhabitants. For the Swedish part, most of the Scania region does not meet the urban criteria of Demographia (over 400/km2).Aurichalcum (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Berlin

Berlin is not counted as Metropolitan Area, just former Eastberlin + Westberlin, but with Potsdam and other suburbs outside the latest incorporations - wich was before WW1, its close to 5 million.

Berlin is already ranked the 79th most populous urban area with population of 3,690,000 inhabitants within an area of 984 km2. The metopolitan area is much larger, but this is the list of urban areas.Aurichalcum (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New York's population density (according to figures quoted here) is 1784 per sq km, which is about 50% higher than that of Bangladesh as a whole. Not quite impressive for a city. In contrast, Mumbai has a density of 25,135 per sq km, by far the highest in the list. Perhaps this list must be ranked according to density (or at least have a column indicating this figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographia has released new estimates for 2009.

I shall update this article in a couple of hours.Aurichalcum (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 18 urbans have been added, while Bucharest is removed from the list.Aurichalcum (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chittagong

Bangladesh's port city,Chittagong,has a population of 3 720 437. Why isn't it included in the list. The evidence can be found in Bangladesh article, in the section;Divisions, districts, and upazilas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boavi (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo

First of all, São Paulo metropolitan area is far more populated than it's shown in this charter and you can confirm this information here in Wikipedia, as somebody has already said. I believe the official IBGE Census (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) states that São Paulo's metropolitan region holds around 24.000.000 inhabitants, while Rio de Janeiro metropolitan region comprises around 13.000.000 inhabitants, according to this same governamental institution's data.

Also, using the same criteria used here to define the New York urban area, we should display the concept of the Rio-São Paulo megalopolitan area or axis (Megalopolis), with a population of over 40.000.000 people.

21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul / Ankara

Istanbul's and Ankara's areas are underestimated (to be 50-60% less than the actual area). I am an image processing engineer and when perform image analysis oon the stallite imagery and maps from google, I calculate the area of Istanbul's populated are to be 2,650 km2 and Ankara's to be 1,535 km2. I can provide images and the code to calculate these numbers. The numbers you have in this list are probably outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.201.161 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great. However, one of Wikipedia's policies prevents the introduction of original research or thought. Here's some more information regarding this policy. WP:OR. Elockid (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think New York City's population is overestimated. The urban population is 18,223,567 on the New York City article and on this page it reads 21,295,000. --KRajaratnam1 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Urbanized areas of Bridgeport-Stamford, New Haven, Trenton, Danbury and Hightstown are further added. Base-year population of the urban area of New York by the definition of Demographia is 19,712,969/11,264 km² on Apr 1, 2000 (Combination of urbanized areas of New York-Newark (17,799,861/8,683.20 km²), Bridgeport-Stamford (888,890/1,205.14 km²), New Haven (531,314/738.94 km²), Trenton (268,472/238.59 km²), Danbury (154,455/320.06 km²) and Hightstown (69,977/77.48 km²)). Estimated annual change (0.43%) gives the estimated figure for 2009.Aurichalcum (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There has to be a better way of putting together this page, perhaps a single, complete source. Chengdu is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu as being 11 million+ and that's the city itself. Presumably the urban area is larger than that. On February 6, the NY Times describes it as a city of "more than 10 million." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.25.254 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The 11 million figure is for the entire administrative limits of the sub-provincial city, which includes 6 rural counties and 4 county-level cities. The urban districts of Chengdu only add up to about 5 million people and even that includes some rural territory around the periphery. Generally, urban areas are smaller than the administrative boundaries in China. --Polaron | Talk 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the San Antonio-Austin, TX urban area not included on this list? NE San Antonio to South Austin is less than 45 miles. Yet Ann Arbor-Detroit (over 40 miles apart) as well as San Jose-San Francisco (over 40 miles apart) are included on the same list. This should surely be revised, as the San Antonio metro area ends in North New Braunfels which is less than 25 miles from where the Austin Metro area ends in Buda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Antonio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Austin

As cited above... using Wikipedia by the way...the area includes nearly 3.6 million residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.55.33 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I agree with the statement below... Oakland is less then 15 miles from San Francisco and should be included in the same urban area. In fact Oakland has more of a right than San Jose to be included with San Francisco.

Why on earth is a third party (demographia)'s information copied verbatim here, right down to including abbreviations? This page needs some serious work. Brianski (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The Oakland MSA is clearly part of the same urban area - especially if Hartford is New York. Total SF/SJ/OAK population is ~7.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.202.218 (talk) 19:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Oakland is part of the area as listed. The population you are referring to is the combined statistical area which includes areas outside the urban core. --Polaron | Talk 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Put golden horseshoe in table at position 32. It fits into the definition of an urban are much like S.F and San Jose--Crabsoup 02:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. This page lists the results from a specific source, Demographia. Whether or not you think their results make sense is beyond the point, because they are only supposed to reflect that source. You can make a footnote perhaps. Hypertall (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the SF Bay region is underpopulated on this chart: the US census 2007 list the San Francisco-San Jose Combined Statistical Area as having about 7.2 million. I can understand the argument of not including Santa Rosa, but why not San Rafael/Novato? Everyone there commutes into SF. Vallejo should be in there as well. I think that ultimately we should go with what the US Census says - 7.2, placing the SF-SJ CSA somewhere between number 38 and 36. Digsdirt (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Links

Should the links be directed towards the cities (as is in most case), or the actual urban area? I am going to wait on linking to the urban areas until a consensus is reached. Mathpianist93 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to add a couple:

Taipei- 6.610.000 and Fukuoka- 5.418.537.

I agree with you about Casablanca though I have another number- 3.975.000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.188.121 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a list based on data compiled by Demographia as stated in the lead of the article. So adding data from other sources does not follow the aim of the article which is to provide a single source list for consistency. This is done because various organizations have different definitions of urban areas. Adding new numbers not from Demographia breaks the consistency of the article and it might be that the new data had a different definition than the rest of the cities, resulting in an unfair comparison between cities. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sea Level

I'm wondering, considering global warming changes, perhaps a lot of cross-referencing data could avail us with a nice little SEA LEVEL column on this wiki page.. eh? i think that'd be a nice little touch. who wants to yell at me now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.149.87.154 (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Major adjustments

Maybe I just don't understand, but every city here has the wrong population. This has to be fixed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.15.120 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that different cencus measures where used for different cities. And Atlantas population just seems to be from around '96 for no reason. I'ts clearly incorrect 13 years later, especially in such a fast growing city. or the sake of maintaining wikipedias quality standards such blatant misinformation needs be kept in check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.57.14 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Demographia has released new estimates for 2010

I shall update this article in a couple of hours.Aurichalcum (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ten urbans (Wuxi, China; Karaj, Iran; Kumasi, Ghana; Guiyang, China; Xiamen, China; Shunde, China; Bamako, Mali; Chittagong, Bangladesh; Hefei, China; Kitakyūshū, Japan) are newly added to the list. Douala, Cameroon (1,885,000) is removed from the list.Aurichalcum (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Population growth rates are also removed from the list, because they are not given in the March 2010 edition of Demographia.Aurichalcum (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the March 2010 edition, Taoyuan and Chungli are to be included in the urban area of Taipei. However, there is still an entry for Taoyuan-Chungli in the main list, and it is also likely that the data for Taipei (6,270,000) does not include the population of Taoyuan-Chungli (1,780,000), comparing to the previous and other estimates: 6,500,000 for Taipei and 1,600,000 for Taoyuan-Chungli according to the 2009 edition of Demographia; 6,800,000 for Taipei and 1,960,000 for Taoyuan-Chungli according to the estimates of principal agglomerations on Jan 1, 2010 by Brinkhoff; 8,511,055 for metropolitan area of Taipei including Taoyuan and Chungli according to the estimates on Jan 1, 2010 by Gazetteer.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

hong kong's "country" should be people's republic of China

currently hong kong's country is itself, hong kong, which doesn't make any sense. Either you change it to PRC, or change the title from "country", to "country/region" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.32.156 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition of a "country" is more ambiguous compared to that of a "nation". For example, the United Nations Statistics Division treats overseas dependencies (such as Puerto Rico) and special administrative regions in China (Hong Kong and Macau SAR) as countries. But if you want to correct, "country/dependency" will fit better rather than "country/region".Aurichalcum (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographia

Why is this page even on here? Demographia is not a official census! Every metro area on here has what some guy thinks they have and does not cite official census! Wildman74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Hong Kong - Shenzhen

The real urban area is Hong Kong - Shenzhen and not only Shenzhen. Polylepsis (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Forstall is the only source I know that treats HK-Shenzhen as part of a metropolitan area. Although different, this is the only source that treats HK and Shenzhen as the same whatever (metropolitan area, agglomeration, urban area). This is because there is a restriction in movement between HK and Shenzhen. There isn't a free movement. As a result, you won't find many sources that put HK and Shenzhen together. It's kind of like Detroit-Windsor and San Diego-Tijuana. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a very compelling argument could be made to combine all the cities around that bay together. Macau-Guangzhau-Shenzhen/Hong Kong is more or less a single urban area with 45 or 55 million people. (load it up on google map and compare at the same scale to the new york metropolitan area including hartford and southampton) but oh well, those crazy chinese! :P --173.66.8.104 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

İstanbul

Population of İstanbul (urban area) is: 12,600,000+ . And 11 millions is central city population of İstanbul! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.89.45 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The estimated (address-based) population for Istanbul (12,573,836 per 5,170 km² in 2007), Ankara (4,466,756 per 25,615 km²), and Izmir (3,739,353 per 11,811 km²) that Oguzhantr has cited is not for urbans but for provinces. The population density of Ankara and Izmir Provinces is even too low, anyway.

Municipality of Metropolitan Istanbul consists of 27 metropolitan districts (11,372,613 per 1,831 km²) out of 32 districts within Istanbul Province (12,573,836 per 5,170 km²). Population density of the five districts that do not constitute the municipality is much lower than 400/km². Furthermore, officially estimated urban population within the municipality is 10,757,327, while its rural population is 615,286. Likewise, officially estimated urban population of Ankara is 3,763,591 out of 3,901,201 for 8 metropolitan districts; that of Izmir is 2,606,294 out of 2,649,582 for 9 metropolitan districts.

According to Demographia, urban areas in Turkey are defined by map or satellite photograph analysis using national census authority agglomeration data of the latest census in 2000. Using population growth rates, the projected population of Istanbul, Ankara, or Izmir in 2007 is calculated as 11,000,000 per 1,256 km², 3,510,000 per 583 km², or 2,490,000 per 272 km². Demographia is not using address-based population in 2007, but they are not so different.Aurichalcum (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the Istanbul data is the total area for the Urban center defined. This Urban area is 1269 km², however the City of Istanbul (including all 39 districts) is listed with 5343 km². That number should be smaller than the urban area, but it more than 4 times the size. Also cities proper section that takes out suburbs the area listed is 1,830 square kilometres. The 1269 km² is low no matter what definition used while population consistent. --Dkpiatt\^Talk 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographia has released new estimates for 2011

I shall update this article in 24 hours.Aurichalcum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC). Need two more days to summarize.Aurichalcum (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

12 urbans (Abuja, Nigeria; Belém, Brazil; Douala, Cameroon (comes back); Goiânia, Brazil; Haikou, China; Hohhot, China; Ibadan, Nigeria; Maracaibo, Venezuela; Ningbo, China; Quanzhou, China; Wenzhou, China; Zhongshan, China) are newly added to the list. 5 urbans (Bamako, Mali; Budapest, Hungary; Changzhou, China; Harare, Zimbabwe; Warsaw, Poland) are removed from the list.Aurichalcum (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Douala, Cambodia?

Douala is listed as a city in Cambodia, rather than Cameroon, its actual location. I have little to no skill with HTML editing, so I would request someone else make the change, as some messing around in the preview page didn't seem to fix it... 90.206.77.20 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I have corrected it.Aurichalcum (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Article is not neutral, and is transparently wrong

This article leaves out a full 6 million people from the population of the greater Jakarta region, as measured by THE INDONESIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS 2010 CENSUS. They actually have a statistical unit called Jabodetabek. So there's no argument there. But the owner of this page doesn't like that, and thinks that they know more. They're an idiot. 122.57.62.81 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are comparing the morphological urban area, which is what this list is about, to a statistical planning region, which covers a larger region. The urban area excludes any areas of low density and any urban areas not contiguous to the main urban area. You are attempting to insert a figure for a different concept into the list. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Polaron is a bully who obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Jakarta and Tangerang and Depok and the rest of Jabodetabek are absolutely joined. No gaps. Your statement has absolutely no truth at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.229.118 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my statement. It is the statement of the source used for the list. --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've now read the entire talk page. It is obvious that this list cannot be improved, because it comes from a single source. This doesn't make it any less misleading or false. So why is there not an actual encyclopedia article, instead of the opinions of the UN or some private agency? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a place where the articles are as accurate as possible and factually correct? I still dispute the article though. 219.89.229.118 (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the urban area of Paris doubles London's?

I keep on looking and comparing these two urban areas using all types of maps like Google Earth, measuring and adjusting the zooming to equalise them, and I just don't see it! What's the deal? The criteria of measuring the so-called continuously build-up area seem very strict to some urban areas and rather flattering for others. The urban area of Rio de Janeiro same size as Mexico City's? New York, that big? Even given that it includes so many other neighbouring urban areas, it is obvious which cities are the favoured ones here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.34.80 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the urban area of Paris doubles London's?

I keep on looking and comparing these two urban areas using all types of maps like Google Earth, measuring and adjusting the zooming to equalise them, and I just don't see it! What's the deal? The criteria of measuring the so-called continuously build-up area seem very strict to some urban areas and rather flattering for others. The urban area of Rio de Janeiro same size as Mexico City's? New York, that big? Even given that it includes so many other neighbouring urban areas, it is obvious which cities are the favoured ones here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.34.80 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

This is an encyclopedia. What kind of encyclopedia relies on a single source? Surely you can do better than Demographia, some consultancy. Half the figures here are contradicted by recent census data (actual statistics, rather than unverified estimates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.228.218 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Estimation of the urban area of Berlin

In the previous editions until 2010, population of the urban area of Berlin was estimated at 3,675,000/984 km² in 2001 (or 3,700,000/984 km² in 2010). The urban area of Berlin very likely included the urban area of Potsdam. However in this present edition of 2011, the urban area of Berlin seems to include only urban areas within the city limits of Berlin. At least, population densitis of the localities of Stadtrandsiedlung Malchow (1,123/5.68 km²), Blankenfelde (1,904/13.40 km²), Gatow (3,716/10.1 km²), Wannsee (9,384/23.68 km²), Müggelheim (6,468/22.22 km²), Schmöckwitz (4,063/17.14 km²), Falkenberg (1,220/3.06 km²), Malchow (494/1.54 km²), Wartenberg (2,348/6.92 km²) are below 400/km². This would reduce the popualtion/are of Berlin to 3,449,000/788 km². Yes. Demographia still uses the old area size (984 km²) apparently by mistake, but it seems better to wait for corrections in the next editions.Aurichalcum (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

London

According to the Greater London Authorities (GLA) London Plan - "Working London is part of a metropolitan region of 21 million people. This forms a 'mega-city region' in which there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Within this wider region, London performs the functions characteristic of the central city. It is the main generator and source of jobs as well as of culture, leisure and higher-level shopping activities. The interactions within the mega-city region are increasing. The Mayor supports polycentric development across the mega-city region in which Central London, London's town centres and the towns in the other two regions develop in a complementary manner. He also supports the government's proposed growth areas in Milton Keynes, Thames Gateway, London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough and Ashford as important contributions to dealing with the pressures on land and development in the mega-city region and sees these as complementary to the growth strategy for London set out in this plan" [1] [2]

Given that vast New York's metro area, isn't it time to reflect the true and accurate scale of the London Metro Area and Population, London is the most populous city within city limits in the European Union with an official population of 7.7 million (as of 2007) and with a massive metro and large number of commuters.

According to the definitions stated ie 1000 people square mile, the whole of England (population now over 50 million) now constitutes one metropolitan area - which is clearly ridiculous. In the US, metro areas are usually quoted when city's population is stated. There seems to be some sort of competition between contributors as to "the biggest city" for some reason. I presume this is why metro areas are so often quoted when discussing population, when it is clear when using satellite images that often these areas comprise distinct urban areas. As I say, if this was applied in England (and some other European countries this would produce some interesting results, to say the least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.170.69 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--90.205.89.231 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

21m is a bit high, I think. However, as the population of London's 33 boroughs (including The City) is 7.7m, it's hard to accept a metropolitan area of only 8.6m. I've seen what are, in my opinion, more reasonable figures of the London boroughs + the home counties that come in at around 12m. - shaunism, London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunism (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)