Talk:List of metropolitan areas by population

List

This list isn't thorough enough. It's over as soon as you start reading. It should be top 50, which would really fill it out well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Seperate Hong Kong from Hong Kong/Shenzhen

Reason: Hong Kong is not part of the "Hong Kong/Shenzhen" area (should it even exists). The "Hong Kong/Shenzhen" region is not a single metropolitan area, but two. There are restrictions on the movement of labor between Hong Kong and mainland China and the two areas are sometimes listed separately in other lists. If some other lists list HK and Shenzhen seperately, why does Wikipedia put them together? There are some more reasons to put them seperately from other participants on this page. In fact, the current arrangement is just counter-intuitive and requires some explanations. (If you ask 10000 Hong Kongers, I bet most of them consider Shenzhen as another rural area while fewer than 100 treat Shenzhen as part of the same metropolitan area.) --Jabo-er (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this region or metro area. I think it was added as Hong Kong-Shenzhen because the source had it togheter this way. If this is uncommon, then I think we should add a note to clarify this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject of metropolitan areas, so I do not understand why R.L. Forstall, R.P. Greene, and J.B. Pick's research papers are chosen here. It is not uncommon to see Ivory Tower researchers giving hilarious research results. If they are real top researchers in this field, please excuse my ignorance, but if better research exists, it is a shame we include funny data based on F,G &P's results. --Jabo-er (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Forstall's paper is actually one of the better representations of the size of the metropolitan areas I've seen. It makes notes that some sources, specifically the UN (a lot sources use the UN), where for some cities, large areas that would be included in their definition (they also make note that other sources have included these areas), such as Seoul and Jakarta, are not included and these cities have much lower estimates than their official counterpart (the UN bases their data on official sources but seems like they decided to change the definitions of Jakarta and Seoul). There is another considered reliable source, World Gazetteer, but it's not used because there is no explanation of definitions. All other reliable sources have their own list. Also, the definition for these metro areas are consistent with each other here. There are other sources where it would seem that the definitions are different from one metro area to the next. There is no one accepted definition of a metro area, by having a single sourced list, we can have a fair comparison. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Another important point here is that when considering a metro area's population, we often consider where people reside/work; for example, the New York metro area's population includes people that live in southern Connecticut but work in New York City. I think the reason Hong Kong and Shenzhen are grouped together is because there's a considerable population that belong to that category, e.g., living in Shenzhen but working in Hong Kong, or vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.46.136 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows

Those figures for any of those Asian cities are completely wrong - everyone who's familiar with those cities and the (official and unofficial) statistics generally used for their populations. Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai, Delhi, Jakarta, Karachi. (That obviously not the people who control this page). You need better sources, because most of those numbers are about 2-3 million out, in some cases more. That's pretty huge. Additionally, calling HK-Shenzhen one metro area is ridiculous. They're still very much separate for all practical purposes, as much as SF-Tijuana. I haven't edited because it's pretty clear from discussion that those numbers are not allowed to be challenged or added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.103.145 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to challenge the numbers. I also did bring propositions, but there wasn't enough consensus to apply it. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is istanbul?

the city got more than 13,255,685 Mio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.54.120 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the data is from 2003, it's very likely that if the data in the article were to be updated, Istanbul would still not be in the top 20. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Istanbul would be in the top 20 as of 2010. Istanbul would be larger than Buenos Aries and Karachi making it the 19th largest metro area (as of 2010). (Central Data Bank (talk))

Some estimates put Karachi at 15+ million (the population growth rate is also higher) and another area Guangzhou-Foshan-Dongguan or just Guangzhou-Foshan is another contender. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New York

As of 2010, the NY metro area is the 3rd largest only behind Tokyo and Seoul. It should be changed to 3rd before Mexico City. Regards. (Central Data Bank (talk))

This is only true if you use the CSA definition. However, CSAs comprise of multiple metropolitan statistical (MSA) and/or micropolitan statistical areas. In the general sense, MSAs are the most common I've seen used to define a metropolitan area. Elockid ^(Talk)