Talk:List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations)

how come taipei taiwn is not on this list?

Worse Every Year

This page gets worse every year, since I first looked at it in 2004. It's becoming less and less "scientific" or realistic. Truth is, it should be split into several "definitions", as people are comparing apples and oranges. This isn't so hard people! Never seen such bad estimates, despite them coming from the "UN". Doseiai2 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at it in 2004, but it has actually become more scientific this year. Before, it consisted of people putting in their own estimates, giving it no reliability at all. Having said that, the UN is probably not perfect either and I think we should seriously consider every source that lists the 100 largest cities in the world. As far as no other source has been provided, we can do little else but using the only available source there is. The consolation in all of this is that our source has been put together by people with far more knowledge in this field than any of us. JdeJ 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello!!! Earth to human race!! There are lots of other sources. Try reading the other info in the listings on this discussion page. The fact that you trust the UN to think for us is no consolation for me, buddy. I agree that this article needs a makeover. Read with a serious dose of reality in mind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It badly needs, uh, a commision of trusted wikipedians to keep it up to date and to keep the infoboxes at individual cities consistent with it. I mean, in the list here you find New York is the second largest, but if you start checking the articles on the actual cities, the largest three following NY - Mexico City, Mumbai and Sao Paulo - all seem to outdo New York Metro area.Strausszek (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistant

I've noticed some cities listed are listed according to the population of both the city and surrounding area but others are listed just according to the city's core population.

Like Birmingham and New York are listed according to the size of their cities and surrounding areas, where as Tokyo and London are listed by just the core cities' population.

I suspect some crafty work being done by people who didn't like where certain places ranked. As they should all be either based on their area's rather than mixtures of areas and cities, it's too inconsistant to remain the way it is. 172.207.249.220 05:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs discussion of what exactly constitutes the "population" of any given "city"

Because, for one thing, this list does not at all match this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population — and it should. Softlavender 07:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Or....that list should match this one.User:Mannfredmannfred

It seems to be the metropolitan areas, not the actual city limits. Toronto, for example, has a population of ~2 million, but there are ~5 million in the GTA, which is what's listed. Perhaps this should be clarified. Toresica 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Toresica. The UN report has lack of information about the city limit and the metro-area. For example: Seoul metropolican area has about 23 million which takes the 2nd place in the world. However, this table counted just that of the city limits. (source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/16/36614817.pdf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul )

Where is the source for this article?

The link doesn't work, yet two or more censuses are quoted, that don't turn up on a Google search either. I can't even find a UN article that lists this info. Please source this article! Thanks! Softlavender 07:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: The link works now. That is the source (United Nation).User:Mannfredmannfred

Odd population figures

I don't know how on earth the UN get these figures. For example I have lived in Birmingham, UK for many years and everyone knows the population is just over 1,000,000. Yet this page states it is over 2,000,000. Also Leeds and Bradford are classed as one city which is stupid. I fail to see how these figures can be useful, even if they are what the UN 'found' Cls14 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 RE: Odd population figures
 It is a bit odd, but I believe including Urban and Metro areas surround it, it's just under 2
 million.

More population inconsistencies

I saw that Seoul, South Korea is supposed to be #2 in this list with 23 million people, but I do not see it? Nor Taipei with I think roughly 10 million puts it well above others such as Kobe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athomsfere (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good spotting, I may go through the article tomorrow and make them all list the population of each citie's area rather than mixtures of didn't figure types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.249.220 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OKC

Oklahoma City has over 1.17 million, but is not on this list. Please add it.

Oklahoma City does not have over one million people. Even Memphis TN is larger than OKC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.46.41 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel is in the middle east not in west europe. I'm not sure there are so many people in Tel Aviv. 84.228.108.143 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not stand that Israel are in Europe. It stands Israel AND Europe User:Suganthinjaffna.

I see there is a profile called Elk Salmon trying to redirect this page. Do NOT do it. The numbers of inhabitans according to the source; UN (see: external links below), are correct NOW. You simply have not checked it.

tel aviv

Tel Aviv contains only 378,900 inhabitants, and not 3 million as it says here. Carny 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah but in a metropolitan area it has 3.15 million  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 

Greece

Why are Greek cities listed in West Europe? The categories seem somewhat nebulous here in any case. Huwlepolonais2 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why these specific regional groupings were used and why only a certain number of cities per region. We might as well delete these sublists. Unless somebody complains, I will do just that in the next day or so. --Polaron | Talk 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense...

These figures are completly false! Paris and Kinshasa are much larger, the author must have forgotten about Berlin, and lots of the figures are completly false. This article does not suit Wikipedia's quality standards. -BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this list

After noticing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of metropolitan areas by population, I noticed this article has a problem. This list needs to be reorganized not by metropolitan area population, but by population within the city limits. Otherwise it is a duplicate of the List of metropolitan areas by population article.--Sefringle^Talk 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the reasons that list is up for deletion. Another is that that list is more or less original research whereas this one is not. Instead of making any changes to this article, representing solid and impartial research, it would be more useful to just get rid of the other one, which is neither coherent nor encyclopedic. Besides, I think there already is a list (too many lists around) on cities within city limits as well. JdeJ 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

London?

i think that the London popultion is larger than this. Where did you get the figures from?

These are the official figures of the UN, based on reports from national censuses and evaluated when this list was compiled. While the list may not be perfect, it is certainly the most reliable list available to us. JdeJ 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is about right. I generally see 6-8 million in reports etc, so 8.5 million is probably an upper-end estimate, including suburbs like Luton and Stanstead. 144.32.126.11 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were to include places as far as Luton and Stanstead, the figure would be closer to 11 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.164.50 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

United States' Urbanized Areas

What a mess! I just noticed that most of the American cities listed who's source link makes reference to the populations being for the U.S. defined Ubranized Areas is completely false. None of them make since. Just as an example, Detroit's urbanized areas is 3.90 million (not 4.03 million, which isn't even the metropolitan population), Philly's is 5.14 million (not 5.39 million), ect....What is the deal? If you're going to say that the source of these is the U.S. Urbanized Area definition, at least use those numbers. lol --Criticalthinker 06:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They are urbanized areas as defined by the U.S.Census Bureau estimated for the year 2005. The Census Bureau figures are for the 2000. See the UN World Urbanization Prospects Sources page here under "Urban aggmoerations and capital cities" for the United States. --Polaron | Talk 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The population of United States Urban Areas are only calculated every 10 years, so there is no way that the other information is accurate. --Criticalthinker 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Still probably closer to the actual numbers than the 2000 figures. They are based on growth rates and growth rate trends since 1950 and extrapolated using some model. If you are interested, I'll dig up the actual equations and assumptions used for the estimates. --Polaron | Talk 01:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources about OECD countries

here -> http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/0406041E.PDF we have a list of metropolitan areas in OECD countries. it is important to update the list in the article, because it does not iclude very important areas as Rhine-Rhur in Germany, the Randstad-Holland in the Netherlands or Milan in Italy

Johannesburg

Oh glory, how many times do we still have to do this?

Your quote is as follows:

The term “urban agglomeration” refers to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory inhabited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries or commuter flows. It usually incorporates the population in a city or town plus that in the suburban areas lying outside of but being adjacent to the city boundaries. Whenever possible, data classified according to the concept of urban agglomeration are used. However, some countries do not produce data according to the concept of urban agglomeration but use instead that of metropolitan area or city proper.

Well then, for the 350th time, JOHANNESBURG should include the EAST RAND (Ekurhuleni) and the WEST RAND (Mogale City), because even though they are separated administratively, they form part of one contiguous area. You have listed the municipal population of Johannesburg only (and by the way, it's about 5 years out of date). Your figure contradicts the above classification - and if that means it is in conflict with the UN, then the UN must get with the programme.

PS Your figures for Cape Town are also wrong (Durban has outgrown it), as is the area (it is, in fact, bigger than Johannesburg in terms of land area but not urban area). For a more accurate take on the data (you poor, poor, in this case misinformed Wikipedian), please see http://www.citypopulation.de, http://www.demarcation.org.za, and my favourite, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb94.html#ft12, which simply states:

The form the physical expansion of cities takes may vary, but each city connects increasingly with other expanding urban areas, making boundary definitions ever more problematic: the most recent United Nations (2002) estimate puts the population of Johannesburg at 3.0 million, but about 7.3 million people live in the metropolitan area.

PPS One of the reasons I love Wikipedia is its accuracy of data (most times). One of the reasons I loathe (with a giantic passion) Microsoft Encarta is because they pawn off 30-year-old data to unsuspecting people and charge a fortune for it. Please DO NOT pull a Microsoft on us...

I agree totally with the angry man above. The population of metropolitan or greater Johannesburg is often stated as being in the region somewhere between two and five million. Never understood why that was. Sarcastic Sid 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

www.citypopulation.de includes Baltimore for Washington DC's stats. I think that a lot of data on there looks too high; their figures are about 3-4 million higher than the UN's, so we need to be careful. Same goes with other sources. The UN is the most reliable, technically, so we have to stick with their stats. Kypzethdurron 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The UN has the most reliable stats???? On what planet, Mars? Did you even read the info above? And YOU think the citypopulation data looks too high? So does that make it wrong? What about the other sources? If you can slap Dallas with Fort Worth and San Francisco with Oakland, why not Washington with Baltimore? Have you even been to Johannesburg? I doubt it... The UN data for Jo'burg is wrong and out of date. If you use their measure, then New York should not include anything but the 5 boroughs. The UN data is not the most reliable, it's the most misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Milano

added Milan to the list with the Metro Area of 7.4 Millions. Estimate of Spring 2007 by OECD:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/62/37720067.pdf

Correction, the source says no such thing. It says that Milan is the the centre of a region consisting of more than seven million people. That's rather different from having a population of seven milllions in the city or in the greater Milan. Thus the source does not support the claim. JdeJ 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jakarta's Area?

I think some data related to Jakarta are not correct here.

1. Jakarta's area is only 661 km2 (see: Jakarta). If it is 1.360 km2, then the area should be called (not only Jakarta) Jadebotabek. (or Jakarta + its surrounding cities: Depok, Bogor, Tangerang,Bekasi)

2. If the "statistical concept" is "urban agglomeration", then the area it refers to should be Jadebotabek, because Jakarta is not "urban agglomeration". It's just "provincial level". --Tamaneden 10 years lived in Jakarta 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The urban agglomeration of Jakarta is the continuous urban area centered on Jakarta based on municipality units. It does not encompass all of the surrounding areas included in Jabotabek but only a small portion of it. It is very roughly Jakarta with a ring of municipalities in contact with Jakarta. --Polaron | Talk 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Polaron, Jakarta is the second or third largest urban agglomeration in the world and is continuously built up for 100km east-west and 80km North-south. The built up area is roughly 4500 sq km. It is recognised as the third largest by National Geographic (Megacities Jakarta), It has an urban area population of about 26 million in the 2010 census. If you had ever been to Jakarta you would know that what you said is absolute rubbish.202.169.60.66 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Milan

http://www.dynamick.it/google-earth-ci-mostra-la-terra-di-notte-866.html

In this "Europe by night" photography it can be seen clearly that Milan is 4.th the metropolitan area of Europe and that the metropolitan area goes very beyond the borders of the city! dedicated to who it does not want to understand…

This link, taken from source Metropolitan Database OECD supports that the metropolitan area of Milan counts 7.400.000 inhabitants very, while city area 3.900.000; in the list of metropolitan areas of the world it isn't Milan; if it is spoken about classifies of METROPOLITAN AREAS, estimated data would have to be inserted with 7.400.000 inhabitants, that more or less it comes confirmed also in other situated ones. Please added Milan to the list with the Metro Area of 7.4 Millions.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Regiones_urbanas_del_mundo_por_poblaci%C3%B3n

This data is verifiable. I wrote the links and the database... I don't understand because the data was delete!

This article uses the official figures provided by the UN. Having different sources for every city is not desirable, especilly not as the UN could be expected to be better at evaluating national censuses than amateurs at Wikipedia. In other words: the UN data is the only source used here.

local labour market system and Statistics Bureau of Japan for example are not UN data! I see in this article not only UN data!

That's because some people do like yourself, and try to champion their own city or a city in their own country. Such edits are removed just as yours, as this list confirms to the UN data. Once again, experts at the UN are more suited to evaluate this than you or I. JdeJ 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Area

This article has got the units mixed up. Some of the areas are in sq. km, others have been multiplied by 1000 and stated. Ashycool 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Combined articles

Why does this article not link to or mention combined articles for some of the cities? (e.g. Bay Area, Greater New York, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto) --Voidvector 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why include Vatican City in a "Rome/Vatican City"?

Answer: look at an aerial photo of the area and figure out for yourself. Notice how at least part of the Vatican appears to approximate urban densities and happens to be contiguous to Rome (political area). 68.36.214.143 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vatican City article, there are about 800 Vatican citizens/ residents, at a density of 1,780 /km² (but please note the large park on one side and the huddled buildings on the other side of the Vatican, and you'd see that the actual density of the built-up quarter is probably higher.) 68.36.214.143 22:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest Cities in Indonesia

According to this list, Bandung is the second largest city in Indonesia after Jakarta, since no other city is listed. However, as an Indonesian, I know exactly that Surabaya is the second largest city, followed by Medan. If we count the metropolitan area, Surabaya is even larger since it encompasses Gerbangkertasusila region.

Can anybody look deeper at this and make the necessary adjustment?

The UN agglomeration data for the Indonesian cities refer to the "functional urban area" and not necessarily the metropolitan area or the wider city region. Other popular metro area/urban area lists seem to indicate the same population size order as the UN data as well. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greater Bandung has a population of around 7 million is now larger than both Surabaya and Medan. Bandung's proximity to Jakarta makes it one of the fastest growing cities in Indonesia and it is moving toward Jakarta (they are moving toward each other). When they connect they will become the world's largest urban agglomeration. Sorry Mr Surabaya, things like this happen and you just have to accept it. 202.169.60.66 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sofia

Sofia (population of 1,270,450) is missing from Image:2006megacities.PNG.

You're right about that, and Sofia isn't the only city missing. Some cities are missing, some are placed in completely wrong locations. The map is rather crude. JdeJ 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

london

should london's population in terms of what is on the list be the metropolatain area rather than the urban area for this list?

No. London metro area is very phantom thing. It's not based on urban area. It is based on economic and political ties and includes many rural areas with low population and construction density. Elk Salmon 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why call London's population an Urban agglomeration though? Either call it "Greater London" or change the population to something between 12-14 million. Bsrboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaction on fanatic blocking or [ [ world's largest cities ]] edits on your behalf/ cc from discussion on JdeJ usertalk page

Your analysis that the article "World's largest cities" should refer to 1 article only, the published document by the UN, is unfortunately wrong. I have to remind you that this is a wikienviroment, which is based on the filosophy that by changing articles on well founded facts and with more sources than can be found in a standard encyclopedia article, this can lead to a more transparent and accurate picture of the world we live in. However in case you `stubbornly` still think you are right I suggest you change the title of the article to "World's largest cities according to UN report". In any other case please stop taking other people's freedom away of editing an article by using valid and accurate references. Regards, Maximilian

There has already been a long discussion on this and it was decided that using a single source is necessary for consistency. It's not possible to compared data taken from different sources at different times. Your accusations of me and Polaron being "fanatic", "stubborn" and "taking other's freedom" when trying to uphold a consistent list is, to be honest, just ignorant. If you are unhappy with the article and want to argue for why it should be changed, you are more than welcome to do so. To date, all you've wanted to do is to boost the ranking of Taipei on this list. This is about how the whole list should be, not about the ranking of any individual city. JdeJ 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximillian is right and you are wrong. It's people like you who mess up Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.60.66 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The map

Should we delete the map from the article? It's completely random, sometimes there are dots where there aren't any major cities and at other times there are no dots over large cities. As it doesn't show (accurately or even close) what it claims to show, I don't know what purpose it serves. JdeJ 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Fort Worth

In other areas of Wikipedia, the DFW area has around 6 million, while in other areas only has 4 million. As an inhabitant of the DFW metro. make up your minds... It is actually around 6 million. IF you are only going to include 2 cities at least lower it on the charts.

http://www.dallaschamber.org/location/regional/ed_DFWPopGrowth.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.199.61 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The UN list basically uses a definition based on a well-defined statistical area that is urban in character. If a statistical definition includes too much non-urban territory, a smaller definition is used. For the US, the definition used is the census-defined urban area since in some cases like Dallas, the metropolitan statistical area definition includes substantial rural areas. --Polaron | Talk 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

I'm having issue understanding why official populations are used in some instances, but then metro areas are used for others? For instance, NYC's actual population is something like 8.2 million, thus in this article the figures for the metro area were used. Why was the metro area used for New York, but it was not for cities such as London? In this example, if done similarly to New York, London would be much higher on the list since its metropolitan area is over 12 million.

Reviewing the article Largest European metropolitan areas, London's metro area of over 12 million is used versus the population of the city proper like in this article. However again, in this article for NYC its metro area was used and not city proper population. Fill me in on the reasons for the difference in method. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Word City has nothing to do with Metropolitan Areas. City is an urban agglomeration. Most of figures based on what is provided by United Nation. Somewhere it's city proper, somewhere it's urban area. Somewhere Metro area is about same as urban area. Elk Salmon 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The UN tries to use official urban area figures whenever available. This is the case for both NYC and London on this list - both are official urban area data adjusted for 2005. If official urban area data is not available, either city proper or metro area is used. Metro area is used only if there is very little rural territory and there is only one urban core for a given metro area definition. Otherwise, city proper figure is used. There are a few exceptions where the UN has worked with a national census authority to create a new statistical definition specifically for the UN (e.g. Osaka-Kobe). --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Still haven't really answered the question. Further this source [1] backs up the numbers that London is the 2nd largest city/agglomeration in Europe at 12 629 020. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that World Gazetteer does not indicate how it defines its areas, i.e. what its building blocks are and what the criteria for inclusion are. The closest to an official metro area definition for London that currently exists is the Eurostat Larger Urban Zone. --Polaron | Talk 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I state below, it's always possible to find different sources saying different things for something as hard to calculate (read: estimate) as population figures. Personally, I consider the data provided by the UN to be more reliable than the World Gasetteer. JdeJ 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the issue for me is that List of metropolitan areas by population redirects to this page, when in fact this page does not accurately supply such a list as for example the metro area of London exceeds 12 million. Possibly another article is needed? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nja247 you still mix up terms city proper, urban area/agglomeration and metropolitan area. World-gazetteer publish own estimates of metropolitan areas. List of metropolitan areas by population has been deleted as it contained same table and tones of original researches. Elk Salmon 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, that article was deleted as it was a strange mix of the UN data found in this article, a few people who offered rather good alternative sources and far too many people who offered whatever source they could find that made their own city jump up the table. Doubts can always be raised about any measurement of populations, but it is necessary to have one source for any table/comparison to be made. To the best of my knowledge, there are few such sources and none more thrustworthy and impartial than the UN. If you know of any, I will read it with great interest! JdeJ 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several sources that are more trustworthy than the UN - they being the National Census Bureaus that actually carry out the work upon which UN figures are later based! Not every country in the world has a reputable National Census Bureau, but there are several National Census Burueaus that have been in existence for over a century! - There are certainly many more than have been carrying out their work since well before the UN was a twinkle in the eye of the world's diplomats and leaders!

May I remind you - this is a wiki - not a reproduction of the views of a single source - if you want the UN figures, go to the UN Website and find them - the point of a wiki is for it to be open to editing by anyone who should drop by, and part of being a wiki is that this page is about finding the latest reputable figures there are available - IT IS NOT about capturing a snapshot in time (In this case is it 2005? - why?) - it is about providing the most accurate figures - FOR TODAY - NOT 2 YEARS OR MORE AGO - (that would be an ARCHIVE). Given a wiki is about striving for the most accurate figures - if wikipedians are coming along here and updating figures to reflect more current realities - that should be encouraged - as long as an appropriate link can be provided to a reputable source. I would challenge you to say that the OECD, the US Census Bureau or other Census Bureau's from around the world are coming up with hocus pocus figures - they are not! They are reputable sources, and if they are more current than those provided by the UN - they should be included in this list and not excluded. I repeat - wikipedia is supposed to be about aggregating sources - reputable sources - not about merely reproducing the results of a single source.

58.175.240.37 06:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the argument that to provide a worthwhile table that one can use for comparisons that only one source can be used - do you have any idea how science works? It works by gathering different and multiple observations from different sources and using a basket of observations to conclude what is actually going on - what is happening. Why is it that when one wants to test the efficacy of a potential new wonderdrug - after all the animal and other testing that goes on, when it is finally released into a human sample - there is a group that takes the actual drug, and a group that takes a placebo?!? Why do you think that is? It is to find out, by observation from different sources - that what is actually going on is what is expected to be going on - and not some freak of a single observation - or in this case - a single observational source - no matter how reputable!

Reading through all the complaints listed on this page, it seems clear to me that many are aggrieved, with good reason, by the varying and inconsistent standards used by the UN to come up with this list. Knowing Tokyo, I accept that 35m is an accurate figure for the Tokyo metropolitan area, or agglomeration - but if we're going to accept the methods used to compile that figure - many other figures in the list have to be brought into doubt. What about Boston for instance! On this list, it uses a very narrow definition of the Boston Metropolitan area - Why? Why? Why? It makes no sense - basically the whole list is terribly inconsistent - and I personally would be happier to see people updating this list - as IT IS A WIKI(!) - from reputable sources whenever new figures are released - not simply waiting to reproduce the figures from a single source! If a single source is going to be used - why not simply provide a link to the UN Page! It would definitely save having many of this arguments, over and over and over and over and over again as new people drop by and see a confusing figure for their own city! Something I have done and I can tell I'll continue to do! It brings the accuracy of the whole list into question. Fine it is a UN List - but isn't this supposed to be a Wikipedia List?58.175.240.37 06:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this control of the article by one or two editors wishing to stick to a single source not only undermines the reason d'etre of Wikipedia, but is against policy WP:OWN. The fact that NYC is used as a metro area which includes Newark, etc., but others such as London only include the county itself and not its metro area (and the other examples given here) makes for this to be an extremely inaccurate and inconsistent list which gives readers half arsed information, thus the entirety of it is quite un-encyclopaedic. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with using another source. On the contrary, I'd happily exchange the UN data for a better source right away. Or complement it with another good source, if one is suggested.

The thing we cannot do is to have many different sources. This is an encyclopedia and a certain amount of NPOV and correctness is needed. You cannot put together sources as you please and compare data based on that. That was even tried on another article, the only result was that Korean users tried to make Seoul appear as big as possible, Mexican users did the same for Mexico City, American users did it for New York, English users for London etc.

The idea here is not that people put forward their own nationalistic claims, the idea is to have a list that is as correct as possible. Nothing says that this has to be the result of a single source! If there's another good source listing the 100 largest cities in the world, the reasonable thing to do would be to include the ranking of both sources. That policy is followed on the list for the World's largest languages, by the way. So once again, please suggest any credible source that lists the 100 largest cities in the world! But please don't drag in any original research by a user selecting the sources as he pleases just to make his own city seem larget. JdeJ 12:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy (Inaccuracy)

The London Metropolitan area is home to 12,629,020, making it the second largest in Europe and Paris ranks 5th with 11,695,134. It terms of population within city limits, London has 7,517,700 citizens, and Paris 2,153,600. The fact of the matter is, on this list London only ranks 24th whilst Paris ranks 20th. The list should be based solely on population within city limits, urban area or metropolitan area. A mix of all of these has formed one of the most biased and innacurate articles on Wikipedia.

The list tries to employ urban area data (sometimes adjusted to convenient administrative boundaries) whenever official data are available. If no official urban area data are available, official metropolitan area data are used (if available), but only if the definition does not have significant rural territory within it. Otherwise, city proper data are used. Both London and Paris have official urban area data and are the definitions used in the UN list. --Polaron | Talk 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban/ Metropolitan Areas

This article is titled Worlds Largest Metropolitan Areas, yet the London Metropolitan Areas population is stated at 8,000,000, this is the urban area population and should be in the article List of urban areas by population, the population of metropolitan London is 13,945,000, and this should be stated in the article, even the London commuter belt article says not th be confused with urban area (so why is London's Urban area or 'Urban agglomeration' featured on this page?). Similar mistakes are:

• Paris Metro Area population is 12,067,000 not 9,820,000
• Bogota Metro Area population is 8,090,883 not 7,747,000
• Rome Metro Area population is 5,493,308 not 3,348,000

This article contradicts the correct articles containing information about European Cities: Largest European metropolitan areas and Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union

The Urban/ Metropolitan Mix up needs correcting

Poor source

While this information is taken from a high-profile source, I think that it is ridiculous to use such an inaccurate source for an entire article. Making the entire article a copy from the source removes the main advantage of a wiki, that is, that anyone can come by and fix it! A research project that looked up each city from a reliable source would be much better, as it would allow for corrections. I propose that this list be modified selectively by anyone who has a good source for a population value. Disputes can then be about the best source, rather than whether the article has any merit at all.

Of course, this requires that "population" be defined. The definition used by the UN, that is, metropolitan population only, will do just fine.

I came here looking for the largest city by land area, so I have an additional proposal. Convert this to a disambiguation page that links to "largest cities by metropolitan population", "largest cities by population within city limits" and "largest cities by land area within city limits" (at least). The title is really too ambiguous to give visitors only one thing. --Brilliand 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the situation before the article was nominated for deletion with the result being to redirect List of metropolitan areas by population to the existing UN list (this article). Also, there is a sort of disambiguation page at Largest city. --Polaron | Talk 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Boswash Megalopolis

I read somewhere that the NY Metro area, Washington, Boston, and Baltimore had grown together into a megalopolis. So why doesn't this list count the megalopolis as a conglomeration? 68.36.214.143 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because The area has not be declared a metropolitan area. You might be mistaking the article for stating that in the coming years it might develop into one large Metropolitan area, or you might also be getting the information from a bad source.

tehrans metro. area 14 million

Metropolian area: 14 Million, not 7 million people (see: basic data in tehran- article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran

--80.137.194.20 11:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

map with mistakes

The map "city with at least one million inhabitations is wrong. In germany, for instant there are only 3 cit ies with at least a million inh. : Berlin (3), Hamburg (1.6) and Munich (1.2). Also watch discussion about the picture itself where other mistakes are mentioned. Please remove this map. --Englishazadipedia 11:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban/ Metropolitan Areas

This article is titled Worlds Largest Metropolitan Areas, yet the London Metropolitan Areas population is stated at 8,000,000, this is the urban area population and should be in the article List of urban areas by population, the population of metropolitan London is 13,945,000, and this should be stated in the article, even the London commuter belt article says not th be confused with urban area (so why is London's Urban area or 'Urban agglomeration' featured on this page?). Similar mistakes are:

• Paris Metro Area population is 12,067,000 not 9,820,000
• Bogota Metro Area population is 8,090,883 not 7,747,000
• Rome Metro Area population is 5,493,308 not 3,348,000

This article contradicts the correct articles containing information about European Cities: Largest European metropolitan areas and Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union

The Urban/ Metropolitan Mix up needs correcting

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS

Replacement Proposal

From the above discussion it is obvious that the article should be scrapped. A replacement idea would be to have an umbrella article, describing various definitions, methodologies and sources, with links to sub-article lists. Each sub-article list would have the rankings defined by a single definition (e.g. "Urban Agglomeration"), where each entry in the list would be determined by a common methodology.

Does extant data make this idea realistic? Is it possible to implement?

RonaldQ. 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why not make two separate articles with two lists? One is Urban conglomerates and one would be the actual population of the city. I quite frankly am a lot more interested in the actual population of the city, and not the population of the city with it's surrounding towns. that way people can read whichever article/list that's more relevant to their search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.69.63 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

---

about Mumbai

there is lot of confusion in estimating pop. of mumbai

technically Greater Mumbai is defined by are which comes under municipal corporation of greater mumbai. nowadays greater word is not used. mumbai has 2 complete urban districts in it.(mumbai city + suburban district) there is national park in mumbai which is under jurisdiction of national govt. the mumbai city district has the limits of old bombay (ie pre-1955). then the suburban district was not didnt existed. in1955, present day-greater mumbai was created (by including semi urban suburbs). In 1990 the mumbai district was divided into city district and suburban district. however suburbs developed so fast and became so powerful that distinction has almost vanished, thought they are still called suburbs. The population of this greater mumbai is 11 million in 2001 and is 13 million today.

however the growth of mumbai didnt existed to Greater Mumbai, it expanded to mainland, the

extended/far suburbs like Thane and Navi Mumbai etc, which were developing on the outskirts of Greater Mumbai, also contributed to the development of the mumbai, and the difference between greater mumbai and these far suburbs became invisible. the only thing that defines the separation is checkpost on the borders of Greater Mumbai.

Now, The Urban Area /Urban Agglomeration of mumbai became manifold with the estimated population of 20 million.

mumbai has many features similar to NYC and London(Greater London)

When NYC was formed, it consisted of manhattan. with the expansion and other borough adding, the manhattan is often called downtown or city.

Present day london is greater london with core part called as city of london or square mile.

Thus Mumbai's city district is often often called as simply 'city'.

Bala 207 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs a complete rewrite

At present it presents one of many possible interpretations of what "largest cities" means as fact. This is non-neutral and totally misleading. I suggest the UN list should be an article under its own name, which will make it clear that it is simply the UN's take from a particular perspective, and not gospel. An article named "World's largest cities" should be devoted mainly the explained the difficulties of that term, and the wide range of possible answers. Wimstead (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Foolish deletion

Very poor judgment was displayed in the early stages, and the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of metropolitan areas by population. That article was vastly better idea than the current article, which has no redeeming feature whatsoever. The deletion was based on comments from people who obviously had no grasp of the basic concepts involved. It was just fatuous to argue that that article was a fork. Better informed editors intervened later in the debate, but they were ignored. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia. Wimstead (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New article started

I have moved this article from World's largest cities and started an appropriate article at that title. We also need a list of metropolitan areas, as that is a glaring omission at present. It doesn't have to be (indeed it can't be) definitive - what is needed to make it clear to readers that there are no definitive answers in this field. Wimstead (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistical concept

Hi, the statistical concept column is original research, it looks like, cos it's not in the listed source. Who says all these things are what they are? The column should be deleted. - Aucitypops (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Source here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so it is. Doesn't change the fact that the UN is COMPLETELY WRONG in calling Aust's statistical divisions 'urban agglomerations', it's transparently wrong even by their own definition given in this article. It says a lot for the credibility of this UN report as a whole, I think! I think there should be some caveat about the factual error in the source. - Aucitypops (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"The term “urban agglomeration” refers to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory inhabited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries or commuter flows." --Well if you trust the UN on this, then the vast areas of untouched wilderness included in the 12,000 sq km of Sydney's statistical division are inhabited at 'urban density levels'. This report is a joke. - Aucitypops (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Milan

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE) take a more inclusive definition based on socioeconomic patterns[5]. They define the Milan metropolitan area as the Lombard provinces of Milan, Bergamo, Como, Lecco, Lodi, Monza and Brianza, Pavia, Varese and the Piedmontese Province of Novara. The overall population under this definition is about 7,400,000 people dispersed over an area of about 12,000 km² (about nine times the area of Greater London and about equal to the Paris Metropolitan area). By population, this makes it is the largest metropolitan area in Italy and the fourth largest in the European Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_metropolitan_area

This are the UN data, Milan: 3.850.000 or 5.100.000 in agglomeration area or 7.500.000 in urban area; where is Milan in the list? watch:

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:B5bCr81RgzYJ:www.issm.cnr.it/asp/DataMed/Tab/tab.9.2.xls+un+population+milan&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=it

The METROPOLITAN AREA of Milan has 7.400.000 inhabitants, NOT the Lombardy region. They are not given invents data! It watches the sites that I have wrote over! According to one official study of Metropolitan Database OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)! it is one of the main international agencies; also Tokyo turns out with 35.000.000 of inhabitants (the entire and region metropolitan area), but the single city not so much; Milan has minimum 3.885.000 inhabitants (metropolitan area)!

http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/0406041E.PDF

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/62/37720067.pdf

Your list of city is very unreliable, citing various sources and methode for the city (urban area or metropolitan area or the single city)

The metropolitan area of Milan include the provinces of Varese, Como, Bergamo, Lecco, Pavia, Novara, Lodi, Bergamo and Brescia; draft of an area with city and urbanizations many neighbors between they, with interdependent associate-economic and cultural activities and that they weigh on Milan; many write source, not only OECD… for this are comprised nearly the entire Lombardy; the same criterion is used as an example for Istanbul (watches how many cities comprises in your list!), Ankara, Santiago etc. If it is spoken about metropolitan areas of it and not about the single city area, the same thing goes considered for Milan: Or for Istanbul the cities go eliminated all limitrofe! Mine it is not chauvinism, you are obstinate to you to consider the not real data or calculate to you with various criteria to second of the cities. I do not speak about the city, but about the METROPOLITAN AREA, like for Tokio, Madrid, Paris etc; for example:

Istanbul includes Adalar, Avcilar, Bagicilar, Bahçelievler, Bakirkoy, Bayrampasa, Besiktas, Beykoz, Beyoglu, Eminonu, Esenler, Eyup, Fatih, Gaziosmanpasa, Gungoren, Kadikoy, Kagithane, Kartal, Kuçukçekmece, Maltepe, Pendik, Sariyer, Sisli, Tuzla, Umraniye, Uskudar and Zeytinburnu.

Ankara includes Altindag, Cankaya, Etimesgut, Golbasi, Keçioren, Mamak, Sincan and Yenimahalle.

Data refer to Gran Santiago which includes the Province of Santiago plus cities within the Provinces of Puente Alto and San Bernardo.

Tokyo:the CITY has only 8.000.000 inhabitants, THE URBAN AREA over 12.000.000, THE METROPOLITAN AREA over 35.000.000; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo The same is for Milan! List cannot be made one, considering some cities ONLY like CITIES, others like URBAN AREA and others like METROPOLITAN AREA… If you speak about cities, Tokyo has “only” 8.000.000 of inhabitants...

The agglomeration of Osaka consisted of the densely inhabited districts of Osaka, 35 cities surrounding Osaka, Kobe and six cities surrounding Kobe. Why for Osaka are considered Kobe and other cities and for Milan not Varese, Lecco, Como etc.? Osaka and Kobe are the same city? I don't think; I repeat, this list is unreliable!

Yes, Milan is 4.th metropolitan area (not CITY, do You understand the difference?!?) in Europe (1.London, 2.Paris, 3.Ruhr in Germany), as an example comes considered therefore also the Rurh in Germany, that it comprises Frankfurt, Essen, Koeln, Dortmund, etc. Many cities distinguished between they… As I have already written, also link of a UN write 3.850.000 inhabitants for Milan; however you write what you want, is useless to discuss with people that it does not take action of the data, even if are cited reliable sources.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_metropolitana

The english site of Wikipedia write for Milan 7,5 Milion People! You must consistent be! Get you agree and correct one of the data (7,5 or 2,8 million?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan

You don't write the same data in two different pages of Wikipedia: this is Inconceivable! And so are all the data Unreliable!

Bye Bye

Who calculated areas?

There are no UN official data on the areas of urgan agglomerations, but statistical concepts for them. According to the definitions, The number of cities, towns and villages included in these agglomerations has been rising as the agglomerations have expanded territorially. In 1990, the urban agglomeration of Fukuoka-Kitakyushu consisted of the contiguous densely inhabited districts (DIDs) of Fukuoka, nine cities surrounding Fukuoka, Kitakyushu and two cities surrounding Kitakyushu. The urban agglomeration of Kyoto consisted of the DIDs of Kyoto and six cities surrounding Kyoto. The agglomeration of Nagoya consisted of the DIDs of Nagoya and 19 cities surrounding Nagoya. The agglomeration of Osaka consisted of the DIDs of Osaka, 35 cities surrounding Osaka, Kobe and six cities surrounding Kobe. The estimates for 1995, 2000 and 2005 were also calculated on the basis of these definitions (including the adjustments made to the DIDs after 1990).

DIDs (densely inhabited districts) are officially recognized urbanized areas in Japan with population densities over 4,000 persons per square kilometers. For example, total population and area of the city of Nagasaki are 442,699 inhabitants and 338.72 km² according to the 2005 census, while the DIDs of Nagasaki has 340,164 inhabitants within the area of 45.62 km². The DIDs of Nagasaki are actually split into six DID areas: Nagasaki I (275,567; 33,47 km²), Nagasaki II (24,173), Nagasaki III (17,804), Nagasaki IV (8,651), Nagasaki V (8,281), Nagasaki VI (5,688), while the DID of Nagasaki I is perfectly connected to the neighboring DID of Nagayo II (7,661; 1.03 km²) within the town of Nagayo. However, there are no official way of summation of DIDs across the municipality boundaries in Japan.

By checking the published DIDs map in 1990, I found that the nine cities surrounding Fukuoka are actually cities of Chikushino, Kasuga, Ōnojō, Dazaifu, Koga, and Fukutsu (former towns of Fukutsu and Tsuyazaki united in 2005; Tsuyazaki did not have DID); and towns of Nakagawa, Shime, and Shingū. Two cities surrounding Kitakyushu are city of Nakama and town of Mizumaki. Six cities surrounding Kyoto are cities of Uji, Jōyō, Mukō, Nagaokakyō; and towns of Ōyamazaki and Kumiyama. 19 cities surrounding Nagoya are actually cities of Seto, Kasugai, Tokoname, Komaki, Tōkai, Chita, Owariasahi, Toyoake, Kiyosu (former towns of Kiyosu, Shinkawa, and Nishibiwajima united in 2005), and Kitanagoya (former towns of Shikatsu and Nishiharu united in 2006); and Towns of Nagakute, Toyoyama, Shippō, Jimokuji, Ōharu, and Kanie. The 35 cities surrounding Osaka are cities Sakai (annexing Mihara in 2005), Kishiwada, Toyonaka, Ikeda, Suita, Izumiōtsu, Takatsuki, Kaizuka, Moriguchi, Hirakata, Ibaraki, Yao, Izumisano, Tondabayashi, Neyagawa, Kawachinagano, Matsubara, Daitō, Izumi, Minō, Kashiwara, Habikino, Kadoma, Settsu, Takaishi, Fujiidera, Higashiosaka, Sennan, Shijōnawate, Katano Ōsakasayama, and Hannan; and towns of Tadaoka, Tajiri. The six cities surrounding Kobe are cities of Amagasaki, Nishinomiya, Ashiya, Itami, Takarazuka, and Kawanishi. The sums of population and areas of DIDs are as follows:

Date	Osaka-Kobe		Nagoya		Kitakyushu-Fukuoka		Kyoto
	population	area (km2)	population	area (km2)	population	area (km2)	population	area (km2)
Oct 1, 1990	11,055,847	1,171.8	2,960,361	441.8	2,501,489	363.8	1,762,438	181.2
Oct 1, 1995	11,043,561	1,198.2	3,059,689	471.7	2,625,859	371.7	1,806,260	189.5
Oct 1, 2000	11,167,981	1,210.71	3,125,409	477.38	2,720,922	383.71	1,805,784	189.97
Oct 1, 2005	11,264,041	1,218.93	3,203,345	479.11	2,773,409	386.76	1,805,054	190.71

These figures can be only obtained by personal calculations, because there are no official summation of cities DIDs to evalutate the total urbanized area sizes in Japan (though there are several offical data for metropolitan areas or urbanization) nor UN evaluation of urban agglomerations areas.

I propose to delete Area, for some evaluations of areas (except for copies of official data) may belong to original research. Aurichalcum (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Aurichalcum (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Argument: You should write the population of plural sources.

• 『Demographia』 (Wendell Cox)
• 『UN WUP』 (World Urbanizatinon Prospects, 2007)
• 『The Principle Agglomerations of the World』 (Professor Thomas Brinkhoff, Oldenburg University)
• 『Geopolis』 (Definition: Professor Francois Moriconi-Ebrard, Avignon Universite. Statistics: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques）
• 『The World Gazetteer』
• 『Others』 (Original statistics of the government of nations)

【Demographia】(2007)

1. Tokyo, Japan 34,450,000
2. NYC, USA 20,420,000
3. Seoul, Korea 20,090,000 　
4. Bombay Indea 19,380,000
5. Jakarta Indonesia 19,300,000
6. Delhi Indea 18,560,000
7. MexicoCity, Mexico 18,410,000
8. SaoPaulo Brazil 18,130,000
9. Manila Philippines 17,320,000　
10. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 17,280,000
11. Cairo Egypt 16,000,000 　
12. La, USA 15,350,000
13. Kolkata Indea 14,580,000
14. Shanghai china 14,530,000
15. Moscow Russia 14,100,000 　
16. Buenos Aires Argentina 13,460,000
17. Beijing Chaina 12,160,000
18. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 11,080,000
19. Istanbul Turkey 11,000,000 　
20. Paris France 10,570,000
21. Lagos Nigeria 9,660,000
22. Karachi Pakistan 9,260,000
23. London U.K. 8,280,000
24. Teheran Iran 7,550,000
25. Dhaka Bangladesh 7,470,000
26. Essen(The Ruhr) Germany 7,360,000

【UN WUP】(2007)

1. Tokyo, Japan 35,676,000
2. NYC, USA 19,040,000
3. MexicoCity, Mexico 19,028,000
4. Bombay Indea 18,978,000
5. SaoPaulo Brazil 18,845,000
6. Delhi Indea 15,926,000
7. Shanghai china 14,987,000 1
8. Kolkata Indea 14,787,000
9. Dhaka Bangladesh 13,485,000
10. Buenos Aires Argentina 12,795,000
11. La, USA 12,500,000
12. Karachi Pakistan 12,130,000
13. Cairo Egypt 11,893,000
14. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 11,748,000
15. Osaka-Kobe, Japan 11,294,000
16. Beijing Chaina 11,106,000
17. Manila Philippines 11,100,000
18. Moscow Russia 10,452,000
19. Istanbul Turkey 10,061,000
20. Seoul, Korea 9,796,000
21. Lagos Nigeria 9,466,000
22. Jakarta Indonesia 9,125,000
23. Paris France 9,904,000
24. London U.K. 8,567,000
25. Teheran Iran 7,873,000
26. Essen(The Ruhr) Germany --------

【The Principle Agglomerations of the World】(2007)

1. Tokyo, Japan 33,600,000
2. Seoul, Korea 23,400,000 　
3. MexicoCity, Mexico 22,400,000
4. NYC, USA 21,900,000
5. Bombay Indea 21,600,000 2
6. Delhi Indea 21,500,000
7. SaoPaulo Brazil 20,600,000
8. La, USA 18,000,000
9. Shanghai china 17,500,000
10. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 16,700,000
11. Cairo Egypt 16,100,000
12. Kolkata Indea 15,700,000
13. Manila Philippines 15,600,000
14. Jakarta Indonesia 15,100,000
15. Karachi Pakistan 15,100,000 　
16. Buenos Aires Argentina 13,600,000
17. Moscow Russia 13,500,000 　
18. Dhaka Bangladesh 12,600,000 　
19. Beijing Chaina 12,800,000 　
20. Teheran Iran 12,100,000 　
21. London U.K. 12,000,000 　
22. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 12,300,000
23. Istanbul Turkey 11,800,000 　
24. Lagos Nigeria 10,100,000
25. Paris France 10,000,000
26. Essen(The Ruhr) Germany 5,700,000

【Geopolis】(2007)

1. Tokyo, Japan 31,112,000
2. NYC, USA 27,860,000
3. Seoul, Korea 22,447,000
4. MexicoCity, Mexico 20,861,000
5. Jakarta Indonesia 20,087,000
6. Manila Philippines 18,861,000
7. SaoPaulo Brazil 18,240,000
8. Delhi Indea 18,215,000
9. Bombay Indea 18,066,000
10. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 15,067,000
11. La, USA 14,446,000
12. Shanghai china 14,345,000
13. Kolkata Indea 14,223,000
14. Cairo Egypt 12,525,000 　
15. Moscow Russia 12,257,000
16. Istanbul Turkey 11,619,000
17. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 11,580,000
18. Buenos Aires Argentina 11,575,000
19. Dhaka Bangladesh 11,343,000
20. Karachi Pakistan 11,087,000 　
21. Teheran Iran 10,387,000
22. Essen(The Ruhr) Germany 10,069,000
23. Paris France 9,928,000
24. Beijing Chaina 9,816,000
25. London U.K. 9,332,000 　
26. Lagos Nigeria 8,039,000

　 【The World Gazetteer】 (2007)

1. Tokyo, Japan 37,203,122
2. NYC, USA 22,981,510
3. Seoul, Korea 22,254,620 　
4. MexicoCity, Mexico 22,968,205
5. Bombay Indea 20,870,764
6. SaoPaulo Brazil 20,218,868
7. Manila Philippines 19,195,048
8. Jakarta Indonesia 18,588,548 　
9. Delhi Indea 18,362,625
10. La, USA 17,863,050
11. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 17,414,008
12. Shanghai china 16,969,826
13. Cairo Egypt 16,078,877
14. Kolkata Indea 15,185,670
15. Moscow Russia 14,744,150 　
16. Buenos Aires Argentina 14,197,085
17. Dhaka Bangladesh 13,240,743 　
18. Teheran Iran 12,664,286
19. London U.K. 12,577,225 　
20. Lagos Nigeria 12,517,811
21. Karachi Pakistan 12,461,423
22. Istanbul Turkey 12,207,361
23. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 11,975,998
24. Beijing Chaina 11,941,418　
25. Paris France 11,818,503
26. Essen(The Ruhr) Germany 11,817,132 　

【Others】

1. Tokyo, Japan 34,607,069(2001)
2. NYC, USA 21,361,797
3. MexicoCity, Mexico 19,231,829
4. SaoPaulo Brazil 19,226,426 (2007)
5. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 18,643,915(2001)
6. Bombay Indea 16,434,386 (2001)
7. La, USA 16,373,645 (2000)
8. Kolkata Indea 13,211,853 (2001)
9. Delhi Indea 12,877,470 (2001)
10. Buenos Aires Argentina 12,046,799 ('01)
11. RiodeJaneiro Brazil 11,563,302 (2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.33.136.124 (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The update of the urban area definition of the United Nations is slow. Therefore, it is considerably incorrect. I think that I am caused by the negligence of the staff of United Nations.--218.33.186.68 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New York City and Seoul

AS per their respective wikipedia articles,

New York City - 8,274,527 New York metropolitan area - 18,747,320

Seoul - 10,356,000 Seoul National Capital Area - 22,800,000

This bogus list is comparing the New York metro area to the incorporated area of Seoul which is an absurd comparison. It isn't in line at all with the Agglomeration article. DaronDierkes (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The update of a city zone definition of the United Nations is slow, and inaccurate.--218.33.186.68 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Delhi's urban agglomeration

The listed area for the urban agglomeration of Delhi seems to be for the National Capital Territory and not the UA. I haven't found any source yet that provides numbers for the whole area, but some useful statistical data can be found in a chapter of the NCT's Statistical Hand Book 2007 (pdf-file). It says that the total urban area within the NCT is 924.68 sq.km. However, when I calculated the tehsil breakdowns that is presented further down the chapter, it gives a total of 865.47 sq.km instead. I have a feeling that this figure is more correct, as the 924.68 is presented together with a figure for rural areas, 558.32 sq.km, which gives a perfect 1483 sq.km - which I feel is a bit too convenient. So, I trust the 865.47 sq.km more.

Ok, then we have an area given. However, this includes not only the Delhi UA, it also includes three Census Towns (Asola, Bhati and Jona Pur) that's not a part of the Delhi UA, so their areas have to be excluded. The problem is that the areas are reported as a group, and not for each part. I solved it this way: the three towns have a total population of 28,310. They are situated in the tehsil of Hauz Khas, where the urban area has a population density of 10,183 inh/sq.km. If I count the same population density for the three towns, this gives an area of 2.78 sq.km. Excluding this from the 865.47 sq.km gives a total of approx. 863 sq.km.

I won't change the area figure in the list until there's some agreement that this can be used. The main problem is that this basically goes under the 'own research' rule, which normally isn't accepted on wikipedia. Any thoughts? --Pjred (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision Population Database, the populatin estimates for the Delhi urban agglomeration are 10,092,000 in 1995, 12,441,000 in 2000, 15,053,000 in 2005, 15,926,000 in 2007 and 17,015,000 in 2010, using cesuses of 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001 with the statistical concept of "urban agglomeration". So the urban area within the NCT of Delhi (12,905,780/924.68 km2) in the 2001 census is probably the region that the UN have counted as an urban agglomeration. At least 1483 km2 is perfectly wrong figure for the Delhi urban agglomeration. On the other hand, the area figures are not given in the original World Urbanization Prosects. The area figures in this article have been compiled by wikipedia editors according to their "own research".

As I have proposed previously in the section of Talk:World's largest urban agglomerations#Who calculated areas?, the area figures should be deleted.Aurichalcum (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least cautions should be noted in the article (for example: The area figures in the Table are taken from individsual national censuses according to the criteria and statistical concepts noted in the World Urbanization Prospects.).Aurichalcum (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that UN only have used the numbers for the Delhi UA, and not the total urban population within the NCT. There's no reason why they should use a different basis for the calculation for Delhi than the other indian agglomerations in the same list - all of the others are calculated from their official UA definitions. So, if we choose to use the 924.68 sq.km, it still includes a small part (the three census towns mentioned above) that's not included in the UA. However, I am sure that the difference is only a few square kilometres, so perhaps a minor rounding down to 920.00 sq.km would be the best solution? --Pjred (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Paris / Los Angeles

Los Angeles : METRO AREA : 12,875,587 (source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles) Paris : METRO AREA : 12,067,000 (source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris)

How come the article features the Urban Area of Paris instead of the Metro Area (as used for L.A. for instance) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.231.126 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greater Mumbai Urban Agglomeration

Mumbai has its very own page for its urban agglomeration: Greater Mumbai Urban Agglomeration. It's a clearly defined statistical area. So why does the info on the list not match up in any way? It's currently listed at a much smaller area than it has, and with a slightly larger population than it really has. Even the "source" link citing the area seems to directly contradict the numbers. Someone fix this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan area and the urban agglomeration are two different concepts. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region is a planning concept by Maharashtra and Mumbai local governments, and includes a much wider area than the urban agglomeration (there's also some rural areas included). The Mumbai urban agglomeration is, as any official urban agglomeration in India, a definition worked out by Census authorities, and is basically defined by a continuous block of urban administrative units. I see that the article for Mumbai metropolitan area is mentioning Greater Mumbai urban agglomeration as an alternative name, but that's just a sloppy use of terminology.--Pjred (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now corrected the information in Mumbai metropolitan area.--Pjred (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But, what is the source for the information about the real urban agglomeration, then? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The population figures in the list are UN estimates, from the World Urbanization Prospects (2007 revision). They have estimated the population based on latest Census results (1991 and 2001). You will find a detailed definition, by component, on this page (click the Greater Mumbai UA link on the page). The area of 1,097 sq.km is from adding the areas of all UA components, as listed by this source. Hope this helps.--Pjred (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "World's largest urban agglomerations according to the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects report"

I've been so bold to rename this article to "World's largest urban agglomerations according to the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects report". The current problem is that the list as of now just contains information from one single source, it's information is inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles and other sources. Hence, the reference to the single source should be clearly stated in the article's name.

You just need to browse through the discussions of this talk page to get an impression about the various flaws of this list: population of Paris, London, Seoul; incompleteness be failing to list the Ruhr area, etc. - It's acceptable to base a list on a single source, but then this needs to be clearly stated in the article's name - because the current list is NOT a list of the world's largest urban agglomerations, but a differently formatted list of a single source with flaws.

Just my 2 cents - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency with "United States Metropolitan Areas" page

According the the US Metropolitan Areas page (Sourced from the US 2000 Census, there are 15 metro areas with pop. over 3.2 million, which is about the bottom of this list) However with a quick glance only count 8 US flags on this list. What accounts for the difference?

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area 131.107.0.73 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The other list uses the metropolitan statistical area definition, while the UN agglomeration list uses the urban area definition. By definition, the MSA will always be bigger than the corresponding UA. --Polaron | Talk 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhr area in Germany

Check the List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population. There you have the Ruhrgebiet 13M according to OECD. --Sigmundur (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but this list is compiled by the United Nations of which the article is solely based upon on. (no alternative sources are used to justify any change because the article states uses the UN as a primary) In general this article is based on the compilation of the United Nations prospect reports which is based on data supplied by other governments. Even though OECD lists Ruhr to have about 13 million, the government most likely does not recognized the Ruhr area as a single metropolitan area, but separate metropolitan areas (Ex: Essen and Dusseldorf split into separate areas) . Because of this, Ruhr does not appear on the list. Also, different organizations/governments have different definitions for an agglomeration. This is why it is hard to determine the "world's largest cities". Elockid (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish article

Firstly, I don't think that the creator(s) or editors of this article have any idea of what an urban agglomeration is, or that the information projected is grossly outdated. I can only speak about NCR (India) here.

Firstly, if you understand the meaning of urban agglomeration, you will notice that the given population takes into account only the population of the metropolitan area, not of the agglomeration. The urban agglomeration of Delhi is called National Capital Region (India).

Secondly, if you rectify the previous mistake, you will see that the population of NCR is about 19.18 million.

I will make sure these changes are implemented.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The creators of this article just use data from the government which could restrict it to a political boundary that doesn't include the entire agglomeration. This is evident for cities like Manila, Jakarta, and Seoul where the government restricts their agglomeration to the national capital region/territory/district. This list is basically comparing apples to oranges because the sources that the UN uses are from different governments/organizations which have different criteria for an agglomeration. The articles List of urban areas by population or List of metropolitan areas by population (a bit oudated since no one can find a good single source to use from, but if the source updated it would probably put Delhi at 19.18 million) seems like a more accurate way of measuring an urban agglomeration even though they don't mean the same thing, those articles give a much more accurate reading for Delhi and the other cities I mentioned. I agree with you about the article being rubbish. That's why it was nominated for deletion. Elockid (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seattle?

Obviously, this article has some problems, but I think that Seattle should be on this list... as the metro area is 3.3 million and if you want to use the CSA it is over 4 million people. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The data being used for the article is from the UN and solely the UN. According to them, the agglomeration of Seattle is 3.074 million which is not enough to be in the top 100. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kanpur

The Indian city of Kanpur is being many times disappeared from this page but in website it is visible. Please take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.189.161 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article is not neutral, and is transparently wrong

This article leaves out a full 19 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) 13:33, 24 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) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)