Jump to content

Talk:Metropolitan area

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanophage (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 22 July 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

New data

Barcelona's Metropolitan Area is 5.150.000 (updated 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as it is observed in... http://bcnip.blogsome.com/2006/04/22/la-region-metropolitana-de-Barcelona (data 2005)


See talk:megalopolis for discussion.

TakuyaMarata, could you explain the paragraph you just added? It doesn't seem to make any sense in the context. What is "The area"? Are you claiming that the trends you note are necessary characteristics of all metro areas? At the very least the writing needs clarification. VV 00:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I tried to make the paragraph less specific as possible. I felt that the article focuses too much on specific areas so I started some discussion in general. If you think it is wrong, feel free to correct, expand and clarify it. -- Taku 00:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

What an absolutely crap article about metropolitan areas. Where are the explanations about the various methodes used around the world etc? Metro Manilla isn't even a metropolitan area based on commuter statistics, at least get that one right...

Japan metropolitan areas

In Japan, there are 7 major Metropolitan Areas (MAs). They are Tokyo MA (34.5million), Osaka MA (18.6million), Nagoya MA (8.7million), Fukuoka MA (5.4million), Sapporo MA (2.5million), Sendai MA (2.2million) and Hiroshima MA (2.0million) (the numbers are populations of 1.5% Urban Employment Areas in 2000). Some major individual cities in each MAs are designated by government ordinance as the Government Ordinance Cities(GOCs). For examle, Osaka MA includes GOCs of Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe and Sakai.

Moved above text from article. It would be better if instead of listing specific metropolitan areas, the criteria for what is included in a metropolitan area in Japan be put in the article instead. Polaron | Talk 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Taiheiyo Belt article that's referenced now is also unsourced. I'm not sure there are official metropolitan areas. Anyway, the articles as they stand give the misleading impression that the entire area is urbanized, when some of these metros are separated by fairly large distances. Dekimasu 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Division is not the same as metropolital area

As documented in talk Sydney the statment "Both Statistical Divisions and Districts are equivalent to metropolitan areas." is disputed. John Dalton 09:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a citation and corrected it. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New data

Barcelona's Metropolitan Area is 5.150.000 (updated 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as is observed in... http://bcnip.blogsome.com/2006/04/22/la-region-metropolitana-de-Barcelona (data 2005)

World "metropolitan areas" - description or translation?

I've noticed that many editors from quite a few countries familiar with the English language have become quite endeared with the term "metropolitan area", but in many cases the term cannot apply, as it is neither an official translation for the existing demographic/administrative regions of those countries, nor a term used there. The "Japan" clarification mentioned above is a good example of this. France is yet another example, as, although neither its government nor its INSEE statistical bureau has ever used this term as an official translation, a few insist on imposing it on relevant articles here as though it were one.

In fact, the confusion grows further when the official translation for the areas described is another term altogether: as indicated above, what this article insists is the French equivalent of a "metropolitan area" is in reality translated as "urban area", so it should not even be mentioned in this article. In short, it seems that the application of the term in many cases here stems from opinion, mistranslation, an effort to "group" a schema between all countries for the sake of a single demographics study, or perhaps endearment for foreign terms, but indicating it as a "translation" in many cases is simply not fact.

Yet "metropolitan area" can be used as a descriptive term, but where it is used I think it should be made clear that it is used as such; in other words, it should be clear that it is a term included as a description for better understanding, but not as an official term or officially translation when it is nothing of the kind.

I think it would be useful for this reference to clarify this difference somewhere in the article, and gate the same to all concerned articles. I have already tried to do the same where France is concerned. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I've noticed "metro" and "metro area" being used as abbreviations, but these aren't actually explicitly defined anywhere. I'd suggest something like
A metropolitan area (commonly abbreviated "metro area" or simply "metro") ...
but I suspect this abbreviation is US-specific. Case in point: using "metro" to describe the greater Paris area risks confusion with the Paris Metro, which is an underground railway. Maybe
A metropolitan area (commonly abbreviated in the US as "metro area" or simply "metro") ...
would be better, but I'm not sure if it really is US-specific, so I need some input from others. I'm not even sure what the British English equivalent is, apart from the adjective "Greater" (e.g. Greater London, Greater Manchester). Hairy Dude (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The external link for metrofyi.com is more of an advertisement for that website in that many major metro areas are excluded and some listed are clearly incorrect. At the very least, it should be noted as a partial list. Perhaps excluded in that it contains more advertising about places to go than data on the area. Also, the abbreviation "MSA" should be included in the commonly used abbreviations used for this topic due to the fact that it covers standard conventional references used in most all industries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.111.254 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surat, Ahmedabad and Pune?

Are Surat, Ahmedabad and Pune included in the list of Metropolitan cities in India? There are no proper citations in the article to support this. I hope someone will provide citations failing which the cities will have to be deleted from the list. Thanks. Swaroop (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe: Rhine-Ruhr or Ruhr?

According to the German Wikipedia [1], the Metropolitan area had been officially defined in 1995 as the Rhine-Ruhr (German Rhein-Ruhr) Metropolitan area in 1995, officially having 10,168,321 inhabitants on 30 June 2008, and thus forming the largest metropolitan area in the EU. According to the German Wikipedia (see link), the official definition of the "European Metropol Region Rhine-Ruhr" is contained in North Rhine-Westphalian development laws and - to be exact - stems from the "Development Plan of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (part A), where it was defined in terms of space, and had been treated as a subject matter in form of verbalized 'goals' in section B.I.2." (in German: Landesplanungsrechtlich wird die Europäische Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr im Landesentwicklungsplan Nordrhein-Westfalen (Teil A) räumlich bestimmt und sachlich in Form von textlich formulierten "Zielen" unter dem Abschnitt B.I.2. behandelt.) It might be of some importance to know that matters of regional development, to a large part, fall into the competencies of the German Länder (States, literally: "countries").

Perhaps someone would like to consider whether the reference to the Ruhr area alone should be changed to a reference to the larger Rhine-Ruhr area. --85.179.67.148 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an all too predictable mess

And it is probably more trouble than it is worth to try to fix it, as the boosters will always come back for another go. What we need as permanent warning tag saying "This concept should not be taken seriously". Wimstead (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hypercity

"according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asia alone will have at least 10 hypercities"

I'm not sure why "hypercities" link to Sky city 1000 of if "hypercity" even a real term. Someone who knows what he's doing please edit 114.75.1.18 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto

Ive changed Torontos population back to its actual population of just ocer 2 million, the person who had it at 8.1 million might be a little to patriotic or just stupid lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Labor Market Area to Metropolitan Area

It is intimately related but I believe that a LMA should have it's own article. --C9900 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Metropolitan region" helps explain "metropolitan area" ??? Puh-leeze.

The article contains this sentence:

" However the most ambitious metropolitan area population figures are often better seen as the population of a "metropolitan region" than of a "city".[citation needed]"

And someone thinks a citation is needed for such a vague statement that it is useless to anyone trying to understand the idea of a "metropolitan area" ???

What this sentence needs is not a citation but a deletion. Because sentences are supposed to convey information, but this one doesn't.Daqu (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why such a focus on Canada?

Megalopolis: why such a focus on Canada? "Also, 10 million inhabitants is an unreasonbly-high number for Canada." How high is it for Mexico, for South Africa, for North Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphachap (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because many Canadians view Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting Canada. It used to bug me but now I’m just amused by it. I think that the more Canada-centric and Toronto-centric articles and sections there are, the more it weakens the credibility of Wikipedia. (Which is not good but people don’t seem to care anymore). Promotional editing by Canadian editors on Wikipedia has turned into something of a problem that isn’t really being addressed.
I’m not sure if all Canadians are like this, but many of the ones who edit Wikipedia seem to think that Canada (and Toronto in particular) are underrated and unfairly ignored by the rest of the world. It has nothing to do with Canada per se, it’s the ignorance of non-Canadians that needs to be addressed and rectified. In their opinion, Wikipedia should be a tool that’s used to teach the world about the importance, significance, and relevance of Canada.
(Just as aside for people who disagree with me: Canada’s largest city, Toronto, has an economy that is embarrassingly small for a North American metro area of it’s size: it’s behind Miami and just ahead of Detroit and Seattle. It also lacks a great university. It’s a nice city that’s extremely “livable,” but so is Bern and Sun City, AZ. It just lacks the cultural, artistic, historical, and scientific gravity that even smaller US cities like San Francisco and Boston have, much less larger US cities).
To say that western Lake Ontario is a metro area is just as silly as saying that Chicago and Milwaukee are one, even though there are towns that are suburbs of both., and the population of just Chicago is significantly larger that the “Golden Horseshoe.” Combine another two contiguous metro areas, L.A. and San Diego, and you have 18,345,313, which makes Toronto's horseshoe look more like a paperclip. --AntigrandiosËTalk 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levent financial district in Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Levent financial district in Istanbul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Port Said metropolitan area also spans two continents

The caption under a picture of Istanbul incorrectly states that the Istanbul metropolitan area is the only one that spans two continents. As noted explicitly in the article on Port Said, "Port Said's twin city is Port Fuad, which lies on the eastern bank of the canal. The two cities coexist, to the extent that there hardly is any town centre in Port Fuad. The cities are connected by free ferries running all through the day, and together they form a metropolitan area with over a million residents that extends both on the African and the Asian sides of the Suez Canal." The caption should perhaps be edited to say, "Istanbul, one of only two metropolitan areas that span two continents, the other being Port Said in Egypt." --Wbush89 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There is a lot of images on this article, and some of them just show skylines of cities, not the metropolitan area of the city. Shouldn't these be removed? Rob (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the skylines themselves that are the problem - highly developed skylines are indicative of very large cities, and one or two of them should be included to illustrate the type of area that forms the article's subject matter - but the sheer number of images in the article is grossly excessive. It's almost as though editors from each country have tried to ensure that their own country is represented. Surely that can't be the case? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My observation has been that editors from each country have tried to have their own country represented. As long as there is a section for each country, I don't mind there being one picture associated with it. I would draw the line however at no more than one per country. Hwy43 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images aren't suppose to show the largest cities, but rather the variations in metropolitan areas, and there build up. I think we should have pictures of well-known cities of various size, build up, density, etc. For example, the skyline of New York City could been compared with the skyline of Berlin to show contrast between two well known metropolitans. Rob (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megalopolis section

I have inexpertly tried to fix a couple of the thousand things about it which are horrible. It should be drastically shortened because it already has its own article, and metro- is different from megalo-! I don't want to remove it completely because obviously the concepts are related. Domrivers (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

caption error

The second image on the page has the caption: "Gangnam in Seoul Capital Area, South Korea, the world's second largest metropolitan area" But if you click on the image you get a bigger version of the image with the caption: "Tokyo, Japan, the world's largest metropolitan area" Fholson 01:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

chcę przyjechać do Argentiny

MKRL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.55.3 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images or diagrams

Now that you've added skyscraper-skylines to (most) all of the sections, Castncoot, the 'United States' section looks a little less Murica-centric-non-sequitur, but these additions to an article outlining each country's definition of the term 'metropolitan area' is, for sure, 'pretty', but still arguably off-topic. TP ✎ ✓ 12:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little exaggerated on your part, I believe. The article is (and should be) far more than simply about definitions. Certainly more on point than what used to be there. Castncoot (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also far from U.S.-centric. One has to remember that the U.S. has far greater depth, breadth, and complexity with respect to this topic than most other countries, with many more metros, many more definitions of metros, and many more available statistics about metros. Having seven or eight panoramas of countries' largest metropolitan areas constructively demonstrates illustratively the differences and commonalities between metropolitan areas globally. If anything, this article needs to be expanded, and the glaring voids that come to mind immediately involve China and India; it would be helpful for someone to work on those and build them up. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does embellishing only the US section (with non-sequitur illustrations) not seem 'Murica #1'-ish? And these illustrations are of no informative value at all, as they give no sense of the breadth, depth, etc., that even here you need words to describe... they are but a 'pretty bunch of skyscrapers', nothing more. TP ✎ ✓ 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ThePromenader. The article text needs to be expanded. But it's very hard to see how a profusion of panoramic images of (mostly) western city centres - pretty though they may be - expands readers' understanding of the concept of the metropolitan area. Perhaps retain one - the rest should be moved elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with some editors is that they don't seem to read carefully. I clearly said that we need more material on China (with none now) and India, and that would include with accompanying pictures. There's also nothing to stop The Promenader or anyone else from adding more material about France or any other country for that matter, in the diagram caption and/or text, as their topic experience allows. Either have zero images, or (more sensibly) have seven or eight panoramas of metropolitan areas to effectively illustrate the differences and commonalities between the actual physical layouts of different metropolitan areas around the globe. Castncoot (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is not a correct statement to make that the images are of "mostly" Western cities. Only NYC and Toronto are even in the Western Hemisphere, and Paris is the only other city to be considered a "Western" city. Castncoot (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Western culture. All bar (debatably) Istanbul are "western" cities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, stop with the cultural attribution that was never intended and do something about your complaint by building China and India sections. Castncoot (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only question here is whether your edits improve this article or not, and my view is that they do not, because they distort it and add little or nothing of encyclopedic value. I'd advise you not to assume that other editors can guess what your intentions might be, and not to suggest to other editors what they should be doing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, you're either 'misinterpreting' the intent and scope of this article, or are attempting to change it. Until now, it was but a description of of how every country defines/uses the term "metropolitan area". Again. adding pictures of skyscrapers to this just adds a 'pretty factor' to it, and nothing more, and distrating attention to 'sections that need more material' is non sequitur and does nothing to change that. Now, if one wanted to add maps of metropolitan areas to sections, that would be a more informative and useful illustrative addition, but you seem more intent on promoting your affinity with skyscrapers ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, stop with the histrionics. The pictures are all clearly panoramas - that's the best way to illustrate the physical flavor of a metro area. Most (but not all) metros have a skyscraper core. How many skyscrapers are there in the Istanbul picture? Castncoot (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that panoramic views of city centres are "the best way to illustrate the physical flavor of a metro area"? As ThePromenader says, maps would be more informative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What 'histronics' - and ad hominem as a foremost argument is a pretty good sign that there is none ; )
Maps don't show topographic relief of land or buildings, while pictures are worth a thousand words. That's the argument. Castncoot (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But another question: if only the core of a metropolitan area has skyscrapers, how is that representative of the entire metro area? That would mean that such illustrations have even less value for this article. TP ✎ ✓ 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a more representative image of the NYC metro area. The area still has a ton of skyscrapers, but this image expands far beyond Manhattan. Castncoot (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All metropolitan areas are culturally defined and identified by their cores. And these panoramas are of the metropolitan areas, including their cores. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The panorama images make the article look like some coffee-table glossy for a real estate marketeer. They are a distraction from the actual subject. Batternut (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite unfortunate that this article is being taken in a direction that completely ignores the actual visual and culturally definable aspects of a metropolitan area. Nevertheless, I'm willing to work with you on what diagrams or images would be acceptable to the consensus, which seems to be saying that more geographic rather than photographic emphasis is preferred. For starters, I've changed the sarcastically named title of this section to the more constructive "Images or diagrams".
Let's begin with NYC:
I hope that one or both of these images/diagrams would be acceptable to people:
Counties composing the New York metropolitan area, the most populous U.S. metropolitan area:
New York–Jersey City–White Plains, NY–NJ Metropolitan Division
Dutchess County–Putnam County, NY Metropolitan Division
Nassau County–Suffolk County, NY Metropolitan Division
Newark, NJ–PA Metropolitan Division
Remainder of the New York-Newark, NY–NJ–CT–PA Combined Statistical Area
Satellite imagery showing the New York metropolitan area at night
Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I think could be useful would be a map or satellite image showing how a metro area is constituted from a set of distinct urban areas, separated by rural land. Ideally also showing the transport links connecting the lot together. The NY metro county map does not advance our understanding of what makes a metro area. The NY area at night image, although it doesn't have the metro area extent marked, might have some use in either the general definition section, or the lead. Batternut (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds like a reasonable suggestion...will place the satellite image in the General Definition section, with a clarifying caption. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan areas vs cities: use of concepts by country

I know that the concept of metropolitan area is popular in the US because of post-1950s deurbanisation. However, it is a marginal concept in some other countries. For example, I never encountered it being used in Russia - e.g., something like Mozhaysk or Serpukhov are not definitely not considered a part of Moscow socially. Likewise, I don't think e.g. Oxford is considered part of London in the UK, and the London commuter belt is also a distinct entity. German cities also seem to be considered distinct from one another, though don't take my word on it. It would be good if somebody could highlight the differences in the cultural perception of the concept. --Humanophage (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metropolitan_area&oldid=907370235"