Talk:List of cities by latitude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I don't think this article should be deleted. It could be a lot better, but if the information on it is acurate then at least it is a start! what is needed is somebody to add in other cities not in the US/Caneda, but that will happen.

Whoever added the VFD boilerplate forgot to actually list the page on the VFD page. So I've removed the boilerplate. -- Dominus 15:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Significance Threshold[edit]

Somebody is insisting in erasing all Chilean cities south of 40 paralel arguing that they are not cities, but his only doing this with Chilean towns.

Well, I think this is probably not unreasonable. See the discussion about the large number of Japanese cities that were added at one point: Chile is over-represented after your last lot of additions. Looking at List_of_cities_in_Chile#Largest_cities can give us some guidance as to what we can justify including - and since I assume you're Chilean, your input is helpful too. Certainly Santiago is a no-brainer, and I actually added Concepcion and Valparasio when this list was in its infancy and was very Euro-American dominated. Beyond that, it gets skinny. I think you could probably justify a 'northern' and 'southern' extremity (say, Punta Arenas and Arica) and not much else for Chile. A good reality check is how many Argentine cities there are, and then considering how crowded that area of the list would be if every insignificant Argentine (not to mention sub-Saharan African and Australian) town was included. Ender 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't edit other people's comments. It's dishonest and confusing to those trying to follow the discussion, not to mention extremely rude. Ender 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've taken out some of the excess Chilean towns. I've left Puerto Toro in because even though it's described on its page as a small village, it's interesting because it's the southernmost settlement in the world. I've retained Santiago, Concepcion and Valparasio, as well as Punta Arenas and a few further north. I've also considered my own Australasian bias in noting the presence of some small cities in (especially) New Zealand (part of my reason for removing some Chilean towns is the list getting crowded). On balance I think they all should stay because Invercargill is a 'southernmost', and Christchurch and Dunedin are the two principal cities of the South Island, but if others feel strongly to the contrary... please remember to assume good faith and discuss individually which of the ones I've removed you feel should stay, and why. Ender 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I've taken out Hamilton, Napier and Hastings in NZ (bearing in mind that if every little town in the world was added we'd have millions on this list). I think of those three Napier is the one with the best case to stay, but it's difficult to justify further representation for a country as small as New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch already gives it more per-capita entries than Australia or the UK, and Dunedin and Invercargill are still there too). Ender 11:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've similarly removed a few Mexican towns - when you see the same country over and over again, it gets a bit crowded in that part of the list. I've taken out any that aren't in the top 20 List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_Mexico, and that don't have obvious significance otherwise (eg. Mexicali, which is still there because it's the northernmost city in Latin America, and is therefore of special interest). This is a somewhat inexact science - anyone who feels I've done violence to any specific Mexican or Chilean cities is welcome to put them back - I don't think the full list should be restored, though. 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Alert (Canada), Longyearbyen (Norway) and Siorapaluk (Greenland) which do not have city status in their own respective countries - hardly surprising when somewhere like Alert only has a permanent population of 5 people - and which seem to have been included for no other reason than vanity and to lay claim to being the most northerly cities in the world.

I have however reluctantly left Barrow (Alaska) - although, with a population of less than 4,000, hardly a city by most common-sense definitions employed in the English language - because it is actually incorporated and therefore technically classified as a city under state law in Alaska.

Most countries have an official definition of what constitutes a city - indeed Wikipedia has perfectly good articles for many countries explaining both what a city is and listing the cities in that country - and it does sort of make a complete nonsense of this article if we include settlements which have no city status by any definition employed in that country navlebeskuelse (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Format[edit]

The author of the web page tried to align the latitute information using spaces, but that's not how formatting works.

Actually, you're not giving the author of the page enough credit. When he manufactured the listing, it had the spaces in it for a different purpose, and when he pasted the listing into Wikipedia, he opted to leave the spaces in, knowing that they wouldn't spoil the output. -- Dominus 15:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Duly noted. Thanks for pointing this out ;-). Rl 17:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this instead:

Go for it. -- Dominus 15:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: Shouldn't we have a list of all those cute country flag templates? It looks like they were made for List of European countries by GDP, but they would be nice to have elsewhere. They are a very efficient information transport (where appropriate, of course). Rl 18:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

USA flags[edit]

I've added the US flag for American cities. Are there any objections? Possibly on the grounds of a wave of America in the 40s? Amerika 06:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for doing this. The flags don't create a problem, they highlight a problem that has been there already. By having so many US cities in the list, the list is less useful to everyone, including Americans. I think a dozen or two of large cities and extreme points of the United States should do, otherwise it would be better to fork the page and call that List of U.S. cities by latitude. Rl 06:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that the list of cities is overly long, as I just used it to search for a particular city-- in other words, "what is the latitude of city X" .. It actually was more difficult b/c the city was not listed and I had to search for a city (in an island chain) that was approximately close, which was difficult. I don't mean list every small town, but any city of signficance-- with regard to island chains, the largest 'capital' city of the primary/major islands are ones I may begin listing in the Pacific Ocean/polynesia 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By longitude![edit]

There's also a List of cities by longitude. To say it is in need of help would be an understatement. Amerika 02:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Influx of Japanese cities[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks, although in good faith, the last edit is probably a little over the top? -- Chuq 12:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not the only one. This list will get huge if every small town or village can be mentioned here. Should there be some kind of cutoff? Let's say at least 50 000 citizens (maybe only 5,000 north of 60° latitude)? Orcaborealis 13:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have reverted the Japanese cities edits. A population cutoff might be a good guideline, but I think what is really wanted is to include some number of cities, say fifty, in each section. A town of 25,000 people is interesting at latitude 65 but not at latitude 45. -- Dominus 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
In line with this, there are a lot of U.S. cities that should be removed. For example, Pierre, South Dakota is not significant enough for inclusion. I have removed Pierre; probably some others should be removed too. (Dominus unsigned)

Dominus: China, India, and Africa, with a majority of the world's population, has only 19 cities listed in this article. In contrast, USA with a mere 4.6% of the world's population has 117 cities listed in this article.

I'm not sure what your point is. If your point is that the U.S. is over-represented on this page, I have already agreed. However, I think the correct response to this situation is to remove U.S. cities. I agree with you that Chinese, Indian, and African cities are under-represented. I think the correct repsponse to this is to add cities from China, India, and Africa. I don't know why you think any of this has any relevance to the question of whether a hundred little towns in Japan should also be listed.
In this light I have added some important African cities that were missing, including Lagos in Nigeria (the second biggest city on the continent after Cairo), Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, Dar-es-salaam in Tanzania, and Harare and Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. In some cases the template for their flags seemed to be unavailable and I wasn't sure how to fix this. Hopefully someone else knows how. I have also added some more in the southern part of the southern hemisphere which seemed a bit thin.

Should US and Japanese cities be wiped out from the article because there are "too many"?

I think the small US and Japanese cities should be wiped out, yes. This is why I removed Pierre, South Dakota. I hope we can work together to remove other inappropriately-listed cities from all countries.

Doing so would be vandalism. HI

I disagree.

Is a western bias for this article a requirement because a listing of "too many" non-western cities would be too offensive for some to handle?

Completely wiping out each others' contributions is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We could instead try to be a bit more constructive and not step on each other's toes. Instead of wiping out virtually all (except 4 cities) of Japan and all of Taiwan,

I would like to see a listing that includes only the most populous cities at each latitude, regardless of what country they are in. I think this would be the most appropriate form for this article. After your addition of dozens of little Japanese towns, the article was farther away from that ideal than it was before. Accordingly, I think I made the article better by removing your contributions. I could have done better by carefully researching all of the places you added, and then removing only the little towns, but that is a lot of work.

we could discuss in the talk page a set of criteria for the inclusion of cities first, then afterwards trim out any entries that doesn't fit said criteria. In the meantime it would do more harm than good to wipe out whole countries on whim.

I did not "wipe out whole countries on whim". I wiped out your contibutions, regardless of what country they were related to, and it was not on a whim.
By characterizing my actions as whimsical and as vandalism, you are destroying the possibility of cooperation. Please don't do this. The question was discussed on this talk page before anyone took action and there appeared to be a small consensus. My edits were made in good faith, with goals that are not very different from yours. They were not whimsical, and they were certainly not vandalism. Please try to refrain from insulting language if you want to discuss this here. -- Dominus 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There was consensus that the list was getting long: there wasn't consensus on the particular way that you truncated it. ----Tokek 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Orcaborealis: I have not included villages or towns. ALL of the entries I have added are strictly cities only (hence the title of the article...). I think the criteria you proposed (50,000 for 60 N ~ 60 S, 5,000 for polar cities) is good for now. However if we're going to want to revert/remove additions, we should add the criteria for inclusion at the top of the article first before we randomly vandalize each others' works, or before we decide to virtually wipe out entire countries. --Tokek 12:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think adding several hundred cities from all across the globe is bad - it would be fantastic. The same amount of cities from one small (by area) country is very different. They might all be cities, but it should have been obvious that adding them all would result in the changes being reverted straight away. I'm not spreading "western bias" either - If someone added that number of cities for Australia, US, Argentina, Belgium, or Sudan, I would have removed them as well. -- Chuq 13:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Chuq, there should be some cities from each area (the most important and/or well known), hundreds of cities from one (small) area like Japan or United Kingdom or northeastern US is pointless -even if the cities are big enough to qualify. So, my proposal, pick out some cities from each area/country. Larger areas should have more cities, it is natural that USA and Russia and China has more cities than Japan or Germany or France. Orcaborealis

I think that the cutoff of 50,000 for temperate-zone cities is clearly too low. There are tens of thousands of such "cities", nearly all of which are of only local importance. I think a cutoff of 1,000,000 would be more appropriate. Even cutting off the list at 1,000,000, it will still contain over 400 items. -- Dominus 14:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As a further argument against the cutoff of 50,000 people, I would like to point out that the insignificant town of Idaho Falls, Idaho has a population over 50,000. This is clearly a place of only local importance and does not belong on this list. -- Dominus 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have finished removing all the U.S. towns south of 60&degrees; with populations less than 50,000, except for Havre, Montana and Key West, Florida, which are awaiting further consideration below. I would like very much to remove many more U.S. towns of lesser importance, such as Lincoln, Nebraska (225,581), Dubuque, Iowa (57,686), Springfield, Missouri (151,580), Portland, Maine (64,249), and Syracuse, New York (147,306), but I did not want to be acting in advance of our consensus of what belongs on the page and what does not.

When I created this page, it was in the hope that it would facilitate comparisons of global latitudes. For example, I find it interesting to observe that Sitka, Alaska and Copenhagen, Denmark are so close in latitude. By looking at this page, one can see at a glance that North America is much colder than Europe. I hope that by trimming the list of cities to well-known places, such higher-level observations will be easier to make. Having dozens of unimportant towns, whatever country they are in, obscures this sort of information, and, in my opinion, renders the page much less useful and interesting. -- Dominus 15:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Havre, Montana[edit]

It is tempting to remove Havre, Montana as part of my general purge of small towns in the U.S.. However, it seems to be the northernmost U.S. town outside of Alaska, so I left it in for the time being. What does everyone else think about this? -- Dominus 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, Key West, Florida. -- Dominus 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the consensus(?) of chosing cities to represent an area does really rule out a rigid threshold, and many cities with more than 50 000 citizens will not be on the list. I believe Havre, Montana should stay being the northernmost US city outside Alaska.

Here are some suggestions for removal from the list: Newark; Syracuse; Grand Rapids; Verona-Italy; Lausann-Switzerland; Nelson-Canada; Moose Jaw-Canada; Boise; Springfield; Tulsa; Virginia Beach; Carlsbad; El Centro; Shreveport. Most of these cities are US cities. Orcaborealis 09:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've taken out Shrevport, El Paso, El Centro and Long Beach. The last is a suburb of Los Angeles, the other three I think are not significant enough. I think to be included, an American city has to either be the only one in its state, the only one at a particular latitude, a very well known world city (eg. I have little hesitation in keeping both Los Angeles and San Francisco in to represent California, but I think New Orleans easily beats Shreveport and there is nothing about the latter that I can think of to justify it as a second representative for Louisiana), or otherwise have something special about it (eg. Key West in Florida is justified as an extremity). I believe the US is still somewhat over-represented. Thoughts?

(Further update: I've taken out a few more US and Euro cities that seemed redundant - all in the 'temperate zone' of the northern hemisphere - cities that didn't seem to add much by their presence)


Is is appropriate in this context to refer to the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)? Would it not be better to simply refer to 'China' and 'Taiwan'?

World View[edit]

I've done quite a bit of work on this list (there's something addictive about it) trying to internationalise it a bit - despite the efforts of others it still had a very Euro-American bias, with Japan also overrepresented given its geographic spread. I feel it still has a way to go, but nobody except me seems to be interested in it. I've therefore tagged the article to try and attract some more perspectives. Ender 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mission Accomplished, I think. I've added a number of other African and Asian cities. It could be argued that, being Australian, I've added too many insignificant towns in northern Australia. However, I think this is defensible based on the inclusion of places like Invercargill, NZ and Stanley, FI, UK on the basis that they're geographic extremes. Australia is the size of the continental United States and so probably justifies some more entries than its population would suggest. In addition, that part of the list is not crowded. I also took out a small number of US and Canadian cities I didn't consider significant enough (eg. Moose Jaw). It could be argued China and India in particular are still somewhat underrepresented given their geographic size and huge populations. Ender 04:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All Cities Of[edit]

Tokek, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Japanese cities as observed above. Why should we deviate from a list of cities (with a few exceptions for cities that are arguably one and the same like Tokyo/Yokohama and Dallas/Fort Worth)? If we did that we might as well put "All cities of the Southern UK including London, Cardiff, Bristol", and while we're at it rattle off another dozen. Hmm. I hope that doesn't give you ideas! Ender 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attack about an "unhealthy obsession." I'm not sure what you were trying to demonstrate with the Southern UK example. It sounds like a bad idea to me: firstly, I doubt that "Southern UK" is a very well-defined region, although I may be wrong. Secondly, if there was a well-defined region called Southern UK, I don't know if all cities in that region would fit in the same latitude, so there are at least two potential problems with that idea. To answer your question of why add the "all cities of" entries: they are designed to reduce vertical length of the list by describing larger population areas in a more compact fashion. Here is an example. Suppose each city in the state of Kentucky had the same latitude when rounded down to the nearest integer, and let's suppose the current article listed 10 of the 100 cities in Kentucky. Then replacing those 10 entries with a single "all cities of Kentucky" entry shortens the length of the list (which is also what we are aiming for), at the same time describing in a compact manner the latitude for all cities that exist in Kentucky. Then in parentheses, I can add "all cities of Kentucky (including Louisville)" so that people who were searching the article for Louisville can still get a hit.
I wouldn't support putting 'all cities of Kentucky' either. It's a list of cities: a city is either significant enough to be listed or it isn't and I don't believe they should be collectivised in this way. As the list stands there is only one city in Kentucky and I don't think there's much of a case for adding another (if there was, it would be Lexington).
I'm not against removing insignificant city entries from the list. I don't think the "all cities of" entries goes against the original goal behind removing insignificant city entries, which was to make the list less disorganized and more useful. There was an organizational problem, and the first solution was to remove insignificant cities from the list. Just because another solution (which BTW doesn't go against the first solution) is different doesn't mean it's not addressing the same problem. --Tokek 11:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think it breaks the flow of the list as a list of cities. Further to which I wouldn't have a clue which prefecture a city is in. I imagine most non-Japanese wouldn't. I'm suggesting it's more useful to give the latitude of Tokyo than to give the latitude of Kanagawa Prefecture, or indeed 'all cities of Kanagawa Prefecture'. I'm changing it back again unless someone other than you wants to argue for it. Ender 09:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You say that you are making a "concession" by saying that Tokyo and Yokohama are "arguably the same city" but I wasn't arguing that Tokyo and Yokohama were the same city. While they're very close distance-wise (aprox. 30 km between Yokohama and Tokyo stations) and considered to be in the same metropolitan area, they are defined as different cities. --Tokek 09:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm only acknowledging that it's open to debate and they have enough of a common identity to be listed as "Tokyo and Yokohama". I've done the same with Dallas and Fort Worth and, if they were significant enough to be listed (which they're not), would do the same with Albury and Wodonga. It's not as puritan as separate listings, but I'm comfortable with it. I'm not comfortable with taking it further to your 'all cities of' model. Ender 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic Stations[edit]

Are these appropriate? They don't have a permanant population and so its a stretch to call them 'cities'. It seems particularly odd to include the two most recently added ones since neither Russia nor Japan asserts a territorial claim to the Antarctic. Ender 09:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Technically, at least in the case of Mawson station, they do have a population year-round - though not a permanent one (ie. there are people there all year - but generally one person for not more than 6-12 months at a time). They are certainly not cities - but being the most populous groups of human beings on the continent, it is possible that they still serve some purpose in being listed. -- Chuq 10:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It was me who added Mawson and it seemed worth indicating what was at that latitude - ie the nearest thing. But I think Mawson is different in that it is actually in Australian territory. Neither Russia nor Japan has any territorial claim on the Antarctic so those research stations are no more Russian or Japanese cities than the space station or Tranquility Base on the Moon. Unless anyone strongly feels they should remain i'm inclined to remove them. Ender 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually yes, I do think we should include them. I think there needs to be some reflection here about the purpose of this list. I stumbled across it when I was trying to input coordinates into my VelaClock widget. I wanted a location at every 10 degrees of latitude. I was unable to find anything for 60 degrees, but in my own research was happy to find 78 and 67 (the closest I could find to 80 and 70 degrees south respectively). I decided to contribute these to the list, since it seemed odd only to have Mawson station listed. Other locations provided on the list were also helpful to me. So I think the idea of having a cut-off to do with the size of the city is counter-productive. Size appears to me to be irrelevant when what we are discussing is *latitude*. If anything, it would be more productive only to list those locations that fall at significant latitudes (perhaps every 10 degrees). And surely sovereignty is completely irrelevant. soggyr 06:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty much settled that there is no size threshold, although generally a city in the temperate zone needs to be more significant than ones in less populated areas of the world (note the inclusion of lots of obscure little towns in Scandinavia to ensure we have examples for north of 60N. But the definition of 'city' is extremely stretched if we include places that have no permanant population at all. I think sovereignty is relevant: that would imply only the countries who have territory in the Antarctic are eligible. There's also an argument for removing them entirely. Ender 11:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? If someone finds it useful, why not include it? If the definition of "city" is going to mean anything at all, surely it includes size. If it doesn't include size ("It's pretty much settled that there is no size threshold"), and you are including plenty of "tiny little towns", then really we are not discussing cities at all are we? A town is surely not a city, particularly a tiny little one. Which leads me back to my point. What is the purpose of this list? Why is it useful? Well I suggest that it probably has a lot of uses, present and potential. One of these is the one I just listed in my previous post. Now if we curtail the list, we are curtailing these potentialities. I certainly don't see the list becoming too "cluttered". But if that problem does arise, we could surely have offshoots which deal with cities, towns, and yes, Antarctic stations. But for now, if the criteria isn't really "city" at all (which it obviously isn't), then we should list those stations, particularly when there is not a heck of a lot going on at those latitudes anyway, and before I had listed Vostov there wasn't even an entry for 70S. soggyr 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing these. There is no definition by which any of these research stations are cities - and this article is very specifically about cities. The article has ample links to other perfectly good articles listing most northerly/southerly settlements and Antarctic research stations. Also, none of the Antarctic research stations listed here are in the territory of the country which runs them (in fact, only one of those countries even has an Antarctic claim).
The fact that someone came to this article in search of a list of Antarctic research stations is no good reason to pollute an article about cities with lists of small settlements with transient populations .. they should be looking at the article listing Antarctic research stations (and if that article is in some way deficient, then address that there). navlebeskuelse (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rounding errors[edit]

The latitudes of the cities should be rounded to the nearest degree by location of the city center, rather than just truncating it and chopping off the minutes and seconds. For example a quick glance at New York reaveals that it's listed as 40° when it's really 40 and three quarters. It should be rounded to 41°. 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And similarly Philadelphia should be listed at 40°, not at 39°. The fortieth parallel runs through Philadelphia; the 39th parallel runs far to the south of Philadelphia. -- Dominus 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I used (some time ago) the coordinates found in their respective WP articles so no longer a need to round them. Cburnett 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong[edit]

"Hong Kong, Hong Kong Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)" is simply ridiculous to be used here, city name repeated twice. I changed it to "Hong Kong,  People's Republic of China" instead, following other cities (City, Country). --Hunter 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my response at talk:cities with the most highrise buildings. — Instantnood 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the special status of Hong Kong and Macau justifies the use of their own flags. However, I think the PRC should be identified simply as 'China'. But I don't claim to be an expert on this and I don't want to incite flames from those with stronger views on the subject of 'One China'. Ender 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Nord, Greenland is at 81.70 North Latitude, 17.50 West Longitude and has a year-round military population of 4.

If Antarctic stations can be included, why not Arctic ones? --Wfaxon 07:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Add column: Population[edit]

--Wfaxon 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding population is not a good idea in my view. Much too much maintenance work handling ever-changing numbers. And what is the point? The information is available elsewhere, anyway. I can see why noone picked up on the suggestion in the last 10 years... Dori1951 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is a "Country"?[edit]

As a leftover from the days of empire, some countries here are listed as actually being part of whatever former empire still administers them to one degree or another. For example, here Puerto Rico was just listed as a state of the U.S., but of course it's not that -- our Wikipedia says it is a "United States territory with Commonwealth status". Likewise, South Georgia is an "Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" and the Falkland Islands are a "self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" (disregarding Argentina's claims here). Greenland is an "autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark".

All of these places have their own flags. Puerto Rico has one, but so do all(?) the "real" U.S. states. Both South Atlantic islands I mentioned do also, though they reference the Union Jack. Greenland has one.

I suggest a simple test for "country": If you, living in your home town, can vote for someone who can make law in a country, your town is a part of that country. To my knowledge in none of the places listed above can you do so, so "commonwealth", "territory", "autonomous province" of whatever, all mean you're in a separate country.

So, I've fixed South Georgia and the Falkland Islands to be independent but adding (UK) after them to show the continuing relationship. Ditto Greenland (Denmark) and Puerto Rico (USA). Any objections? Lots of work if you agree! --Wfaxon 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In this light, i've fixed Scotland as well. Clint.hotvedt (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought Scotland is unequivocally part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. If Scotland is to be identified separately, then logically England should too. (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. England and Wales should be identified separately as well. Clint.hotvedt (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AIUI Puerto Ricans get to elect people to the US Congress (not the Senate, but neither can people in the District of Columbia...). 'Commonwealth' doesn't mean independent - I think Massachusetts is a Commonwealth as well. The electoral test is not straightforward - everyone from Ireland to Greece can vote for members of the European Parliament, but nobody's suggesting replacing the flags of the 27 EU member states with the EU flag.... I don't have a particularly strong view though. Ender 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico (see also Government of Puerto Rico) " allowed to serve on congressional committees, and functions in every respect as a Representative except being denied a vote on the final disposal of legislation..." That is, he or she has some significant power, but can't actually vote to make law. Likewise, Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico, though U.S. citizens, can't vote for President of the U.S. So at least by my definition, Puerto Rico remains a separate country. --Wfaxon 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Rico must stay defined as country until further developments regarding the island's status take place, while we are American, you can't consider the island even barely close to a state, not until its inhabitants are even allowed the right to vote for the nation's president. You see even the American goverment considers Puerto Rico a separate place for now. - 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Could simply rename "Country" to "Country/Territory" (or whatever) if that makes people happier/more correct. Cburnett (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for sources[edit]

Do you know of a database online where I could get a list of all cities at a particular latitude/within a range, or alternatively a free online map with lines of latitude marked at at least every degree? (I need at least 40 cities/weather stations — most of the current lists have about 3 cities listed in the range I need.) Njál 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Offshots, expansion and cleaning[edit]

I would suggest to create offshot lists about cities between 60°-50°, 50°-40° and so on. This would allow to include smaller settlements in those offshots, some that are too small to be included here and to clean this main list to include only large cities and high-level administrative centers. Dentren | Talk 12:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a criteria for inclusion here. I propose something like, a city that meets one of the following:
  • has a population above 500,000
  • is the capital of a country, or the highest administrative unit in a country (typically provinces/states).
VR talk 05:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems a good proposal, albeit therre will be some controversy, specially among users that want their city to be included. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

51°87′N Gloucester, England[edit]

Possible typo - can you really have a legitimate value of 87 angular minutes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.K.NY (talkcontribs) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A tad late in the day, but a degree of latitude or longitude comprises 60 minutes of arc, each of 60 seconds of arc. So 87 minutes is definitely wrong. I see that someone has subsequently amended this.Glevum (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Many important cities missing[edit]

Why are so many cities missing? I scraped a list from this page, and a list of capital cities from List of national capitals in alphabetical order, and joined the two, and am suprised that so many are missing. Just in the A's:

Algiers Algeria 36°46′N 3°03′E
Amman Jordan 31°57′N 35°56′E
Ankara Turkey 39°56′N 32°52′E
Ashgabat Turkmenistan 37°57′N 58°23′E
Athens Greece 37°59′N 23°44′E

One thing I learned is that the "Coordinates" for the cities in the info box in the page for the city are often not accurate; for example those for Algiers are that of an airport on the edge of the city.

Jlittlenz (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Headings of each section[edit]

The headings are awkward. The article states: “Each heading should be considered the exact value. This means that the 70°N heading corresponds to exactly 70°00′00.00″N and everything farther north should be above this heading while everything farther south should be below it. ”

The reason I think this is awkward is that a city with latitude 60°00′00.01″N is listed under 70°N.

If this is a list, as claimed in the title of the page, under the heading 70°N should be a list of cities whose latitude round to 70. Or if simple rounding is deemed too technical, cities with latitude in 70s should be listed under 70°N, and not cities with latitude in 60s. (talk)

Validity & Understanding the different notations used to express latitude & longitude[edit]

I have just corrected six entries that were showing a longitude that included more than 60 minutes of arc (Gällivare, Sweden; Arendal, Norway; Lancaster, England; San Jose, USA; Bath, Maine, USA; Ankara, Turkey). The last two also had a latitude including more than 60 minutes of arc, as did Derry, UK (which, rather amusingly was also shown as 73°E instead of 7°W). As you can imagine, this doesn't fill me with confidence concerning the validity of the other entries. I will make a start at verifying the other entries - I will add a comment to each entry that I have verified or corrected - but with 1,018 other entries to check, this could take some time so help would be appreciated.

As I'm sure most of you know, degrees of latitude and longitude are subdivided into 60 minutes (of arc), which are themselves subdivided into 60 seconds (of arc). So Lancaster, England has a longitude of approx. 2 degrees, 48 minutes and 4 seconds West; which can be shortened as 2°48′4″ W. However, in can also be written in a decimal format as 2.8010° N (this is what I found using google). It seems that some previous editors have not been aware of this difference in notation.

To convert correctly, you must remember that 2.801° = 2 degrees + 8 tenths of a degree plus 1 thousandth of a degree.

  • As 1 degree = 60 minutes, 8 tenths of a degree = 8/10x60 minutes = 48 minutes; and 1 thousandth of a degree = 1/1000*60 minutes = 0.06 minutes. So 2.801° can be written as 2°48.06′ [this format is used in celestial navigation and many marine GPS systems].
  • Alternatively, as there are 60 seconds to a minute, 0.06 minutes = 3.6 seconds. So 2.801° can be written as 2°48′3.6″, which to the nearest second of arc is 2°48′4″.

[While, these days, we tend to use decimals to express fractions of a second (and sometimes for fractions of a minute), the older system divides seconds into 60 thirds, each of 60 fourths and so. So 2.801° can also be written as 2°48′3″36′″.]

If you find this confusing, perhaps an example using time might help? 1.25 hours is not 1 hour 25 minutes, it is one and a quarter hours (as 0.25 is the decimal way of writing one quarter) and thus 1 hour 15 minutes - this can be written as 1h15′.Glevum (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Visual links to each batch of latitude lists - is it possible?[edit]

Pictures speak a thousand words and all that.

I can't find any maps of Europe showing a 'tight-mesh' of latitudes - seems as if it's forbidden for some whyfor, try yourselves it is utterly imposible.

I suggest this article talk about why maps of (especially) Europe are banned from baring near-set latitude marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Parallel Enumeration Consistency[edit]

I like seeing one or two major cities circumnavigating the arc bands, but I also like the interstitial info provided in the [nteenth_parallel_north] pages Gdbf137 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why delete anything at all?[edit]

A number of posts here talk about deleting places on grounds of importance (lack of) or other reasons.

Why delete anything at all? If somebody has bothered to make an entry why not just leave it in, as long as the data is accurate? It's not as if the latitude of any place will change significantly in our lifetimes (unless there is a sudden tectonic shift...). It is easy to find any place name on the list, however long the list is, by using Ctrl+F... Dori1951 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Where the fuck is Perth, Scotland?[edit]

As the title says. (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Scotland. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)