Talk:Historical urban community sizes

Rome & Pyongyang
1. The population of Rome in 430 BCE (27,200) has no reference given. All other numbers seem to have. 2. The population of Pyongyang is just blank. There is a table here that puts it at 25,000 in 1000 BCE, but again, no references.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Population Crash Between 1450-1500?
In the section "Renaissance: 1400–1599", if you arrange the according to decreasing (ie largest on top) population for 1500, it shows some pretty dramatic population crashes. For example, London in 1450 is shown with a population of 75,000, but with a population of 40,000 in 1500. I know that the Wars of the Roses happened during this period, but would they alone account for an almost 50% population crash in London? I've looked to see if maybe there was another plague outbreak around that time, but so far have found nothing. I also notice it with other cities: Paris, for instance, shows a population of 150,000 in 1450, but 100,000 in 1500. Genoa, dramatically, goes from 120,000 to 60,000 in the same 50-year span. And yet, at least upon casual perusal, I don't see any mentions of dramatic population crashes in European cities in this period. Does anyone know anything about this? I'm very interested to learn what the deal is! Mpaniello (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge the 2 similar articles
Proposal 1: Immediately rename the articles to differentiate from each other, and then continue to discuss the "proposal 2". Meanwhile, I have already rephrased the lede to reflect the differentiation:
 * 1) Historical urban community sizes to "List of largest historical cities by archaeological periods"
 * 2) List of largest cities throughout history to "List of largest historical cities by chronology"

Proposal 2: Please merge these articles
 * 1) Target/destination/final article to be retained: Historical urban community sizes
 * 2) Source article to merged into the above: List of largest cities throughout history

Rationale/justification: Both are so similar I had to insert an "artificial differentiation" in the lede of these articles. Both are based on chronology, first one additionally categorises the list by archaeological period. Merged chronological article must retain the differentiation by the "archaeological periods". Please note that someone had proposed the merger of these articles way back in 2007, which was rejected without much discussion or justification. Those voting against the merger must provide an "objective, rational and valid justification" instead of a simple "reject" opinion without justification. Please avoid frivolous arguments like "both re long articles", so what if those two similar articles on the same topic with same content are long, both being long is another reason to merge as long duplication of content is a "big no" as per wikipedia policies. Merger of long articles means more effort, but that is not valid reason to reject the merger.

No CoI: I am a first timer on these article. No prior contribution, conflict of interest or edit disputes. As a reader I just want to see merged content, instead of two articles on same topic that confuse the readers. PS: Don't brush way the important topic. I am a long-timer IP, and do not have any registered account. I mention this as there is sometimes tendency to brush away or underestimate the suggestion from IP. Take all suggestions with due weight/respect, especially IP as majority of valid wiki edits are done by IPs and they are more transparent/accountable (can be profiled based on IPs address) compared to the "registered editors" (who hide behind the anonymity of "registered account" and hence exercise more power with less accountability, some of them sometimes tend to play "alpha"/owners/supervisors/bosses" over the articles they watch and over the IP or newer editors). I do not get notifications, but I will come back to check here. Hence, please ensure your replies are "accountable" and your rationale for voting is "justifiable".

Calling you for help: Dear, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , please help by contributing to the discussion and if consensual decision is to merge then please find  suitable competent volunteer to do so. I do not know you. I just saw your names prominently listed on WikiProject_History. Big thanks in advance. I have done my part by flagging the issue. I leave it in your hands to please drive it to some logical conclusion, i.e. merge or retain after cleanup/enhancements/differentiation.

I thanks you all. Happy editing.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC) *Support There are 2 proposals above and which ever proposal is adopted I will support in contrast to the status quo.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal strikes me as a nonstarter; which was proposed in 2014 and rejected in 2017 after gaining no traction. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This was also proposed in 2007 and rejected in 2009 on the other talk page. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually this was proposed twice in 2007; the other proposal is HERE. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 2 I am leaning towards this proposal due to the poor quality of references on List of largest cities throughout history.Catchpoke (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd consider these to be different subjects. The pages are clearly different and should remain so. Joe  (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support proposal 1 The articles are clearly different and IMO have no reason to be merged; though similar they indeed cover separate topics and have separate information and benefit from their own pages. However, I do believe they would also benefit from distinction between their pages as laid out in your first proposal. Nekomancerjade (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundancies
Some cities are listed twice in the same table under different names:
 * Iron Age (that's not "Iron Age" but "Antiquity" btw), table 2; 300 BC-400 AD: Xiangyang (Qin dynasty) and Chang'an (Han dynasty) = Xi'an
 * Iron Age, table 2; 300 BC-400 AD: Datong and Pingcheng
 * Iron Age, table 2; 300 BC-400 AD: Seleucia and Ctesiphon are basically the same city (on opposite sides of the Tigris)
 * Early Middle Ages 500-999 AD: Jiankang and Nanjing are the same city
 * Later Middle Ages 1000–1399: Fanyang and Beijing are the same city

also,
 * Bronze Age, Table 1: 3700–2600 BC: Larsa and Larak are two different cities (Larsa is relevant here i guess)
 * if Chang'an gets a "/Xi'an" suffix for the city's modern name then Haojing (Iron Age Table 1: 1000-400 BC) could get it as well, it's inside modern Xi'an.
 * Fustat (table Early Middle Ages: 500-999 AD) is Cairo; Ray is Tehran

HTH. --Magadan ?!  11:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)