Talk:List of metropolitan areas in Europe/Archive 1

New Data (Barcelona)
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/la-region-metropolitana-de-Barcelona (data 2005)

Actual dates
Census 2003, Spain
 * Madrid, 5.603.285 (3.092.759)
 * Barcelona, 4.667.136 (1.582.738)
 * Valencia, 1.465.423 (780.653)
 * Sevilla, 1.294.081 (709.975)
 * Malaga, 1.019.292 (547.105)

I updated Vienna to match the data given at the Vienna Wikipedia entry: 2,165,357 metro area. --Juxi 07:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * looks like it was undone, I just wanted to add a little consistancy to it ... --Juxi 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the figures here are unsourced except for a handful. We're trying to get official sources for each one and the easiest way would be for editors who want to update their numbers to cite an official source. The figure in the Vienna article is unsourced and Wikipedia is not a suitable primary source for statistics. --Polaron | Talk 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New title
I changed the title of the article to better reflect that the article deals with metropolitan areas. Hardouin 11:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rotterdam-The Hague
Why is Rotterdam listed individually from The Hague on this page and combined with the Hague on Largest urban areas of the European Union?. Maartenvdbent 23:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Randstad
For this page I even prefer the use of the term Randstad which is at least a metropolitan area. Randstad is considered to be an agglomeration (on wikipedia). The article Agglomeration states that "A metropolitan area is an extended agglomeration or conurbation that also includes peripheral areas not themselves necessarily urban in character but closely bound to the urban area by employment or commerce." Maartenvdbent 23:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Randstad is one agglomeration. Migdejong 22:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dublin
why is Greater Dublin 1.5million last? im changing it to where it belongs

Brussels
In Belgium we don't talk about the metroplitan area Brussels but rather of "De Vlaamse Ruit" (The Flemish Square) It is a square with as bounderies the cities of Brussels, Ghent, Antwerp and Leuven (5,3 million inhabitants). It is a smaller version of the Randstad in the Netherlands and I think it should be inserted instead of Brussels alone.


 * This is not right. First of all it's not true that people talk about "De Vlaamse Ruit". It's just a term used in Flanders and mainly by the Flemish governement. They would like to see this region to become a multi-centered metropolitan area. And even a vast major of the Flemish people probably have never heard of this term. --Eigenwijze mustang 11:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Some funny guy wrote: "In Belgium we don't talk about the metroplitan area Brussels but rather of "De Vlaamse Ruit" (The Flemish Square)"

This is one complete brand of nonsense I have ever heard. The funny guy is obviously taking maximmum advantage of the fact that the wider world (outside Belgium) doesn't know much and is largly ignorant about little Belgium and its internal divisions and rivalries. Anyone can add Brussels to any of the surrounding Belgian townes and cities, to the north: Antwerp, Ghent, Leuven; and to the south: Mons, La Louviere, Charleroi...etc, because Brussels is precicely in the middle of the Country. The user "Eigenwijze mustang" is absolutely right, even in Belgium has hardly anyone ever heard of "Flemish Ruit". On the contrary "Randstad" is a long-ago internationally-recognized urban area of the Netherlands.

'''This is absolutely no nonsense. The Vlaamse Ruit is as much of a metrpolitan area as the Dutch Randstad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.38.109 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Brussels (only with its immediate surroundings) added...
Rightfully not including other Belgian cities like Antwerp, Charleroi... etc which are all found at a respectable and "recognizably-rural-spaced" distance from Brussels. Either include all of the surrounding cities in the north AND south or don't add any of those: THAT's what neutrality means.

UK figures
Where are the UK figures drawn from? Most of them are completely different from the Office for National Statistics figures, and appear to have varying scopes. For example, Warrington is counted under the figure for Manchester, when it's roughly equadistant between Liverpool and Manchester. Almost any definition that puts Warrington as part of the same metropolitan area as Manchester must also include the entire Merseyside conurbation in one large metropolitan area.

Additionally, most of the figures are named after cities within the area, not the official names of the areas - for example Manchester should be Greater Manchester, Birmingham should be West Midlands and Newcastle upon Tyne should be Tyneside. This contrasts with data from other european countries, such as Rhine-Ruhr, Randstad, Greater Frankfurt, and Upper Silesia. Steven J 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is expanded below in "#18 Manchester". Ghaag (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oresund Region
do you think the oresunds region should be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.204.106 (talk • contribs)
 * In my opinion: No. The Oresund Region covers a much larger area than Metropolitan Copenhagen and Metropolitan Malmö combined, and even considering these two metropolitan areas as a single one is a bit stretching it due to the relatively poor connectivity between them making them not quite act as a single metropolitan area. -- TimSE 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Oresund Region can be questioned as a metropolregion, but Malmø and Kopenhagen are by definition a combined metropol, though to my knowledge no numbers exist. The connectivity between the cities is quite good, which you would now if you lived here. --Rasmus81 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kassel
Where do the figures for the Kassel Metropolitan Area come from? Kassel is a quite small town in a rural region. A figure I found at shows a quite similar number for the population of the Regierungsbezirk Kassel. However this is not a metropolitan area. It is an administrative unit. --80.145.109.26 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Various Lists on Wikipedia
Could someone please consolidate this list, Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits and Largest urban areas of the European Union? If that's not possible, could one list please be deleted?
 * They are meant to show different things. The population of a Legal City, an Urban Area, or a Metro Area, respectively. Kevlar67 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Copenhagen figures
The Copenhagen figures are not correct - are there any official sources - according to Danmarks Statistik, Metropolitan Copenhagen has more than 2 million inhabitants.
 * I presume that Eurostat has been used as the source for this because its statistics use the same criteria for each metropolitan area listed. Hence why statistics from national and other statistics bodies aren't used.  Hope this helps. Matthew 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Milan figures
According to this study by OSCE, Milan has 7,400,000 inhabitants in its metropolitan area. The label, which carries figures just for the urban area, should be updated. --89.97.35.70 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oslo
What happened to Oslo? Doubled its population in two years? This numbers can't be correct.
 * Oslo's far from unique in this (see also Zurich and a number of other cities). No idea what's causing it, but the page as a whole suffers from having different sources and definitions of what a metropolitan area is, as it means that apples are being compared with oranges. Matthew 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham
Greater Nottingham has a population of 1.2 million? The Greater Nottingham article has the population down as half that. It looks very suspicious to me, is there any evidence for it? Joe D (t) 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit in which it was added to the list. Joe D (t) 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nottingham Urban Area article is about the urban area, which is always smaller than the metro area. A doubling does seem rather unlikely, though. john k 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
I think the data for Greater Manchester is false, other pages don't seem to back the figure up, and that's certainly larger than any figure I've ever seen. Mysticed 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is Liverpool included in the Manchester figures? They are two completely different cities, some distance apart, and not even in the same county, or whatever political division passes for them nowadays. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

yes exactly what he said. and all this gets very confusing you have metropolitan, urban, city and all this different lists for population and its not made clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.155.160 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's even more outrageously overstated than the National Statistics Urban Area figure, which at least attempts to have a rational methodology. These figures appear to have been pulled out of a hat to suit certain municipalities' egos. 82.36.26.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be no reason why Liverpool could be amalgamated within Greater Manchester as there is no geographic nor political (other than at National level) connection between the 2 cities. Indeed there is a fierce rivalry between them and clearly distinct cultural identities. Ghaag (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

warsaw
checked on warsaw page that metropolitan area consists of 3,050,000 inhabitants. please correct that.

Stockholm
Stockholms Metropolitan area has a population of over 1,9 million. Since all kommuner in Stockholms Län now is part of Stockholm Metro area. 83.250.237.187 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Zagreb
Polaron, your arguments against including Zagreb are unfounded. Even Wikipedia defines "metropolitan area" as a large population centre consisting of a large metropolis and its adjacent zone of influence. Zagreb is much larger than many of the core cities listed here and it has several satellite cities connected to it through urban sprawl which is another definition of a "metropolitan area". Now tell me, really, is there an established, international standard for defining metropolitan areas other than that which I have already quoted? No? Well then this list is meaningless isn't it, it's completly OR, and should be deleted altogether. I'm reverting your changes. --Dr.Gonzo 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can only use published sources. While you may be correct, what you are doing is still synthesis. If you believe the list is original research, then list it at AFD. It will likely result in the use of the UN agglomeration data as was done for List of metropolitan areas by population. The UN lists the Zagreb agglomeration with a population of 770,000. Just find any reliable source that refers to the definition you want to use. Isn't there even one such source? The sources you give only list populations of various administrative units. Just cite a source saying something like "the metropolitan area is the combination of the following regions". --Polaron | Talk 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no official category like that exists in Croatia, since only Zagreb can really be called a metropolis. The number you stated, 770,000 is the population within the city limits. However, newspapers and unofficial sources frequently refer to Zagreb as having approx. 1,1 million inhabitants in the "wider city area". I can find dozens of sources like that but what's the use? I can't help but wonder how accurate this list really is if we can't even agree on what constitutes a metropolitan area. Besides, the opening paragraph of this article clearly states "These figures should be seen as an interpretation, not as conclusive fact.", so I really don't see what the big fuss is about... --Dr.Gonzo 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aarhus triangle
Please provide a reference so that we can verify the figures that you are adding. At the moment the cited sources suggest that the current figures are correct. We need to provide a Verifiable encyclopedia especially when related to facts such as these. May i remind everyone of the WP:3RR rule. Woodym555 13:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aarhus metropolitan area has 804,878 inhabihants but Aarhus is also a part of the larger East jutland metropolitan area whit 1,045,422 inhabitants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_metropolitan_area where the triangle area is included, http://www.frinet.dk/infrastruktur2030 http://www.trafikdage.dk/doks/endeligtpaper/tdpaper107.pdf note that this is a new metropolitan area becouse of the pace in the population growth in East jutland, it is by far the fastest growing area in denmark whit a growth of almost 10,000 per year,  the figure 1,045,422 is when you adding up the Municipalities in East jutland, these Municipalities are  now in a corporation to develop the area to a metropolis that can rival the Copenhagen area and the Hamburg area, i am not claiming that the area is one big city yet but the area is a metropolitan area in the same way as the Rhine Neckar Area in germany, the inhabitants figures is maybe even to small becouse more Municipalities such as Haderslev and Billund will join the corporation. London1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by London1234 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ankara and İzmir
Ankara (capital of Turkey) and İzmir is 2nd and 3rd largest cities of Turkey. Their population is: ==> Ankara: 4,561,525 ; İzmir: 2,752,668. But they aren't in the list. And I don't know add they. Please add!.. 81.213.89.45 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The cities of Ankara and Izmir aren't in Europe, and although Turkey is partly in Europe I don't think they should be included in this list. --Dr.Gonzo 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia isnt in europe at all and moscow i think if there is moscow there must be ankara and izmir i know how to add but i dont want to do sth without any permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.46.181 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey are both countries that are situated in both Europe and Asia. Only cities in the European part of these countries are counted. Therefore Moscow and Istanbul are, and Izmir and Ankara aren't. --Lamadude (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more cities to add there, Bursa Adana Mersin and Konya are all over 2 millions. They should all be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.123.56 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, they aren't.--Pjred (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ANKARA, DAMASQ, and all the turkish cities are NOT European. Turkey is NOT Europe all the turkish cities in the list must be immediately deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.2.118 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Novosibirsk
Novosibirsk is in Asia, Russia bridges the two continents. This list is of European cities. The generally accepted border between Europe and Asia is down the Ural Mountains, through the Caspian, and then either with or without Asia Minor.

It appears that this city is missing and it has more than 1 million people in the city proper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.239.31 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Polarons behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Largest_European_metropolitan_areas&diff=161868292&oldid=161867312~´ he has done the following rv of my edit. This info is found on official statistic data from the Statistics institute. I would like to know where the 1,288,634 for Porto Metropolitan Area comes from. That is not from any statistics that I know. It is stupid to revert correct data to incorrect one, based on personal suppositions of sourced or unsourced. Reverting again. -Pedro 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that number for the Metropolitan areas of Portuguese cities are based on political definitions of Metro areas, I've noticed that this ranking people are using agglomerations (without any political entity), if considering agglomerations (as the name "metropolitan area" is taken by political associations of municipalities), Portugal has two of 3 million each: Porto and Lisbon (areas not politically bound). See Demographics of Portugal. --Pedro 00:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it trouble you too much to add a link to an official definition of the statistical unit and its population from INE? Unsourced changes should be reverted to the fallback figures. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia isnt in europe at all and moscow i think if there is moscow there must be ankara and izmir i know how to add but i dont want to do sth without any permission

Istanbul is half in Europe, half in Asia, so this city can't be integrated in European cities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.81.25 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Moscow is certainly a European city geographically, a major part of Russia is in Eastern Europe. The dividing line between Europe and Asia is the Ural mountain range. Turkey, meanwhile, has a tiny "enclave" in Europe, since the Bosphorus is the geographical border between Europe and Asia in that region. Check the Latin name for the area which is now Turkey, namely "Asia minor". While I feel that Istanbul deserves a place in that list, because it, after all IS partially located in Europe and is a European city by social and cultural standards, neither Ankara nor Izmir qualify. Vargher (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Milan
According to this study by OECD Milan metro area has 7,4 millions inhabitants. Figure should be updated.--89.97.35.70 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines
This list is in desperate need of some guidelines. I started to look at the list, beginning with the top entries, but stopped when I saw that almost every figure can be questioned or discussed in one way or another. For instance, there are several semi-official or doubtful definitions in the list. And, don't get me started on using World Gazetteer computations as a source... My suggestions for this list are as follows:

a) The list should have seven columns: Rank, Name, Country, Population, Year, Area, Density. I am no table wizard, so perhaps someone else can fix this. The column for the municipality feels to be somewhat unnecessary.

b) Use only official population estimates or census results. Don't use computations from a.o. World Gazetteer, Mongabay, Demographia or similar. Population projections are ok if they are carried out by a nationwide statistical authority for that country. Population projections by the UN, from the World Urbanization Prospects, are also acceptable.

c) Use mainly official definitions for metropolitan areas, carried out by a nationwide statistical or planning authority. If nationwide definitions don't exist, definitions carried out by for instance local (as municipal, provincial or similar) authorities are accepted. Definitions carried out by secondary sources and private researchers, as for instance World Gazetteer, Mongabay and Demographia, can only be used in cases where there aren't any definition by nationwide or local authorities at all.

d) Use mainly standard metropolitan definitions, and not so-called combined metropolitan areas (as Liverpool-Manchester, the Douai-...-Valenciennes etc.).

Then, there's the cross-boundary areas, as Lille-Kortrijk and Aachen-Heerlen. Even as they can be considered as combined metropolitan areas, I feel that they can be accepted, as they are connected by as good as continuous built-up areas. The Copenhagen-Malmö area is mainly two separate metropolitan areas rather than one entity, even if some cooperation and commuting between the areas exist.

These are thoughts just off the top of my head. There are probaly several other matters to discuss. Feel free to comment.--Pjred (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Data quality
The list in the main article is stated to be primarily based on World Gazeteer. Well, this link suggests that it is doesn't really come up to scratch a source quality - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, or by a known reputable organisation. Its data appears to be second and third hard, including user feedback. That's what I think. What does everyone else think And does the whole table have to be redrawn? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What single source do you propose be used? --Polaron | Talk 12:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, why do we have to use a single source? Using official data from the official city websites would be more verifiable and reliable than some noname project that doesn't even state its sources. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Admiral Norton. If various sources are used, and individually referenced (rather than a private, composite source), then the validity of each data item can be (hopefully) verified. Then (!) we can start arguing over methodologies!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that official definitions have a great variability in how they delineate areas and not all countries have official definitions. If this list uses definitions from multiple sources, we need to do two things: (1) specify that this list should not be used for comparing across different countries and not all such definitions conform to metropolitan areas as commuter zones, and (2) specify what criteria were used to delineate these areas. --Polaron | Talk 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The two things you point out are perhaps the biggest problem with World Gazeteer source - it appears to be made from composite data and DOES NOT specify these points. Perhaps we need lots of footnotes (perhaps a bit like the list of countries on the Europe page)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * given that discussion seems to have stopped, I guess everyone (especially me!!) is a bit lazy and doesn't want to draw up a whole new data table. So I'm going to put in an alternative source for London (which gives it as MUCH bigger, bigger even than Istanbul), as a footnote. Then the original table retains the integrity (or otherwise) it had, but the info is still there to someone who wants it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we should aim to look for sources for existing figures first, not for the biggest figures available. I could find figures for Zagreb between 650,000 and 1.5 million, but the official population count for the metro area is 1.1 million. Also, the population of Tokyo is anywhere between 9 million and 46 million, again depending on definition, but the accepted value is 35 million. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job this is a european list then ;)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just giving examples. You could include your population figure for London in the table as it isn't much different than the old one. I would be wary about sudden sources that increase the population by 50-100%. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are we using 1 source the World Gazetteer    the figures for many of the city areas is wrong,  why not use proper sources from national sources,  thats what all other articles in wikipedia is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.202 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

East Jutland metropolitan area-Denmark
The East Jutland metropolitan area in Denmark whit 1.2 mio inhabitants whit Aarhus as the largest city is not in the list despite the danish state reconize the area as one big city area. why using World Gazetteer as source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.50.97 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Aarhus/East Jutland area is more of a planning/cooperation region than a metropolitan area at this stage. I haven't found much to support that the 'Danish state' recognizes this area as an official metropolitan area. Instead, some planning authorities are talking about the possibility of a future metropolitan area. I've seen the year 2030 mentioned. We're not there yet. So far, Statistics Denmark don't include any definition or statistics for this concept. When they do, we can start to discuss this again.--Pjred (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pjred you are right in some points, but i dont know if you understand danish but here in this tv interview the danish environmental minister sayes that Denmark now has 2 cities whit more than 1 million inhabitants http://www.tv2regionerne.dk/reg2005/player.aspx?id=405290&r=7 thats the Danish states reconising this, he is speaking on the state behalf. the Danish state does not count metropolitan areas only urban areas, where there not must be more than 200 meters between settlements. But the state reconising that Denmark has 2 cities whit more than 1 million people.

The year 2030 is just to be a warning that if the cities will not be careful then in 2030 the area will have grown in to one big concrete area where there is only few green areas in between the cities.

So the area is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.50.97 (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The area 'is there', as you say, but it still need a better official definition, based on things like commuting, distance, density and so on. As it is now, it seems like the municipalities within this area is there on a 'join the club' basis. To be recognized by Statistics Denmark as a metropolitan area is basically *the* criteria to look for. You're wrong that the Danish state don't count metropolitan areas, as the Copenhagen area is mentioned by Statistics Denmark as such, though the current official definition (which includes the lands of Copenhagen city and Copenhagen suburbs) is very poor and undeveloped after the 2007 municipal reform.--Pjred (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No i am sorry but you are wrong, Statistics Denmark only mentions urban areas not metropolitan areas, the Copenhagen statistics is just for the urban area and then for the capital region  like Aarhus is a part og the region midtjylland. And there is not a 'join the club' basis, the 17 municipalities is pointed out by the danish state and no more municipalities is jo join in the near future. Statistics Denmark dont count metropolitan areas but thats not the same as the state dont reconize the Copenhagen area whit 1,8 mio inhabitants and the East jutland metropolitan area whit 1,2 mio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.51.109 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked this up, and it seems that we're both right, sort of. Statistics Denmark do actually use the Metropolitan area of Copenhagen as a concept. However, they equals the Metropolitan area with the urban area (Hovedstadsområdet) nowadays. More information is found under the 'statistical concepts' subheading on this page. But, I am pretty sure that this isn't what they wrote on this page just some months ago, they wrote then about the Metropolitan area in more general terms and didn't equal this with the urban area. Guess they had to clarify. Still confusing, as they to a direct question answered me that the Metropolitan area of Copenhagen is defined by the lands of Copenhagen city and Copenhagen suburban, which not exactly coincide with Hovedstadsområdet.
 * Anyway, you're saying that this isn't a 'join the club' concept? I assume then that you know what criterias that have been used for inclusion in this area? Can you provide a link to a usable document? Just so we can see what makes a municipality qualified or not. It is still obvious that the criterias have to be very generous, taking credit for an area almost twice the size of the Berlin-Brandenburg basic metropolitan area (pop. well over 4 million). An area of 10,000 sq.km should also make it, by far, the largest metropolitan area in the Nordic countries when it comes to land area. Even metropolitan Stockholm, with about 6,500 sq.km, don't come close even though that definition is a very generous one, including large portions of rural space. So, the credibility of the Aarhus/East Jutland definition has to be better if it shall get on a list like this.
 * For the current status of the area, the information on Danish Wikipedia for the Østjyske millionby very much supports my view that this, at the moment, is mainly a planning & cooperation concept. The article basically says that it is a definition in progress, and that we in about 10-20 years time should be able to see if this vision of a metropolitan area of this size will come true.--Pjred (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right in some of the points,  but i don't agree that the area of 10.000 sq.km, is very big,     metropolitan Copenhagen-Hovedstadsområdet is(1,8 mio inhabitants in 2,861.41 sq.km,) is much smaller than Stockholm in size stockholm has 1,9 mio in more than twice the size that of Copenhagen,   and Oslo has 1,2 mio in almost 9,000 sq.km. and you can not compare nordic countries, Denmark is by far the smallest country in size but has the second largest population after Sweden,   Denmark is more a city country than the rest of the nordic countries where there are more rural areas. And you can not compare the Berlin area whit any nordic city areas, the capital of Germany is a world city ind awery way. many metropiltan area is much larger than East Jutland Hamburg metropolitan area 4 mio inhabitants on 19,000 km² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_Metropolitan_Region Frankfurt Rhine Main Region 5,8 mio inhabitants on 13,000 km² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine_Main_Area Munich metropolitan Region 6 mio inhabitants on 27,000 km² Kansas City Metropolitan Area 1,9 mio on 20,596 km² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_MO-KS_MSA Greater San Antonio 2 mio on 18,129 km² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_TX_MSA This is just exsamples of how som metropolitan areas is big and some very small in the world. But OK lets take the talk later i know that in the beginning of 2009 the East jutland metropolitan area and the state will make some official statement for the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.130.81 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Official is one keyword, recognision by Statistics Denmark is another one. Unless this area is used by Statistics Denmark in official statistics, along with the Copenhagen area, it still doesn't change much to my point of view. There exist areas in Sweden (other than the three official ones) that have been presented as 'metropolitan areas' by official authorities, but nevertheless almost never are considered as such by others than themselves. There also exist various 'metropolitan area-like' definitions around the world for many cities that are not used in lists like this, as planning areas for infrastructure, economy, labour market etc. that are mainly used for cooperation and planning for various matters. That don't automatically qualify the definitions as 'metropolitan areas'. Further, the examples of so-called *Metropolregionen' in Germany are very bad examples for comparisions - there exist other, better, official definitions for Metropolitan Areas in Germany, based on commuter statistics (so-called Großstadtregionen), that much better define the true 'metropolitan areas' for these cities, taking credit for far less rural space than the 'Metropolregionen'. Anyway, it will of course be interesting to see how they have defined the Aarhus region.--Pjred (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pjred i just found this about the East jutland city http://www2.blst.dk/udgiv/Publikationer/2008/978-87-92256-58-4/html/kap05.htm#5.1 as you can see the city is mentioned by Statistics Denmark as one big city area already today just like the Copenhagen area. This site http://www.blst.dk/Planlaegning/Landsplanlaegning/Samarbejde.htm http://www2.blst.dk/udgiv/Publikationer/2008/978-87-92256-58-4/html/indhold.htm has all the data for traffic commuting-the city areas-inhabitants figures and so on. So the area is one big city today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.155.224 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tricity, Wrocław, Poznań
According to Larger Urban Zones list Tricity, Wrocław, Poznań from Poland have more than one million inhabitants. Why are they absent in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.53.122 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem with the third paragraph of the introduction
"In some cases, the list of Largest urban areas of the European Union would give figures that better reflect common understanding of the different cities' sizes as the metropolitan areas include also non-urban and suburban areas and administrative borders for cities often cut across most urban areas. The list of Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) can also be consulted for an attempt by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office, to provide harmonized data for EU metropolitan areas. The list below includes cities which are not part of the European Union and therefore do not benefit from the harmonized definition used by Eurostat and the different National Statistics Offices of the European Union." I, and many other commenters, have found that the list of Largest Urban Areas does not in fact reflect common understanding of different cities' sizes. I no of no-one, for example, who thinks that Paris is larger than London nor have I ever seen it referred to as such outside of wikipedia. It is not an official or standardised definition, simply an exercise done by a french university a few years back. I will delete this part of the section within a week unless someone provides a rationale for it and simply leave the information about larger urban zones, which is standardised, harmonised, and easily defined. 59.38.32.5 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Paris urban area (unité urbaine) figure tabulated by INSEE has a larger population than the urban area tabulated by Statistics UK (see Greater London Urban Area). So that's a reference outside Wikipedia that says the Paris urban area is larger than the London urban area. Furthermore, the list of urban areas does not use the French university study referred to. The list is dervied from Demographia, which uses official figures where available, and a more restrictive definition than the French university study for cases where no official figure is available. Also, the paragraph does say "in some cases" as a qualifier, which is undeniably true -- in some cases, the urban area is indeed a better metric than the administrative city or the metropolitan area. --Polaron | Talk 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But again, these figures are based on different standards, the UK standard is something completely different from the French standard and because of that I think comparisons are pointless and the urban areas misleading. Additionally, demographia is a product of Wendell Cox, an urban planner that has, self-admittedly, minority/heterodox views on urbanity. What exactly is it that makes demographia notable? Where have they been cited? There are no other sources as the French university study is no longer available. That's why I say that urban area is not notable. But I'm willing to compromise. How about we change the wording to reflect the notability of the urban area concept.

I propose this as a replacement paragraph: "The list of Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) can also be consulted for an attempt by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office, to provide harmonized data for EU metropolitan areas. Another option is Wendell Cox's list of largest urban areas of the European Union which provides a somewhat heterodox view of the sizes of various European cities. The list below includes cities which are not part of the European Union and therefore do not benefit from the harmonized definition used by Eurostat and the different National Statistics Offices of the European Union."

Thoughts? 219.131.222.37 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's your argument, then no comparisons are possible at all. This list uses World Gazetter, which is not the most reliable reference. Even the LUZ concept has variation in the delineation details across different countries and sometimes have unusual results. Urban areas, in fact, are the easiest to standardize as one can simply use satellite imagery to see exactly where the urbanization ends and is, in principle, the most easily adapted for comparison. I fail to see why mentioning it should be suppressed. As it is now, the intro simply says that "in some cases, urban areas may be a better measure of city size". Whether or not the actual urban area list on Wikipedia is reliable or not should not affect whether the statement in question is true or not. I don't believe so much detail regarding intricacies of another list is warranted on this list. You may want to add that to the urban area list rather than here. I see no compelling rason to change the current, simple statement. --Polaron | Talk 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course comparisons are possible. Metropolitan area is, at the very list a widely understood and generally used concept, even if there is some debate over exact meaning.  LUZ has some level of standardisation.  “Urban Areas”, in the context of the other article are neither widely understood nor standardised. The page on Wikipedia takes one person’s subjective view of a subjective concept.  As for the suggestion of looking on a map…well that’s only meaningful if you’re talking about physical size rather than population.  No satellite map will enable you to make any meaningful population estimates unless you somehow manage to count the number of residents in each individual building.


 * I’m not saying suppress the list. But I am saying that the fact that the other list is unreliable (and most likely based on fringe theory) indeed does make the statement “in some cases, urban areas may be a better measure of city size” untrue.


 * I can make the change a bit simpler, “the list of largest urban areas provides another (though somewhat questionable) comparison of city size.” If that’s still too much, I can just whack a citation needed tag on the end of the sentence and leave it to you to prove what makes it a “better” measure of city size.


 * I honestly don’t see how changing a sentence is “so much detail”. But I do honestly feel that that sentence is misleading and that my change does not give undue weight to a link we are providing for readers while keeping the style, tone, and substance of the article as it is now.

59.38.32.5 (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the urban area list is unreliable, then this list is even more so. The definitions used by World Gazetteer are not listed and how are also "one person's subjective view". Population figures for urban areas based on satellite imagery are generally obtained from adding up census tracts or equivalents that encompass the urban area so it is quite possible to do count people in a given area. Are you saying that metropolitan areas are always better than urban areas when taling about the extent of a city? It says "in some cases". Are you saying that urban areas are not better for any case at all. I have the feeling that your only concern is that Paris is bigger than London in that other list, which is why you're saying that the other list is unreliable. Bear in mind that this list is even less reliable than the urban area list. --Polaron | Talk 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the term "urban area" as used in the context of the other list lacks notability and is only from one source. Yes this particular list is from World Gazeteer, but that doesn't mean you can't find an alternate list of metropolitan area size, if you were dissatisfied with this one or wanted further verification.  The same can not be said for the other list. The size of London and Pais is the most glaring instance of heterodoxy and the one that brought the list of urban areas to my attention, yes, but I fail to see on what basis you are arguing that said list is ever a better reflection of common understanding.  As the other list uses a subjective term from a non notable source (and is unverifiable, as even the methodology of said list is curiously missing from its page), the burden of proof should be on it, not the widely used and generally understood term.  Thus the rationale behind my change from "better" to "somewhat questionable".  If you want to say that the list of metropolitan areas is also flawed or you want to add figures from an alternate source on metropolitan areas, then feel free, I have no argument against that.  But the reliablity of this particular list is a straw man argument that has no relevance to the change in wording. 59.38.32.5 (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably haven't read the Demographia pdf file that does describe its methodology. As it is, the urban area list is more reliable so there is no basis for saying that it shouldn't be mentioned. --Polaron | Talk 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The urban area list is more reliable" based on what,exactly?
 * I can accept a mentioning, as I have said. I am saying that the mentioning should not give undue weight, to a subjective definition by a non-notable source.  The change I have mentioned is from "better" to "somewhat questionable" please address my most recent suggestion in your reply or provide an alternative compromise. 59.38.32.5 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the main source for the urban area list? The methodology is described there. Why are you singling out the urban area list when this list itself is even more of a "subjective definition by a non-notable source". The statement you want to change is already qualified by saying it is applicable only "in some cases". Are you saying that in no instance is an urban area concept better for measuring the extent of a city than a metropolitan area concept? City lists are always helped by exposing the reader to as many conceptual definitions as possible. There is no single concept that captures everything and we should not prioritize once concept over another. --Polaron | Talk 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But we are prioritising the urban area concept by saying that it is "better". We don't say that the Eurostat list is better, do we?  As the other list lacks verifiability, it is inappropriate to say that it is better.  I am curious as to why you seem so insistent on saying that the other list is "better".  Even if you don't want to disparage the other list in any way, you seem dead set against anything but superlative statements of praise for this list.  I must say I'm curious as to why.  You can't really tell me that the term "better" is neutral, even if you are insistent on trying to weasel word it with some.  And while we're on the topic, the reliability of this list is a non issue.  In fact the reliability of the other list is a non-issue as well, seeing as how this is an encyclopedia and not a news source.  The question is verifiability.  I have yet to see any evidence that you or anyone else can verify that the other list is "better". 59.38.32.5 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that in no case at all is the urban area concept better for measuring city sizes than either the city proper or the metropolitan area? --Polaron | Talk 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if you want to say it's "better" you need to back it up. Find me a source that says it's better.  I'll add a tag.59.38.32.5 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts disputed
I have re-added the disputed tag, following the request by an editor at Editor_assistance/Requests. Plese do not remove this tag until the discussion here is concluded. I see a request for mediation has been made Talk:List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population. Please respect this process and contribute. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List overhaul
Seeing as many people believe World Gazetteer to be an unreliable source, I am planning to overhaul the entire list. I am thinking of a showing figures from multiple sources in a single table. Western and central European countries do have somewhat homogenized sources (ESPON and the Eurostat Urban Audit). For eastern European countries, we may have to stick with World Gazetteer or a similar source, citypopulation.de. I will also include the UN World Urbanization Prospects figures (generally undercounted) and OECD figures (generally overcounted). Unfortunately, very few countries have official metropolitan area definitions so official figures are essentially unworkable. The major change that would happen compared to the current list would be to split up Manchester and Liverpool, split up the Randstad, and split up the Rhine-Ruhr area. If anyone has other suggestions, please share them. --Polaron | Talk 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts: as the list is comparing metropolitan areas by population, all the figures need to relate to the same date. World Gazetteer may be the best source available in some cases, but I have serious concerns about its reliability. An underlying problem is that there is no unified definition of what a "metropolitan area" is, different countries consider it to be different things, therefore it's not fair to compare the population of one met. area with that of another which is defined differently. Does anyone see a way round this without venturing into the realms of original research? Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The ESPON data is a unified definition that has the added benefit of being consistent with North American concepts. However, ESPON doesn't tabulate data for Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Croatia, and Serbia. The only other semi-reliable source that tabulates for all countries is citypopulation.de, which I think is a better alternative to World Gazetteer. Also, the growth rates of metropolitan areas in Europe are very low anyway so comparisons across different years are not likely to change the rankings as long as they are only a few years apart. What do you suggest we do to alleviate your concerns? --Polaron | Talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider whether this article is practical, I'm considering taking it to AfD, but it seems a bit unfair while people are working on it. As Polaron said "very few countries have official metropolitan area definitions so official figures are essentially unworkable", so with no single definition of what a metropolitan area is we'd be comparing apples and oranges. Also, that met. areas in Europe have a slow population growth would need a source. citypopulation.de feels a lot like worldgazeteer; what makes Thomas Brinkhoff, the author of the site, a reliable source? How to address my concerns? I'm not sure if they can be, that's why I'm thinking of taking the article to AfD where we can get a wider range of opinions. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * citypopulation.de is somewhat more cited by third party sources than World Gazetteer. In any case, I do see your point. Taking the article to AFD is a bit extreme though unless you really think that a ranked list of metropolitan areas in any form should not exist at all. --Polaron | Talk 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a question of utility (I think it may be useful, if it could actually be done), but of whether the article can meet wikipedia's policies of no original research (there is no single definition of an metropolitan area, and creating one would be synthesis, and choosing one country's definition is biased) and reliable sourcing. AfD is a last resort, but I don't think the article can comply with wikipedia's policies. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can list the entries alphabetically by default then and keep the sortable list. That way, we aren't making any judgements and people who want a ranked list can sort using whatever source they prefer. Do you think that's workable? --Polaron | Talk 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a tempting course to take as we would effectively say to the reader "here's all the information, you decide what's right". But that's not really what wikipedia's for; wikipedia's been criticised for being poorly sourced (amongst other things), and I don't think this is the right solution. Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version is not poorly sourced. There are links to four other well-regarded sources, in addition to the questionable citypopulation.de. I'm not sure what else you can do though. --Polaron | Talk 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Polaron, regarding providing a sortable list. The article would be in breach of WP:NOR and in parlicular WP:SYNTH only if it reaches a conclusion yet unpublished. Providing demographic facts and allowing editors to enrich and update this article through the provision of reliable sources strikes me as following Wikipedia's  core concept of collaborative encyclopaedia.
 * Regarding the homogeneity of the data source, I see no reason not to use various (locales) definitions of metropolitan area since each definition would be cited. I would certainly question this methodology in a research article but as Nev1 points out: this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore I would like to consider using the methodology suggested on this talk page previously 26 &  27.
 * Furthermore, I suggest to add a section about the methodology and another about criticism of the list as long as those sections remain cited and constructive I think it would give a clear sense of perspective valuable to the reader.
 * Ghaag (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm convinced and won't be taking the article to AfD. Nev1 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
Sources in article: Urban Audit, UN WUP, OECD and Citypopulation.de concern of urban areas, not metropolitan areas. This data should be moved to Largest urban areas of the European Union. In this article should only be data by ESPON 1.4.3: metropolitan areas and polycentric metropolitan areas. LUCPOL (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Urban Audit is a "functional urban region" approximation, i.e. (a core city + commuter sphere). OECD is the same way. The UN and citypopulation figures are urban agglomeration data, i.e. core city + contiguous suburbs with a high population density. These are indeed not metropolitan area definitions but is a good number to include for comparison purposes. In addition, the eastern European countries do not have metropolitan area data and are listed on the basis of the agglomeration data. Being more inclusive of various official sources is generally better. --Polaron | Talk 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote"In addition, the eastern European countries do not have metropolitan area data and are listed on the basis of the agglomeration data" - I know "something" about this, I had the same problems in retrieving of data about eastern European metropolitan and urban areas. Ok, but in article List of metropolitan areas in Europe there is a need for more data about polycentric metropolitan areas. Some areas have reported data about polycentric metropolitan areas in ref, must create an additional table or window/cell in main table for this data.

Example:

LUCPOL (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea to put a second table below the main table consisting of well-known regions composed of adjacent metropolitan areas that share suburbs, e.g. Randstad and Rhine-Ruhr. Putting a column in the main table is less preferable to me but is acceptable. Let's wait for other people to comment to see which style is more preferable. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the extraneaous column present a number of challenges :
 * First and foremost in the nature of the column. The other headings provide clear sources for the reader. A "polycentric metropolitan area" column would not fit this definition.
 * Even when the "polycentric metropolitan area" (PcMA) data will be reliably sourced it will be difficult to understand what is being compared as the entity definition (what is included in each PcMA) would not be included in the table itself.
 * Polycentric metropolitan area is an interesting concept and a reality for it (very significant) population therefore I think it should be included. It might be worth creating another comparison table with an additional section to avoid confusing the reader about the nature of the data being compared.
 * Ghaag (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In article may be explained by the term polycentric metropoliatan area. Or in plain text in article and/or in ref. No problem. LUCPOL (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may seem simple enough but the revision history of the article as well as this very talk page shows that the definition of the metropolitan area (regardless of its mono or multicentric nature) is a very disputed topic. What would be the problem with adding another table for multicentric metropolitan area?
 * Ghaag (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
At the moment, this article contradicts itself. The title is List of metropolitan areas in Europe by populuation but the ranking is for metropolitan areas in the EU. The result is rather comical, as the article ends up ranking London as bigger than Moscow and Istanbul. There are many ways to solve this, we could - split the article into two (one for the EU and one for Europe) - Change the title to focus only on the EU, keep ESPON as the basis for the ranking and remove all cities outside the EU. - Base the ranking on a source that takes in all of Europe as the title suggests. JdeJ (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct. The ranking is currently based on two different sources though. --Polaron | Talk 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right you are, but it's still contradictory and I'm reinserting that tag. As long as the title claims to be a list of the metropolitan areas of Europe and it ranks London as the first, there's a rather obvious contradiction. The best thing would be to use one single source, I'm rather indifferent to which source we use, that's not the issue here. What matters is that all (well, the vast majority at least) of sources giving numbers for London, Moscow and Istanbul ranks London as the third. Using one source that doesn't give any number for Moscow and Istanbul as the basis for London and then using other sources that ranks London below London and Istanbul for the latter two is not serious.JdeJ (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your solution then? We can't simply have that tag on forever? --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As ESPON is the source listing the fewest cities, it might be a good idea not to use it as the primary source if we intend to have a list over cities in Europe. It would be an excellent source for the EU, but this is not a list over cities in the EU.JdeJ (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please make the appropriate changes to the article then. Slapping on tags without fixing the problem doesn't fix the problem. --Polaron | Talk 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tags are never a solution, they are a temporary measure to attract attention to issues that need to be discussed. Once that is done, they should be removed again.JdeJ (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the tag since the article nowhere contradicts itself. It is using a single ranking based on two different concepts though. --Polaron | Talk 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that as long as the ranking column is kept there will be contentions fuelled by regional pride. Furthermore this column could be construed as a conclusion yet unpublished...
 * Is it really needed?
 * Ghaag (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's useful, but only if relative to the selected source. That is, if I sort the table by 'Metropolitan area name' then Amsterdam should be ranked 1, Antwerp 2, Athens 3, and so on; if I sort by country, Vienna should be ranked 1, and so on. If this can't be done then I think it should go. Matthew (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham-Derby?!
Why have these two seperate cities that are quite far away from each other been smashed together in this way? The two are in no way associated in terms of population. If we're going to do this why not put Leicester in there too? And Peterborough, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Loughborough, Coventry and Northampton while we're at it? They're all as associated and not that much further away than Nottingham and Derby. Heck, let's just have the Midlands Conurbation with a population of 10,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.234.143 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Table sorting
Sorry, I don't know where to put this comment. Anyhow, on a few of the columns in the table, the sorting seems to be done "alphabetically" by number rather than by number. That is, it goes something like 1,800,000; 1,900,000; 10,300,000; 12,400,000; 2,000,000; etc. I don't know how to fix this, but hopefully someone does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.113.254 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this makes the list rather useless as it is. DMac (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * second that. 94.197.121.178 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)