Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines

This page sets out guidelines for writing articles on conurbations, metropolitan areas, or similar urban agglomerations. It is intended as a supplement to the Manual of Style and the WikiProject Cities guideline. In case of any ambiguities or conflicts those documents take precedence over this one.

Conurbations or metropolitan areas can present unusual challenges for developing consistent, NPOV articles. These geographies are typically not legally incorporated entities as cities or provinces would be and, as such, their precise definitions, or even their names, can vary with the source. This page attempts to provide a framework for developing articles on these regions so as to provide consistency and minimize repetitive debate on the same issues. Within these guidelines the terms conurbation, metropolitan area, and agglomeration are considered interchangeable (though individual articles may use whatever terminology is deemed most appropriate). Distinctions between different types of agglomerations are made here by explicit explanations.

Which articles to create
It is often the case that, for a given city, different sources (or even sometimes the same source) use widely varying definitions of conurbations surrounding that city. The question arises, should there be one generic article discussing all of the different possible conurbations, two articles, more? As an example, the U.S. government may itself publish multiple definitions for one city: the urban area, the metropolitan statistical area, the combined statistical area, and the economic area.

The following are general guidelines for deciding which conurbation articles are appropriate to create.


 * If the conurbation is not particularly large (say, less than 1/4 million people), it is probably best to simply discuss the conurbation in the article about the largest city, the county that contains it, or some similar place. If there is no other appropriate place, or if there is something exceptionally noteworthy about the conurbation beyond what is noteworthy about the city, it may still be appropriate to create the article.
 * If it does make sense to have an article on a conurbation, for most cities there should be at most one article for the conurbation surrounding the city. Different sources may describe different conurbations for the city with widely varying geography. But it is typically not the case that the differences between these definitions offer enough unique content to merit more than one article.
 * If a conurbation is exceptionally large (say, at least 2 million people), or there is something exceptionally noteworthy in distinguishing between different definitions of the conurbation, it might make sense to have more than one article on conurbations for a given city.
 * The fact that a government or other source publishes statistics for n different conurbations does not mean that there needs to be n different articles. Do not be overzealous in searching for excuses to create more articles.

Take, for example, a hypothetical city named Bugtussle, which some sources say has a conurbation that includes only the nearby bedroom communities of Swamptown and Ratville. Other sources include a much larger area that includes the far away towns of Nowhereville and BFE. If both definitions amount to less than 1 million people then one article for both definitions is probably enough. If, however, BFE and Nowhereville are major, nationally known resort communities that have a substantial economic impact on the region, and their socioeconomic makeup is substantially different from Bugtussle, Swamptown, and Ratville, it may make sense to have more than one conurbation article.

Article titles
The following are the general guidelines that should be followed:
 * If the conurbation is a legally incorporated entity or a legally defined administrative area it will usually be the case that the legal name or a shortened form thereof is the best to use, provided that name is in common use. For example, if the provincial government has incorporated the "Conurbation of Greater Bugtussle" it is probably best to name the article either "Conurbation of Greater Bugtussle" or "Greater Bugtussle" depending on which one sources typically use. Even if many sources use "Bugtussle Metro Area" it is probably better to stay closer to the legal name unless that legal name is in fact rarely used outside of official government documents. However, if it is in fact the case that the news media, the chamber of commerce, and almost all other sources use "Bugtussle Metro Area" then that name should be used instead.
 * If the conurbation is not a legally incorporated area then government sources should not be treated as any more authoritative than other reliable sources in deciding the name.
 * It is a good idea to give preference to sources discussing the community as opposed to sources that are quoting statistics. For example, a news article which says "Community leaders from around Greater Bugtussle met today ..." is probably more indicative of what the common name is than a census bureau report that says "The following are the demographic statistics for the Bugtussle-Swamptown-Ratville Statistical Conurbation".
 * Chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus, and similar organizations are good indicators of what the community sees as its proper name. For example, the fact that the chamber names itself the Greater Bugtussle Chamber of Commerce is a strong indicator that Greater Bugtussle is an appropriate article name. Looking at the chamber's publications can give further insight.
 * When choosing between variants that are in common use, it is a good idea to use the one that is more descriptive. But that only applies if the more descriptive variant is truly widely used by a variety of sources. For example, if both "Greater Bugtussle" and the "Greater Bugtussle Metro Area" are widely used in the media and in books, it is probably best to use the latter. However, if the media and books almost always shorten it to "Greater Bugtussle", the fact that "Greater Bugtussle Metro Area" is occasionally found is a poor excuse to choose that name.
 * The letter case used in the name should follow common usage in the sources. For example, if most sources use "Bugtussle metropolitan area", the article should not be named "Bugtussle Metropolitan Area".

Some pitfalls to avoid:
 * Giving government sources too much authority - It is tempting to say that if a government agency uses a particular name for the region in question then that name is the official name and should be used exclusively. However, unless that government agency has unique administrative authority over that region, or is quoting an agency that does, the government's opinion about the name is not necessarily any more authoritative than any other source.
 * Resorting to technicalities - In some cases the common name for a region may be technically inaccurate according to how a particular authority defines terms. For example, sources may refer to the communities surrounding the city of Bugtussle as the "Bugtussle Metropolitan Area" even though the area around Bugtussle does not technically fit the definition of metropolitan area used by some authority. In general this technicality is irrelevant. If a name is in common use as indicated by reliable sources then it is an appropriate candidate for the title. If on the other hand there are two widely used names and reliable sources consider one of them to be substantially more misleading or controversial than the other, the less controversial name is probably best (personal opinions of the editors, though, are not reliable sources).
 * Using Google hit counts as proof - Google "hit" counts (the reported number of articles that Google says match a search string) can sometimes be a good place to start when sorting out common names. However, these counts do not prove anything nor do such reports qualify as a reliable source (in reality Google can frequently match articles that do not actually contain the string you entered but may contain strings that are vaguely similar). Debate about common names should mostly center around journals, books, news articles, publications from major entities, and similar high-quality sources.

Lead section
Apart from complying with Lead section, the lead section for an article about a conurbation should generally include the following details.
 * Name or names by which the conurbation is known (only the most notable ones are appropriate)
 * Name(s) of the major city/cities
 * Location within its country/countries, province(s), or other major administrative divisions
 * Population estimate
 * Brief note about historical roots/founding
 * Primary industries supporting its economy
 * Notable unique characteristics, particularly characteristics that distinguish the conurbation from its largest city

In general the first name given for the conurbation in the first sentence of the lead should be the same as the article title. The primary exception is that, if the conurbation is a legally incorporated entity (or a legally defined administrative subdivision) and the article is titled with a shortened form of that name, it is often appropriate to give the legal name first and the shortened form second. For example, in an article named "Greater Bugtussle", the lead sentence may be something like
 * The Conurbation of Greater Bugtussle, usually referred to as simply Greater Bugtussle, is a conurbation in Swamp Province, Narnia.

Other common names may also appear in the first sentence or shortly thereafter. It is inappropriate, however, to use a completely different name from the article title as the first name mentioned in the article. For example, a lead like the following would be inappropriate for Greater Bugtussle.
 * The Bugtussle-Swamptown-Ratville Statistical Conurbation is defined by the National Census Department as a conurbation in Swamp Province, Narnia. It is commonly referred to as Greater Bugtussle.

If there are other names for the conurbation that also commonly refer to geographical regions discussed in other articles, it is best to discuss these away from the lead sentence, perhaps even in a separate paragraph. For example, the last paragraph in the lead for Greater Bugtussle may begin as follows.
 * Greater Bugtussle is sometimes referred to as East Swamp Province. This name, however, may also refer to the entire eastern portion of Swamp Province, which includes many counties not generally associated with Greater Bugtussle.

Article scope
One of the most difficult issues may be establishing the scope of the article. If the conurbation is a legally defined entity then the task is simpler. But otherwise the issue it may be impossible to come up with a single definition that can be considered the most commonly used. It is generally best that, wherever possible, one definition published by some particularly authoritative source (e.g. a government census bureau) be used as the primary scope for the discussion. However, if this is not a legal definition then such a definition should not be used exclusively nor should the article imply that this source has exclusive authority in defining the region. Instead the article should present this definition early on, explicitly describing the source, and immediately discuss other possible definitions so as not to mislead. It is not required that the article attempt to present every possible definition but rather simply give the reader a general idea of which areas might be included by various sources (i.e. not exhaustively list communities but provide enough information that the reader is not confused).

One general rule to follow is that it is best to cast as wide a net as possible (i.e. err on the side of including areas instead of excluding areas). But remember that the inclusion of any particular area must be notable (i.e. any area included must be described as part of the conurbation by some reasonable number of reliable sources). Also the scope must not encroach too much on other articles (i.e. if the areas included make the article's scope very similar to another article then the scope is probably too broad).

When quoting demographic statistics, or other statistics, it is not inappropriate to present statistics for only one notable definition of the conurbation. In fact it is generally preferable to present statistics for only one, or at most two, definitions of the conurbation.

References in other articles
As a general rule, when referring to a particular conurbation in other articles, the main name used for the conurbation should be the same as the title of the article about that conurbation. If an editor feels that this name is not appropriate it is usually best to go and propose a name change in the conurbation article rather than attempt to use a different name in other articles. Inconsistent naming of this sort typically only creates confusion for the reader. It is tempting to argue that wikilinks eliminate this confusion but wikilinks are not a substitute for good and consistent writing.

Things to avoid
This section outlines a few things to avoid in writing articles on conurbations.

Some editors are tempted to try to list every municipality, county, or other administrative or population unit that exists in a conurbation. In general such long lists amount to trivia. Even if such lists can be considered notable they belong in list articles, not the main article on a geographic region. Normally the article should limit itself to identifying the largest or most significant communities and economic entities in the region. As a rule of thumb mentioning more than two to three dozen entities within a conurbation is usually inappropriate. Mentioning the one or two largest cities and then mentioning the 5 to 10 largest suburbs is probably sufficient for most conurbation articles. Floating tables to the side of the main prose are sometimes acceptable as a way to list more communities though such tables should not overwhelm the article.

For the sake of keeping an article focused it can be tempting to restrict discussion to the opinions of one particular source and ignore contrarian opinions from other sources. Certainly if the contrarian sources represent non-authoritative or fringe opinions this may be acceptable. Also there may be cases where it would be unreasonable to try to address the full array of possible opinions (e.g. presenting demographic statistics for all the different possible definitions of the metro area). However, whenever authoritative opinions are being neglected, the statements in the article must at least be qualified. As a general rule, though, it is usually best to try to address all authoritative opinions whenever it is practical (if they can't be addressed individually then at least address them broadly).

Some editors focus conurbation articles more on quoting statistics than actually discussing the community, its culture, its history, its economy, etc. In general if the only unique things you can find to say about a conurbation, as compared to its major city, are its demographic statistics and its constituent communities, perhaps the conurbation article should be merged with the article on the city. An article on a particular conurbation should be written as though it is a city and the communities within it are neighborhoods of that city.

There is often a tendency to want to focus any discussion of a conurbation on its largest city. Since the largest city is typically well covered in its own article it is usually better that the conurbation article give unbalanced weight to the communities outside that city as well as their interaction with the city. Again, if there is not much more that can be said about the suburbs than that they are bedroom communities, one should question the value of the conurbation article itself.

It may be tempting to reject a particular source's opinions or definitions of a conurbation simply because that author uses a less common name for the conurbation. The simple fact that two sources use two different names for a region does not, by itself, establish a major distinction between the regions being discussed. Do not use name differences as an excuse to reject a source or prefer one source over another.