Talk:Functional urban area/Archive 1

Addition of Turkey a Blatant political move

This is a table of Eurozone cities. The inclusion of Turkey has no justification since it does not fall under the juristiction of Eurostat. In fact, this article misrepresents that organisation by implying so. Either you include all candidate states for the EU or none, not just one. This "pro-Turkey in the EU" group that goes around adding Turkey to all EU-related articles is growing rather tiresome.

Fully agree. All non-EU cities need to be removed.

Not quite related to the same point, but if it is a table of Eurozone cities, London should be excluded too, and I suspect you don't mean that. Postlebury (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TURKEY IS NOT AN EUROPEAN COUNTRY, ISTANBUL IS NOT AN EUROPEAN URBAN ZONE, IT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THIS ARTICLE, I WILL DO IT PERSONALLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.36.205 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL THE TURKISH CITIES AS MUSLIM CITIES AND NOT EUROPEAN MUST BE REMOVED, INSTEAD THE EUROPEAN RUSSIAN AND CRISTIAN CITIES MUST BE PUT INTO THE LIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKISH CITIES MUST BE DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Turkey (East Thrace) lies in Europe, including Istanbul. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKEY MUST BE DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE.

WHY DO YOU DELETE? YOU'RE JUST A VANDALUS!YOU CAN'T DENY THE TRUTH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europe is defined by geography, not religion. Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are majority-Muslim countries in Europe. The scope of this list includes EU-candidate countries, which is why Turkey is included (and Russia is not, despite being partly in Europe). -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why only cities over 1 million?

Why are only cities with city population above 1 million included here, if it is an metropolitan area list? This way some important cities like Athens (LUZ 3,9 million) or Manchester (LUZ 2,5 million) are missing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.253.80 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These have since been added. -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Cities - ONU data

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2003/2003WUPHighlights.pdf Tabella A-12, PAGINA 130:

Country and agglomeration 2005

ITALY

Milan 4.007.000

"DEMOGRAPHIA-WORLD URBAN AREA" http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf PAGINA 21:

Italy Milan 4,250,000

Estratto da "http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Aree_urbane_pi%C3%B9_popolose_dell%27Unione_Europea"

Stockholm

All sources point out that the city proper of Stockholm has about 788.000 inhabitants, but anyway Polaron does not agree with me and reverts. What can we do about this? Calle Widmann 06:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All data here is from the Eurostat database and is harmonized for 2001. Please look at the cited source for the article. --Polaron | Talk 12:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille?

The population of Marseille's urban zone is definitely larger than 1 million, and the city should be somewhere in this list. Marseille has sometimes been considered larger than Lyon. (On the Lyon WP page Marseille is considered the larger pf the two, on the Marseille WP page Lyon is considered the larger.) Anyway, the last census, according to this page, had Marseille's population at "1,605,000 inhabitants in 2007". Something must be wrong. Wahlin —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Marseille itself has almost 1 million and if we consider all the Urban Area like Berlin or Paris, it's sure that will be larger than Riga and enter in this list. Leonardomio (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to understand the mental processes of people who would put together a list like this, and omit Marseilles on such grounds. Postlebury (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bump this up. The omission of Marseille, which has over a million within its city limits, is startling. -Krasnoludek (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Why are Turkish cities listed? Turkey isn't a member state of the EU nor EEA. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the database. --Polaron | Talk 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should offer an explanation on the page somewhere. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there certainly should be, the current edit war is pointless. Turkey is certainly in the database and as such statistics should be included, the other question is about the specific mentioning of Turkey alongside the EU and EFTA at every heading. A better solution would be a short paragraph on the inclusion of other countries and cities outside the EU and EFTA. Please establish a consensus on the specific mentioning of Turkey here so that the edit warring can cease. Mfield (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TURKEY IS NOT AN EUROPEAN COUNTRY, ISTANBUL IS NOT AN EUROPEAN URBAN ZONE, IT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THIS ARTICLE, I WILL DO IT PERSONALLY.

I'm going to assume the reason for the yellow highlighting is to show that the city is not within the EU and add that colour to Oslo. If this is the case, please add some information to the top of the article explaining this. This just kept me wondering why only Turkish cities were highlighted until I saw Zürich and thought about it again. Without explanation the colour coding is both redundant and confusing. Skrofler (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much Improved

(IMHO) The latest work on this page represents a major improvement in clarity and purpose. Bravo to all who've helped to improve it. Mapmark (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population Density

It seems a bit silly to compare urban areas with only 285 inhabitants per sq km with with areas with over 1000 (Napels even over 3000 inhabitants per sq km) For example it lists Stockholm as larger than Brussels, but considers an area 6 times larger then what it considers for Brussels, It gives a totally wrong image. 285 inhabitants per sq km (stockholm) is even less than the population density of the entire country of Belgium; let alone one city. I don't really mind, it's just a list, but you can't compare cities in this list using such different standards. --Lamadude (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. These may be official statistics but they're not representative of real cities. Anywhere with a population density less than 1000 inhabitants per sq km is barely suburban, let alone urban; and anywhere with a density of less than 500 inhabitants per sq km is predominantly rural. You could turn any village into a metropolis if you throw its boundaries far enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.134.44 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the people behind the list should either have worked harder, or not at all. Berlin is an egregious example. The area includes more remote and rural localities than are included for most other cities, so remote and rural as the render the word "urban" in "Larger Urban Zone" seriously misleading. It is absurd to claim to be consistent, and then give Berlin's LUZ a larger land area than London's. It must be possible to produce more realistically comparable statistics by delving into the data for a lower tier of subdivision. The people behind the list should know that when a public body produces such charts, some people will take them literally and treat the results as conclusive hard facts, even though they should not, and accordingly they should make more effort to produce the very best data possible. They simply haven't tried hard enough. Yet it's a sad fact that despite being a sloppy piece of work, this list is still better than most similar lists, many of which are simply comically misleading and inconsistent. Postlebury (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it real all data in this article?

As far as I know, Badajoz has not got such population. There are few Spanish medium-size cities which are not listed here and they clearly overpass Badajoz. This town is more known as a provincial one, located in Extremadura. How can it pass other Spanish metropolitan areas? Such as Alicante-Elche, Murcia, Asturias, Cádiz, etc... Even Alicante-Elche has got more population in the metropolitan area than Zaragoza, and it is not listed here.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:%C3%81reas_metropolitanas_de_Espa%C3%B1a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Spain_by_population

84.120.141.88 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The response to this as to most other posts is - please ask the compilers of the Eurostat database. I'm fairly sure Lille and Marseille should be in the list - but they're not. Perhaps someone needs to write a caveat about possible missing urban areas?

Exile (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badajoz is no longer listed. -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Marseille?!

It has an Urban Area of 1,418,481, and a Metro Area of 1,604,550.

Can someone please edit the article to include it please. It's one of Europe's greatest cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.161.219 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exact. For Marseille, No larger urban zone (LUZ) was defined for this city because the Communauté covers most of the 'economic functional region', as defined by the French concept of 'aire urbaine' and even goes slightly beyond it (aire urbaine = 1 601 095[1]). For Lille : The larger urban zone (LUZ) of over 1,1 million inhabitants covers an area of 981 km2, and is based on the French concept of ‘aire urbaine’ (aire urbaine = 1 164 716[2]). For Nice : No larger urban zone (LUZ) was defined for this city because the Communauté covers most of the 'economic functional region', as defined by the French concept of 'aire urbaine,' and even goes slightly beyond it (aire urbaine = 991 903[3]). See comments on Urban Audit website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.103.239.248 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this renders the definition of LUZ ridiculous, since cities which whose metropolitan boundaries would essentially coincide with their LUZ boundaries, are not considered LUZ. Still, this is an EU sanctioned definition, but I will definitely add an explanation to the lede about why certain cities are omitted from being considered LUZs. Thank you for the information, BoN. -Krasnoludek (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille is now listed in the article. -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many errors in this article

Firstly, "Larger Urban Zones" should consider URBAN ZONES, so it means that urban zones with a population density lower than 1000 inhabitants/km2 should not be considered (example: Vienna is only 1,8 mio inhabitants, and that is the Larger Urban Zone! It is not the same than a Metropolitan area. This article is not consistent). Secondly, many cities have been omitted: Toulon (750'000), Basel (730'000), Geneva (810'000), some Spanish cities, etc.

In conclusion, this article should be revised and all data given checked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.7.15 (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Larger Urban Zones for this term definition. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

basically a larrger urban zone is the central city its national subdivison its located in usally a county or small provine plus any county that borders it.theres no reason for izmit to be only 600,000 or so people or whatever thats not the larger urban zone thats the urbanized area i agree this list is completly wrong forinstant Izmit turkey's Larger urban zone is Kocaeli province and its 3,626 KM big and is 332 people to the kilometer. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of population data

It's not clear from this article what source has been used for the population figures in the table for most of the cities. We should ideally have a footnote for each. SP-KP (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single-sourced list. All population figures come from the same source (Ref. 6, as pointed out in the section "Ranking methodology"). There is no point in adding the same reference to each entry as they are all the same. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a worked example so that I can figure out how to get the population data from that source? I just clicked on it and all I get is a set of empty drop down boxes, with no instructions. There doesn't seem to be an obvious means to access the data this way. SP-KP (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For 1, choose LUZ. For 2, choose spatial level (although either one would work). For 3, choose the particular LUZ you want to get data on. For 4, choose total resident population. For 5, choose alphabetical ascending (although any choice would work). For 6, choose the year for the figure. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham

This is another one I can't understand. The urban area has 2.3m people so how can the LUZ be the same? 92.6.43.169 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverhampton counts as its own LUZ for some unknown reason. Eopsid (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds, not Leeds-Bradford

Where is the LUZ called Leeds-Bradford officially? I've only ever seen it written as Leeds. By changing it back to Leeds-Bradford you'd have to change all others to Manchester-Salford, Birmingham-Wolverhampton etc. --Tubs uk (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for editing it back to Leeds-Bradford without giving it any thought. Here's the list. http://www.urbanaudit.org/CityCountryPDFLongList.aspx Can only imagine the editor(s?) of this page have double standards, or they didn't know (in which case why are they editing?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LUZ of Portugal

Why do you take the informations that I found in Wikipedia and in the site of Portuguese statistical institute: http://www.ine.pt/scripts/flex_v10/Main.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernas Coimbra (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Upon Hull?

I dont see how Hull can have an LUZ over half a million as this article and its source, List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, which give figures higher than the ones used here for pretty much every other LUZ gives it a lot lower figure. The only thing i can imagine which gives Hull such a high figure is that includes the whole of Humberside with large towns such as Scunthorpe and Grimsby. I think a similar situation is there for Britstol which LUZ is the whole of Avon.

Other mysteries in this data is why it doesnt give data for a number of large english urban areas eg Bournemouth, Middlesbrough and Southampton. The urban audit also states that it doesnt include them all To ensure that large and medium-sized cities are equally represented in the Urban Audit, in some of the larger Member States not all large cities could be included. the above is from there. So does that mean you cant compare all cities properly because some large important ones aren't included.

Also they have an LUZ for liverpool and Wirral which have the exact same population just two different names. Eopsid (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been referring to a previous dataset. -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nantes - Erdre.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nantes - Erdre.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?