Talk:List of urban areas in the European Union

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


Which wiki figures are solid? They differ big time from other articles and have to be considered inconsequente. e.g. the inhabitant figure for Hamburg refer to the actual city figure where Frankfurt or Lisbon refer to the metropolitan area. Please sort that out asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


This list says that the urban population of Oslo is 715.000. I haver never seen this numbers been used before. Where is it from? The official urban population number from Statistics Norway (Statistisk sentralbyrå in Norwegian) is 906 681. See here for reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Budapest's urban area population number differs from the number indicated on the Budapest-Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New Data[edit]

Geopolis data are available again on —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Barcelona's Metropolitan Area is 5.150.000 (updated 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as it is observed in... (data 2005)

This is a list of urban areas, not a list of metropolitan areas.

Hague, Rotterdam[edit]

Having lived near The Hague for several years until a year or so ago I am surprised to see it linked to Rotterdam as the fields and other open areas in between are a lot more than 200 m wide. What's the source, and do we need a list of municipalities (the actual unit will have to differ for each country of course) in each urban area? --GPoss 07:27, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The source is a French university research group which study satellite and aerial pictures to determine urban areas. Indeed, Rotterdam and The Hague have been linked in 2000 only. In their 1990 survey the research group said they were still separate urban areas. They also say that the Dutch government has been very good at preventing cities to spread (unlike in Belgium), that's why Amsterdam is still a separate urban area. Nonetheless, they say even the best planing can't help the spread of urbanization in Europe, and they forecast that by 2020 the suburbs of Amsterdam and The Hague-Rotterdam should link with each other. In the case of Rotterdam-The Hague, if you want to find the urban link you would have to look around Delft, Pijnacker, Berkel en Rodenrijs, Hillegersberg where urban zones now touch eath other, with less than 200 meters of fields in between. Hardouin 19:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In two years time, you will be able to travel to the heart of The Hague on a Rotterdam subway train. I admit that it feels somewhat counterintuitive for those who've lived there, but it's certainly the way it's going. Bz2 19:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
in the article one mentions that the Randstad population is only a rough estimate. In Holland nothing is estimated, ever. The figure comes from the total population of the provinces Utrecht, Southern Holland minus Goeree-Overflakkee, an island, Northern Holland minus Texel, another island and Flevoland minus Noordoostpolder, a rural area and Urk a village. This sums up to 7,5 million citizens. There is no estimating here. It van be argued that parts of this definition shouldn't be included, but in my humble opinion it definitely should. I propose to remove the claim that this is a rough estimate (???) Migdejong 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I have used Google Maps, and found out that it can't be right that Rotterdam-The Hague is one urban area. Suppose Rotterdam port is part of Rotterdam, than the Nieuwe Waterweg is a boundary. According to the map, the Nieuwe Waterweg is broader than 200 metres, discarding Hoek van Holland and Maassluis from the Rotterdam urban area. Vlaardingen is solidly connected to Rotterdam, so from there the boundary of Rotterdam urban area can be followed north of the Nieuwe Waterweg. There is a large green area west and north of Vlaardingen. Schiedam is east to Vlaardingen and part of the Rotterdam urban area and also has a clear large green area north of it, with Delft a few kilometres away. East of Schiedam is Rotterdam proper with airport Zestienhoven. Here the green area is too wide again, so we have to look further east. The cap between Berkel en Rodenrijs and Rotterdam-Schiebroek is just wider than 200 metres. Further east is a wide green area again. Further east, the gap between Rotterdam and Bergschenhoek is less than 200 metres, meaning that Bergschenhoek belongs to the Rotterdam urban area. Bergschenhoek in its turn is connected to Berkel en Rodenrijs, so now we can head north west along Berkel en Rodenrijs. West of Berkel en Rodenrijs is the large green area, until we reach Pijnacker, which is connected, and so belongs to the Rotterdam urban area. West of Pijnacker is horticulture, which seems like an urban area, but actually is agriculture. The French could have counted this in, because it is build up territory. Suppose it isn't counted. Than, Pijnacker and Delfgauw aren't connected. North of Pijnacker is a large green area. East of Pijnacker is horticulture again, which may connect it to Zoetermeer, if counted. Otherwise it is another wide green area. East of Pijnacker we are in Berkel en Rodenrijs again, which is connected to the same horticulture area leading to Zoetermeer. East of Berkel en Rodenrijs we come to Bergschenhoek again, which has its north and east boundary linked to a horticulture area connected to Bleiswijk, which will not be counted again. Than we are back to the point where Bergschenhoek and Rotterdam connect. North of rotterdam in the area east of Bergschenhoek is a large green area again. In the north east, Rotterdam is connected to Groeneweg and Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel. And than we come to a major green area, which makes it impossible for Rotterdam to connect it to the Hague. So, my guess is that the French counted in the horticulture areas.Daanschr (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusing statistics about Netherlands[edit]

I find the population figures given are confusing, since they are very different from some other sources in Wikipedia itself:

I wanted to get the population figures of cities in the Netherlands and I was very much surprised by the figures given in this page. They don't even come near to the figures given in the pages I've listed above. The difference is very huge. I wonder why? Could someone clarify it to me. Thank you.

If you had read the notes on top of the article, you would know. Re-read them. The figures here are for URBAN AREAS. These are not figures for municipalites, these are not figures for metropolitan areas. E.g.: the urban area of Amsterdam is larger than the municipality of Amsterdam, and the metropolitan area of Amsterdam is larger than the urban area of Amsterdam. A French example: municipality of Paris 2.3 million inhabitants, urban area of Paris 9.9 million, metropolitan area of Paris 11.5 million. An English example: municipality of London (Greater London) 7.2 million, urban area of London 8.5 million, metropolitan area of London 11 to 13 million (depending where you put the limit of it). Municipalities are only artificial administrative units that are not very interesting for the geographer or statistician. Urban areas are more interesting for the geographer and statistician, and they can be objectively delimited on the ground (where the buildings stop and fields start). Metropolitan areas are also interesting for the geographer and statistician, but here its all a question of definition and where to put the limits of the metropolitan area. Got it? Hardouin 12:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


This article desperately needs to cite some sources! --Khendon 20:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources would create endless problems of copyright, no? Hardouin 12:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I have transformed the article into a list of largest urban areas of the European Union (as opposed to a list of urban areas of western Europe as it was before). This will be of more interest to people I think, and will enable comparisons with Largest cities of the European Union by population. Also, I put figures for 2005. Hardouin 23:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for these? john k 01:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, also, citing sources should be done - if you haven't plagiarized, there shouldn't be problems with copyright. If you have plagiarized, you've plagiarized whether or not you cite sources. john k 01:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, do you have the data that would allow us to have more entries here? I'd personally like to see all urban areas of over 100,000 or so listed, if that's possible. john k 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't unfortunately. If I had all the data from Geopolis (University of Avignon) it would be very easy to list all urban areas over 100,000 inhabitants. Unfortunately I only have their data for some European countries. For other European countries, either the national statistical offices provide the urban areas data (such as in the UK), in which case it is not too difficult to find the data; either the national statistical offices do not provide data for urban areas (such as in Poland, Latvia, Czech Republic, and so on), and then it would be rather nightmarish to try to compute all the urban areas above 100,000 (it was already nightmarish enough when I had to do it for the urban areas above 750,000 inhabitants). Hardouin 01:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geopolis seems strangely incomplete, as well, even for the countries covered - Ghent isn't listed for Belgium, for instance. Ah well... john k 04:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no. Geopolis is complete. This is a very serious research group that I respect a lot. If you don't see a city, that means it is included into the urban area of another city. Ghent and Antwerp are included into the urban area of Brussels, because analyzing detailed maps and aerial pictures, Geopolis considers that these three cities are now linked together by their suburbs. In 1990 it was not the case yet. In 2000 they were linked. When I made the list, in the case of Belgium I used the 1990 definition though. The reason for this is that Geopolis uses the 200 meters concept to determine whether something is part of an urban area or not. In very dense countries though, a 50 meters concept would make more sense. As things goes, with a 200 meters definition, someday there will be a huge urban area all the way from Rotterdam to Stutgart along the Rhine Valley. With a 50 meters definition, you are more conservative, so Brussels, Antwerp, and Ghent urban areas are still separate. The UK National Statistics also uses the 50 meters definition, which makes sense in the case of the highly dense England. So I considered Brussels, Antwerp, and Ghent to be still separate, as in 1990, and I also considered Ruhr Center, Ruhr South, and Cologne to be still separate, as in 1990 (Geopolis considers that these three linked up in 2000, and are now the largest urban area of Europe, which Geopolis calls "Ruhr"). Hardouin 22:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Perhaps we could move more conservative and got all the areas with >500,000, though... john k 23:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List doesn't follow its own definition[edit]

It is said in the text: "Urban areas are contiguous built-up areas where houses are not more than 200 meters apart (discounting rivers, parks, roads, industrial fields, etc.)." So why is there a "Cologne-Bonn area" with 2.5 Mio and a "South Ruhr-Düsseldorf-Wuppertal" area with 2.4 Mio? Between Cologne and Bonn there is a gap that really isn't urban. Even in Largest European metropolitan areas the Cologne metropolitan area has "only" 1.8 Mio. Same with "South Ruhr-Düsseldorf-Wuppertal". Do you really want to add the villages of Bergisches Land (Berg (German region)) to an urban area? It is said in the text: "Figures here are accurate, unlike rough estimates of European metropolitan areas than can be found online." I would say figures here are much less accurate than in most other sources.

Indeed, there are large problems with the list as it is, because the definiton of urban areas differs. I believe some of the list uses a definiton of built-up area no more than 200 metres apart, but it also uses data from the UK statistics office which uses a definiton of no more than 50 metres apart (read above), therefore it has an (unintentional) bias against the UK. This really needs resolving.-- Joolz 00:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two comments:
1- about the UK, it can't be helped, as 50 meters is the definition used by UK statistics. However, this plays only at the margin. With a 200 meters definition, UK urban areas would have population 10% to at maximum 20% higher. It's not like they would double their population! Also, be aware that this problem happens with most stastitics. Definitions for anything from GDP, to interest rate, to urban area, to literacy rate, you name it, definitions change from country to country, and sometimes even from decade to decade within a given country, so that someone comparing statistics should always be aware of a certain margin of error. The only difference is that here, I have explicitly listed the differences in definition, whereas in most stastics lists, nobody would care to tell you there are definition differences. E.g.: when you check a list of countries according to literacy rates, usually people don't care to tell you that the definition of literacy rate varies a lot from country to country. So let's not be naive. Pure exact data do not exist. The best we can do is to approximate reality.
2- about the Ruhr, the definitions come from Geopolis, and trust me they have done their homework. So if they say Bonn and Cologne are linked into a single urban area, I trust them. Check the English part of their website, they will explain you why you may perceive Bonn and Cologne as not linked together, while in fact they are. Same thing about South Ruhr. Hardouin 01:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just checked on a map actually ([1]), to make sure of the facts, and this is how I understand the urban link between Cologne and Bonn: Cologne center - Deutz - Poll - Westhoven - Ensen - Porz - Urbach - Elsdorf - Wahn - Lind - Spich - Troisdorf - Siegburg - St Augustin - Hangelar - Bechlinghoven - Beuel - Bonn center. I don't see any rural area between all these neighborhoods. Hardouin 01:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: about the UK and the 50 meters definition, I have data for London and Birmingham in 2000. In 2000, with a 50 meters definition the urban area of London had 8,250,000 inhabitants, whereas with a 200 meters definition it had 9,160,000 inhabitants. So you see that's only an 11% difference. For Birmingham, with a 50 meters definition there were 2,285,000 inhabitants, whereas with a 200 meters definition there were 2,456,000 inhabitants. That's a difference of only 7.5%. Also, remember that in a very dense country like England, a 50 meters definition makes more sense than a 200 meters definition. With a 200 meters definition, Manchester and Liverpool would be joined into a single urban area. Does it really make sense? Finally, I would also like to point this: in non dense countries like Spain or France, whether we use 50 meters or 200 meters makes no difference. I reckon with a 50 meters definition the population of Madrid or Paris urban areas would be only 1% smaller or so. So in fact, it's not so much that there's a bias agaisnt England with the 50 meters definiton, but it's more like there would be a bias FOR England with a 200 meters definition applied to England. The UK National Statistics understand that I suspect, and that's why they use the more conservative 50 meters definition. Hardouin 13:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using the same definitions is imperative when creating a list (in rank order as well) of different places. It's unfair to use one definition for one place and then a different definition for another. It's completely useless to compare the two. You say that there would be a bias for England if the same definitions were used, but that's sillyness - it would create an accurate representation of the truth, not bias. Furthermore, the fact that two definitions are being used isn't mentioned on the page (which i'll add now) when it clearly should be. -- Joolz 14:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last but not least[edit]

In the section titled "Non-EU countries of Western Europe", you omitted to include a qualifying urban area: Zagreb. Croatia is the only Western country in Europe (due to its Roman Catholic affinity) that does not belong to either the EU or EFTA. Nevertheless, its capital should be included in this short list along with Zurich and Oslo. -- Francisco 14:30, 07 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you can count Zagreb as in Western Europe, however perhaps the section should be entitled to cover non-eu countries of europe, not just western europe. -- Joolz 22:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is arguable that you can count it. Its history is similar to that of Slovenia, which is counted, and it is a Catholic country. It's at least as western European as, say, Lithuania. john k 02:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Slovenia is included because it's in the European Union, whereas Croatia is not. I haven't read of any definition (at least on wikipedia, and it does list some different definitions on the Western Europe page) that includes Croatia (or Slovenia iirc) as being part of Western Europe. This is why I don't think it's appropriate to put Zagreb in a section about places in Western Europe, but that it could easily be changed to "Non-EU countries of Europe" and have Zagreb included. -- Joolz 14:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this page is about the EU?[edit]

It used to be "Western Europe", a rather vague definition. Now it's about the European Union. My question is: why can't it be about Europe, period? Isn't that a tiny bit more *sane* than first pretending to talk about the EU alone, and then adding an arbitrary section about non-EU urban areas of so-called "Western Europe" that'd have been included in the list, if only they had been member states?

Instead of the what-ifs, why don't we make this page be about Europe, full-stop? I'm guessing that there's only one major urban area that falls right in the boundary of Europe and non-Europe, namely Istanbul. Should be no problem to include it with a footnote that it's located partially in Asia as well. Aris Katsaris 03:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) Russia things get kind of hairy, I think. But certainly everything west of Russia could easily be included. john k 03:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is not about the whole of Europe because it is virtually impossible to find serious data for urban areas of the European part of Russia. Besides, where does Europe stop? Is Ekaterinburg a European city? What about Astrakhan? Using the EU is convenient, and at least the subject is precisely defined. Hardouin 12:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that the only real reason that this list has been written down is so that there can be a list of EU cities where Paris is in the no. 1 spot, and not - zut alors - London, the centre of Perfidious Albion.--jrleighton 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics and accuracy[edit]

Given the amount of criticism directed at the list, I feel compelled to say a few words about statistics and accuracy. Statistics are not rocket science! When checking statistics lists such as the one in the article here, people should always be aware that there is a margin of error. As a rule of thumb, I would consider a 10% margin of error a safe bet. So when we find in the list that Munich is the 23rd largest urban area of the EU, what it tells us is that Munich is approximately ranking in the early 20s (could be 21st largest, could be 25th). What it tells us is that it is definitely not in the top 10 of the largest urban areas of the EU, and it is not ranking in the 50s or 60s ranks either. With a margin of error in mind, I think what we can say for sure from the list is that Paris is the largest urban area of the EU, and London is the 2nd largest urban area of the EU. Beyond that, all other urban areas could possibly be a few ranks up or down.

This uncertainty of statistics is found in any context. Even official census data, which most people always take for granted (as if it was the Gospel!), have themselves margins of errors. E.g.: at the 2000 US Census, the US Census Bureau said the population of the US was 281,421,906 (on April 1, 2000). This is the figure you find everywhere. In fact, nobody knows what was the population of the US on April 1, 2000. It could have been 275 million, it could have been 290 million. What the figure tell us is that it was definitely not 100 million, and it was definitely not 500 million. Definitions for censuses also change from country to country. In some countries, university students are counted as inhabitants of the city where the university is located, while in other countries they are counted as inhabitants of the city they come from. Is a Harvard student from Arkansas an inhabitant of Massachusetts? or an inhabitant of Arkansas? US Census Bureau will say one thing, other countries will say other things. As for military personnel, some countries count them in the city they come from, whereas other counties count them in the city where they are stationed. You may think this is a detail, but in a country like China where there are about 2.5 million people in the army, that can make a big difference. Yet in other countries, there are several definitions as to how people should be counted when a census is conducted, and some countries such as France produce different series of census data, based on different definitions, so that if you don't know the subtleties of these definitions, you may screw things badly. E.g.: at the 1999 census, the population of the city of Toulouse was 390,350 with definition #1, 398,423 with definition #2, and 389,496 with definition #3. In the French case, it is data with definition #1 that should be used when making international comparisons, but many Wikipedians ignore this, so I have found time and again the population of French cities on Wikipedia using definition #2, which increases the size of the population.

When it comes to statistics related to the economy, things get even more crazy. Even statistics coming from respectable institution such as World Bank of IMF should be taken with a lot of caution. For instance, the ranking of countries according to their GDP is published every year by the World Bank, and it is religiously reported here at Wikipedia every year. Problem is, different countries have widely different ways to calculate GDP, so that we should at least consider a 10% margin of error for the numbers in that list. For instance, some countries include government services (such as teaching delivered in state schools) in the GDP, while other don't. And the US is notoriously famous to present inflated GDP figures due to the definition they use. The World Bank list says that UK is the 4th largest economy in the world, France is the 5th, and Italy is the 6th. However, figures for these three countries are pretty close, and nobody knows for sure which is 4th, which is 5th, and which is 6th. For instance, services are overvalued in the UK, and calling a locksmith to open your door will cost you about £250 in London, but just £75 in Paris (I know that from experience!), so that the exact same job performed by a locksmith will add £275 to the UK GDP, but only £75 to the French GDP. As for Italy, it is estimated that at least 20 to 30% of the economy goes unreported, the so-called "black economy", in order to evade taxation, so that the GDP of Italy is considerably underestimated. So it is better to say that the economies of UK, France, and Italy have roughly the same size. But nobody will use conditional or "roughly", people love rankings and certainty, that's why no later than last week I heard Charles Kennedy, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, saying on TV that "we should be proud to be the fourth largest economy in the world". Unfortunately, there's no certainty in statistics I'm afraid. So next time please be a bit more indulgent when you criticize the list of largest urban areas of the EU. Hardouin 14:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where it's possible to use consistant statistics (for instance, for as much as possible using the same definitions, from the same people) we should do, and where it isn't we must document it. Up until now no mention on the main page was made that the UK's urban areas use a 50metre definition.
Whilst we're on the subject of accuracy, I'm confused as to where the figure for Paris (and some other places, such as Madrid, Essen) come from because (i hope i'm looking on the right place on geopolis, my french is patchy at best) the figures for Paris are ~9.8 million, 4.8 million for Madrid and ~10million for Essen. Did the figure for Paris come from ? My french is too poor to be able to read that document, but I couldn't see the figure quoted here in there. -- Joolz 15:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Madrid is in the right place, my apologies. The other comments still stand though. -- Joolz 15:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Figures at Geopolis are for 2000. Figures here are for 2005. For Paris, figures have also been revised up due to latest French census data from 2004. For Essen I used the 1990 definition of Geopolis, not the 2000 definition. Every 10 years they update the limits of urban areas. Problem is, in very dense areas like the Ruhr, the 200 meters concept may lead to crazy results. So their Essen figure for 2000 is actually a vast urban area extending all the way from Essen down to Cologne and Bonn. There are already people here critizing the fact that Bonn and Cologne are included into a single urban area, now just imagine what they would say if we included everything from Essen to Bonn into a single urban area! So I prefered to use the 1990 definition, which is more conservative, because it distinguishes a Essen-Ruhr central area, distinct from a Düsseldorf-Wuppertal-south Ruhr urban area, distinct from a Cologne-Bonn urban area (whereas the 2000 definition gathers all of them together). Again, this kind of problems happen in very dense areas, so we will face such problems with: England, Ruhr, Belgium, and Netherlands. For Belgium I also used the 1990 definition (otherwise we would have a single Brussels-Antwerp urban area!). The rest of Europe is not as troublesome. Hardouin 23:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to pick and choose our definitions of urban areas. It's best to stick to one (wherever possible). After all, an urban area is an area that is urban, so if the Ruhr is now one built up area (with buildings closer than 200m) then we should simply say so in the statistics. We've also got some figures which are 15 years old, and some that are new this year. I think we should stick to the 200m definition of Geopolis, and use the 2000 data from them wherever possible. I understand that they haven't published any data for over half of the EU countries, so in cases of the UK or Sweden (etc) we will have to settle with the statistics+definitions from their national statistics departments, and use their figures. -- Joolz 23:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a tricky point I agree. Just think that if we use the 2000 definition for Belgium, we end up with a Brussels urban area of 4 million inhabitants! Nowhere you will find that Brussels has 4 million inhabitants. So what people would think in terms of the credibility of our list? I think we could rationalize it by saying we use conservative definitions (50 meters, 1990 definitions) in very dense territories, and normal definitions (200 meters, 2000 definitions) in less dense territories. Also, let me correct you on one thing: its not the data that are 15 year old, its the definitions. That's a big difference. Hardouin 00:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's credible to say that we can use one definition for less dense countries, and another for more dense countries, because if an area is urban it is urban. We shouldn't be swayed by people's pre-conceptions, if our data is accurate and it says the urban area called Brussels has 4 million inhabitants, then there's no getting round the fact that the urban area called Brussels does indeed have 4 million inhabitants. Personally I think the list would be much more interesting, relevent, accurate if it were to (as much as it were possible) use the same definitions for every area, and then we could actually see where the built up areas are. It's only because we both know that England and the Ruhr are extremely built up that we can see there are some problems with the list. If someone who didn't know the demographics of the region were to look at the list, they'd come to the conclusion that Paris is very built up indeed, and the Ruhr less so, when in fact we both know it's the other way round! -- Joolz 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually you're completely wrong on that. The urban area of Paris is much much more densily built-up than the Ruhr (3120 inh. per km² for Paris urban area vs. 1480 inh. per km² for the 2000 definition Ruhr-Cologne-Bonn urban area). In fact the densities found in the urban area of Paris are the highest in Europe (Russia excluded). Even if you take the whole Île-de-France région, which is much larger than the urban area of Paris, the density is still 938 inh. per km², compared to only 530 inh. per km² in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Hardouin 01:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would seem like it would be ideal to just use the 50 meter number throughout, if possible. That would insure non-crazy results in the denser areas, and probably wouldn't change the less dense areas so much. But this might be difficult to actually do. john k 02:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. Using the 50 meters definition throughout would be the best. Unfortunately, we don't have these data, as the UK is the only country in Europe to use the 50 meters definition. But feel free to write to Eurostat to suggest them to enforce a Europe wide 50 meters definition. Lol. Hardouin 12:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, since we can't use the 50 meter definition throughout, we should use the 200m definition throughout (except the uk where we'll have to use 50m) - agreed? -- Joolz 15:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with using the 50m definition for very dense areas, but shouldn't that be included as a note on Important Notes. I think it might prevent edits by user who don't know this destition between definitions. Maartenvdbent 11:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


To the users who always keep upgrading Tricity in the list: 1,041,000 inhabitants is a figure for the METROPOLITAN AREA. Here, this is a list of populations of URBAN AREAS, and the population of the urban area of Gdansk-Gdynia is only 849,000 inhabitants. You get the distinction? Re-read the introduction of the article if you're confused. And stop making incorrect edits! Also, it's better to leave the name Gdansk-Gdynia. Most people are not familiar with the name "Tricity". Hardouin 11:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please give me any serious source that urban areas in Tricity are smaller then metropolitan areas and actually match borders of the cities: Gdansk, Gdynia and Sopot? Cautious 15:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Cautious, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and what the difference is between an urban area and a metropolitan area. Quit reverting the article, and quit accusing Hardouin of vandalism. john k 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

So what is the difference? According to Polish legal stand, thera are urban and rural communities POINT. How you are going to measure Polish urban/metropolitan areas population if these meanings have no equivalents in Poland?? The problem of Hardoiun is that he has found some statistical data about Pomeranian Voivodship, where the area is divided on Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot, Gdansk region and Slupsk region. Some small brain clerk in stat office has made this division that actually makes no sense except statistical. One would probably buy a house in Zukowo only bacuase it is very tidy town few kilometers from Tricity Cricle Highway so you can reach at ease every point of Tricity. However, Zukowo is town in Gdansk region. Between Zukowo borders and Gdansk borders there is a gap, officially classified as rural area. Nevertheless, there is house after house on the connecting highway, so according to definition from the article both towns belong to the same urban area. Am I correct? Cautious 20:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italian cities[edit]

I have deleted edit by anonymous user who doesn't know what he/she is talking about, obviously. In the the list , the figures for Italian cities are not the provincial population figures. They are strictly population figures for Italian urban areas, as calculated by the Geopolis research group, who have done their research carefully, as was explained many times here. Hardouin 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what about 2013? Did really Naples and Rome grow that quickly in one year so they overpassed Athens, Berlin and Lisbon? In 2012 the population of these cities was not that high. We need sources here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Eon's edit[edit]

Eon user should show us the official documents from where his new figure for the Gdansk-Gdynia urban area comes, before we actually modify the figure in the list. Then after we see the documents, the other users will be able to have their say on this, and if all agree we'll make the change. Hardouin 00:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome:

I myself made necessary calculations (see Tricity article). I added up populations of all urban "gminas" that consist one continous urban area. Since my calculations are already in place, I am going to restore my edits and I will wait for remarks to adjust the numbers, if there is serious reason for it. 05:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exaggerated claims[edit]

The whole tone of this article is that it's perfect and beyond dispute, but this is just plain wrong. Settlement patterns are infinitely complex and these are still just one person's numbers. Just the UK figures throw up all sorts of problems and will seriously mislead people. How on earth does Birkenhead merit dual billing with Liverpool while Bradford (a real city in its own right, which Birkenhead isn't) is treated as a mere suburb of Leeds that isn't worth mentioning. Osomec 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

These are not "one person's numbers" as you wrongly say. The figures here come for the most part from a research group at the University of Avignon. The matter was already discussed above. Read before making acusations. As for Birkenhead, here is the reasoning: in the vast majority of cases, only the name of the most populated city in the urban area is used in the article. However, in a few cases, to avoid ambiguities, another name was added, so you will find "Rotterdam-The Hague", "Newcastle-Sunderland", or "Liverpool-Birkenhead". The reason for this is because some sources treat these urban areas as two separate urban areas, while other treat them as a single urban area. So here, to avoid ambiguity, the second name was added to make it clear that the figure listed is not just for Rotterdam, not just for Newcastle, and not just for Liverpool. In the particular case of Liverpool-Birkenhead, the UK Office for National Statistics treat the Liverpool urban area and the Birkenhead urban area as two separate urban areas because they are divided by the River Mersey. However, according to the most widely used definition of urban areas in the world, rivers and estuaries are not counted in the 200 meters rule, so that most sources treat Liverpool-Birkenhead as a single urban area. So the name was added only for disambiguation. In the case of Leeds-Bradford, nobody has ever treated them as two separate urban areas (not in the last 50 years at least), so there's no need to disambiguate, and this urban area is usually known only as "Leeds". Hardouin 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I wouldn't have thought that Bradford was included with Leeds (until reading this) so I'm going to put Leeds-Bradford just to make it clear to everyone what it refers to -- Joolz 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
What about we put footnotes instead of lenghtening the names of urban areas? Or we could add extra info in parenthesis, such as "Leeds (incl. Bradford)" or "Rotterdam (incl. The Hague)". Hardouin 10:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think footnotes would be a bit too cluttering and awkward for reading, I'm fine with either the current situation or the second option you suggest though -- Joolz 12:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

UK figures for 2005[edit]

The article gives figures for 2005 for various urban areas in the United Kingdom. What is the source of these figures? The Office of National Statistics source quoted in the References section of the article gives figures for 2001 and these figures differ from those quoted in the article. The University of Avignon source in the Reference section showed the UK page as a work in progress and did not appear to list any figures for the UK at all. Thanks. Valiantis 19:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in the introduction of the article. Re-read it. In short, for the UK the 2001 figures provided by the Office for National Statistics were used, and the 2005 figures in the list were calculated based on the growth rate of population between 1991-2001. Hardouin 10:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I now appreciate that you have calculated these figures yourself, which I had misunderstood previously. Unfortunately this leads to the question, in which way is this not original research? Valiantis 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusing about the Nuernberg statistics[edit]

At this list the urban area of Nuernberg has a Population of 756.000.

And here:

Why that? I think the Population of 1.050.000 is the correct value.

The 1,050,000 figure is for the METROPOLITAN AREA of Nuremberg. The 756,00 figure is for the URBAN AREA. Here this is a list of urban areas, not metropolitan areas. Read the introduction of the article to understand the difference. Hardouin 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct Population of Italian cities - ONU 2004[edit]

according with the ONU censu bureau i change the Milano population of the URBAN AREA to the correct numeber of 4.007.000 inhabitants (2004). The same changes for Roma, Napoli and Torino. More information at the official site of ONU:


I saw in history that this is a list of Urban Areas not Metropolitan areas, portuguese law doesn't recognize "urban areas" only "Metropolitan Areas" if you delete Braga you also must delete Lisbon and Oporto. So it's hipocrisy deleting Braga.

This list is absolute nonsense - Suggested for deletion..[edit]

The list makes no sense what so ever and I going to suggest it for deletion... the definition that the writer tries to explain is vague and totally subjective. I see no reason for this list to exist... it should be replaced prehaps by a list that contains a collection- not neccesarily ranked of the metro populations of Europe's largest cities... This list seems totally random and not very beleivable - there are some thing here that I find hard to accept- why does the Paris urban area encompass basically all of the Ile de France region, a huge region including urban, surburban, and even rural areas, while London here only includes the areas inside the so-called Green Belt when the city's surbuban sprawl is far larger. Or Munich and Zurich, Munich's urban population is almost identical to the city's population, although the city is surrounded by densely population surburban sprawl, while nearby Zurich includes the city and just about all of the surrounding region.. I don't get it - the method used for this list is nonsense. I think this is an ideal candidate for deletion.

Angry user, the list is based on scientific research by university statisticans mind you. It seems quite bizare to me that just because you are not used to the data presented here, it means it is necesarily wrong and should be deleted. The examples you give are also showing you don't know much about the subject. The figure listed here for the Paris urban area DOES NOT encompass the whole of the Ile de France région. In fact the urban area of Paris (10,136,000 inhabitants as written in the list) is only the central area of the Ile de France région (about 11,300,000 inhabitants in 2005). As for Munich and Zurich, the data are strictly based on the research by the University of Avignon. Check their website ([2]), they have an explanation page in English about the methodology used if you don't understand it. I also want to stress that the 200 meters definition for urban areas is not "vague" and "totally subjective", but is widely used and recognized by demographers around the world, and is also used by the UN. Hardouin 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't trust the University of Avignon, you can also check the World Urbanization Prospects report pulished by the United Nations in 2003 ([3]), look at Table A.12, and you'll see that the UN figures are strikingly similar to those in the article here. So if the list "makes no sense what so ever", is "totally random", and "not very believable", then feel free to call the United Nations statisticians to let them know that their data are nonsense and that you know better. Hardouin 04:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's Gothenburg?[edit]

Metropolitan Gothenburg has a population of almost 850,000. Yet, it's not on the list. Would someone please add it?

Edit: Forget this post. Didn't see that the list just included the urban area.

In fact it is like that. The Urban Area of Gothenburg is larger than the statistics says. I would say that the urban area has at least 800 000 inhabitants. First they do not count large part of the city of Gothenburg. Like Torslanda, Rödbo, Säve, Tuve and Billdal and also the southern arcipelago that is a part of the city. Then there are parts that are emerged with the city that belongs to other municipalties that do not count. Like Surte-Bohus were you actually can see the Lövgärdet as you see Surte Lövgärdet is on a hill and below there is Surte. . Then is Kungälv only separated from the city of Göteborg by a river and it is right to the oposite of Surte. Then Billdal is not counted because there is a park between Billdall and the statistical urban area of Gothenburg. Billdal lies in both Kungsbacka and Gothenburg. Were the Onsala peninsula and central Kungsbacka is an urban area connected to Gothenburg. Then is Lerum connected to the urban area and also Öckerö that is right to the opposite of Torslanda. We could also say that Alingsås is connected to Lerum. Then there are probably less than 200 metres between the houses along all Göta river up to Lilla Edet. I would say that the Göteborg urban area has at least 800 000 people. The thing is that those that work on the bureau of statistics in Sweden are hostile towards Gothenburg and want it to appear as small and insignificant as possible. Thats why they do this. So it is obviously not unbiased.

You are confusing urban area and metropolitan area. SCB has a precise defintion of urban area (tätort) and you can't go on and change that just because you want Göteborg on the list. If we are going to use the 800 000+ figure for Göteborg we would have to use the 1 700 000+ figure for Stockholm to be coherent, and as mentioned, that is the metropolitan area, wich doesn't belong on this list. My suggestion is that Göteborg is removed from the list. For the record, I live in Göteborg. Poktirity 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts not estimates[edit]

If the latest figures available are for 2000 those should be the ones used. Extrapolation is original research and has no place here. Merchbow 07:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Geopolis list will be updated again in 2010 only, so it would quickly become obsolete if we didn't make extrapolations. These extrapolations are not original research, because they are not based on cooked up growth rates, but merely on the 1990s growth rates as reported by Geopolis in 2000. Whenever new estimates from national census offices are available, these have been used instead. For instance, since 2004 the French INSEE have released new estimates for French cities, so these have been used instead of the Geopolis 2000 estimates. Whoever is aware of new estimates of urban areas by any national census bureau in the EU25 should report them and add them to the list. Hardouin 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Newcastle - Sunderland should be here[edit]

Your definition of metropolitan areas doesn't stack up for Newcastle - Sunderland as there's a large greenbelt (much more than 200m) between them. See,-1.479721&spn=0.143307,0.241356

Newcastle - Gateshead - North Tyneside - South Tyneside is acceptable though at around 750000. 13:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is probably due to Sunderland being part of the Metropolitan County of Tyne & Wear which gives the impression it is part of the same urban area (although statistically is). Looking on the map it is clear there is a definate green wedge of non-urbanisation between Sunderland and South Sheilds in the north, however to the immediate west of Sunderland is Washington which is part of the City pf Sunderland, and Washington is connected to Gateshead through its urban area. So Sunderland is part of the Newcastle urban area through this way. I never fully understood why it is the Newcastle urban area and not the Sunderland urban area, after all Sunderland is a more populous district.

Another thing that bothers me is the UK having metropolitan areas at all, surely a country so densely populated, that all metro areas become co-terminus and are part of the same area of influence.

Shouldn't it be called "Tyneside-Wearside"? It includes many areas which are neither Newcastle nor Sunderland. Lfh 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Milan 2006[edit]

added new population of Urban Area of Milan in the year 2006 by Italian Governement, the Demographia Group and World Gazzetter.


Barcelona’s Metropolitan Area is 5.150.000 (updated to 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as it is observed in... (data 2005)

Serious upgrade required[edit]

This article should not be a national contest about "who is biggest" but should give some factual information. I have taken out a lot of inaccuracies, which honesty, do not belong in Wikipedia. I was disappointed my well intended correction were reverted. Therefore I am now doing a more thorough job explaining every change below.

Please find below a list of explanations to my changes:

a) It is a list of urban areas. Therefore I think it is important there is a link to the definition of "urban area". Secondly, it is a list of urban areas and therefore it presents population figures for "urban areas", NOT cities. A city is something different. A city can be a political or administrative unit. A city can be a functional unit (for instance "Paris" being considerably larger than the "Ville de Paris"). In contrast, an "urban area" is a geographical observation. It can contain multiple cities (as it often does). It does not give a correct indication of the sizes of cities because the correlation with the size of the administrative unit is very low, and the correlation with the size of the functional city is also low. It is not because you have a large urban area, that the city is necessarily large. Take the example of Lille-Kortrijk: this is one very large Urban area but they are two cities, both cities even speak a different language and functionally "Kortrijk" is closer to Brussels than to Lille. Also, certain cities have green belts, other don't. These planning apsects reduce the correlation between the population size of a city and the population size of an urban area.

b) It is a fact that the table uses different input sources therefore why hide the truth about it in the introduction? Also, as there is no "harmonized" definition, we get into problems when the University of Avignon does not have the figure. The debates on this discussion page should make this extremely clear.

c) Not all the numbers have been grossed up because for some cities you take the most recent number available (also see above on this discussion page). Therefore it is wrong to suggest there is a consistent methodology when there is none.

d) To state you can just derive the 2005 population figures for urban areas in Europe by grossing up the 2000 numbers contradiscs you own statement above under the discussion "The Hague - Rotterdam". For instance I was not aware myself that The Hague and Rotterdam have become one singly urban area (and they are certainly not one city, just ask anybody from either The Hague or from Rotterdam) and yet this list is useful to show a geographical phenomenon (urban sprawl) but then you cannot assume it suddenly stops! In 2005 a number of urban areas may have become connected and a number of new ones created. Grossing up the 2000 numbers using 1990-2000 growth rates does not address this aspect at all.

e) An urban area does not need to correspond to one single administrative or functional city. It could contain multiple cities. When the urban sprawl in the Netherlands and Belgian continues, will we argue that the metropolitan area of Brussels equals the the urban area plus the satellites. No, a metropolitan area is a functional defintion, as you pointed out yourself. Therefore your comment that a metropolitan area is always larger than the urban area is wrong. I show the example Lille-Kortrijk. Tow very different cities, people speak differen lanaguages, ahev a different culture, live in different countries: one urban area --> yes (although I do not know where they touch); one metropolitan area --> no, certainly not. This regarding the first footnote. Now, if in the first footnote we admit this is not a list of metropolitan areas, then logically we need a second footnote to eplain it is also not a lost of cities. Same argument goes as above. Lille and Kortrijk or The Hague and Rotterdam: each pair represents a single urban area(at least according to this study), but the cities in these pairs remain very distinct at the same time.

f) You state that a LUZ has to be larger than the urban area. No, a LUZ can be smaller than an urban area (Rotterdam, Lille, etc, etc) and it can also be smaller than an administrative city (Marseille if I remember rightly). LUZ is a functional concept: does it act, behave as part of the city? Also it is important to point out to anybody consulting Wikipedia that Eurostat does not calculate urban zones and that the list you present is not harmonized.

g) Not a mjor point but a logical extension. If we explain the perceived cities may be larger than the urban areas, we should also state the percived cities can be smaller than the urban areas.

h) OK reinserted this paragraph. Some of the paragraph is the original comment about satellites etc. This was a relevant comment. I expand by eplaining where urban areas are useful but where they can be used wrongly. I think this is important certainly in the context of this article. This paragraph can certainly be expanded.

f) Regarding "see also". The reference to "Largest cities and metropolitan areas in the European Union (Eurostat)" should be named this way. The article is about Eurostat's analyzis of urban demographics and statistics in the EU. LUZ is a ottl they use and is described as such, but the topic of this article is not LUZ.

JGG 11:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the population figures of the urban areas of London and Paris have been recently changed and it's false! Paris is #1 with 10.136 M inhabitants whereas London is #2 with 8.5 M, not the contraty!


Shouldnt it be included in Copenhagen as the Oresund Region? 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is urban areas, not regions or metropolitan areas. Poktirity 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


The population given here (1,749,154) is the metropolitan population, not the urban population, which is 1,168,270 according to the Glasgow article. I edited the article to this effect but it has since been reverted - is there a good reason for this? Lfh 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I know it's all been said - but this article is very confusing.

If I look here Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, and here List of metropolitan areas by population, and here Largest cities in the world by UN census, and here Largest European metropolitan areas and then this article, I get wildy different figures for places such as London and Paris. The fact seems to be that different countries use different definitions for population so some French university attempted to solve it with a convoluted theory (suprise, suprise - Paris comes out top). Why a single source is being used as the basis for yet another population list article is beyond me.

You just have to look at a map to see London has the 'largest urban area' (surely this article should be 'Most Populous Urban Area'?).

And the fact Tyne and Wear (Newcastle-Sunderland) is in this list just proves to me it has been cobbled together. Tyne and Wear, as a metropolitan area has a +1 million population, but it is NOT an urban area. The metropolitan area (especially Sunderland) includes dozens of outlying towns and villages that are seperated by farmland and green belt. The urban area of Sunderland has only 177,000 people (as specified by the UK Office of National Statistics), as opposed to the 280,000 within the met. borough which is the figure used here.

This article adds no value - only further confusion in already muddy area. John the mackem 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Assessment[edit]

Template moved to top.--Boson 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Main source is not available[edit]

Geopolis research is no more available on University of Avignon servers. I think this is substancial problem for this article. Another problem is data in this article are hardly comparable since they used different sources for different cities and, e.g. for Prague, they used incorrectly data for population within city limits and not for urban area. If nobody will add main source to this article on which majority of figures here are based on, I think the article is due for abolishing.--kokpit | talk 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A version of the data is available at the INSEE website but only for urban areas with 1 million+ population. --Polaron | Talk 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think in the case of Prague the population within city limits is pretty much the same as the population of the urban area, because the municipality is very large and encompasses all the suburbs of Prague. Keizuko 18:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you prove that somehow? IMO it's not true, Prague's urban area continues on several places outside city limits too so I suppose it's urban area population will be greater than within city limits. According to Eurostat Prague's metropolitan area have 1.9 mil ppl, shame they don't measure urban area too. --kokpit | talk 15:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Milan urban area[edit]

Wikipedia: "The city proper (Comune di Milano) has a population of 1,308,735 inhabitants (2004). The population of the urban area (Greater Milan, La Grande Milano), comprising the core of Lombardy, is estimated as of 2006 to be 4,280,820 people".......

the list show milan 3 798 000.....!!!

What source does the Milan article use? Why not cite that when you change the figure? --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


copy and paste from few lines over:

Correct Population of Italian cities - ONU 2004 according with the ONU censu bureau i change the Milano population of the URBAN AREA to the correct numeber of 4.007.000 inhabitants (2004). The same changes for Roma, Napoli and Torino. More information at the official site of ONU:

official population of URBAN AREA OF MILAN. 4.007.000 in the year 2004. the last estimate for 2006 talks about 4.280.820.

i make the change. please don't correct another time if you don't have any other OFFICAL ESTIMATE better than UNITED NATION CENSUS BUREAU.


Note that the 2005 revision of the report you are citing has an even lower figure of 2,953,000. See here. --Polaron | Talk 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And so...what it means?! ISTAT never did a Metro Area cenus. NEVER. so..what do you want? you don't like United Nation Census Bureau? too partisan? not official? not good for you?

it's a your problem.

Please look at the link I gave above. That is the UN estimate based on Istat's labor market area definition, which the UN uses in its urban agglomeration figure. If you want to use UN figures for all, that is ok but they are all generally smaller than the Geopolis figures. Please don't just change one figure to another source since this is a ranked list. If you wish to use a different source, please change all the figures. Also note that this is an urban area list and not a metropolitan area list. --Polaron | Talk 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Urban Area of Milan: 5.000.000

Demographia World Urban Areas (World Agglomerations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoano (talkcontribs) 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be better to change the name in the list to "Brussels-Antwerp?" That way people will more easily understand the 4 million figure, and the cities are so distinct, both are well known, it just seems more logical. And pure technically the city of Antwerp is bigger than the city of Brussels anyway. --Lamadude 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen and Stockholm[edit]

Surprisingly I found that the urban area of Copenhagen contains 1.426.000 citizens and the figur for Stockholm is 1.417.000 citizens. If we take into account that buildnings should not be more distant than 200 meters, Copenhagen only has 1.084.885 citizens. The figure of more than 1,4 million count in whole minicipalities even though only a little part would be included in C-urban area considering the 200 meter rule. The Stockholm figure is too high as well. Considering the rule it only has 1.252.020 citizens. Adding all municipalities which in a way form part of the urban area (like they did in Copenhagen) would give number of 1.761.125 citizens (from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirro (talkcontribs) 15:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The 1.084.855 people for Copenhagen is only the urban area. This article is about metropolitan areas. The Copenhagen Metropolitan area is around 2.0 million on the danish side, and 3.5 million total if you count cross-national. Both these number are using the standard EU measurement of metropolitan areas. Carewolf 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Carewolf, are u joking with me? This article IS about urban areas NOT metropolitan areas. If you consider the definition of an urban area, Copenhagen has a population of 1.084.885 and Stockholm is a bit larger. And as I have pointed out in the article about Copenhagen, the öresund region is not a metropolitan area. The metro area of Malmö does not stretch over the whole county of Skåne - Only the south-western part is included and it has around 605.000 citizens. Furthermore, Copenhagen metro area does not include islands as Lolland, Falster, Mön and Bornholm (these islands are all included in the administrativ definition of Öresundsregionen, which has around 3.6M citizens). Perhaps these islands are included according to some wikipedians, but our job as editors is NOT to make up our own definitions. The metropolitan area of Copenhagen has (officially) 1,825,814 or 1,593,709 citizens (depending on how you define the metro area). The Malmö-Copenhagen metro-area is a fusion between these areas and has thus a population of about 2,430,000 or 2,200,000. Carewolf, please read my comments on the Copenhagen article - why the whole of Öresundsregionen can't be regarded as a metro area. But however, this article is about urban areas so let us discuss the metro issue somewhere else. Nirro Nirro 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The urban area of Stockholm has about 1.250.000 inhabitants, but Polaron doesn't seem to agree with me about that. So what can I do about that? Calle Widmann 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You might want to cite a source from that lists the definition and population. --Polaron | Talk 12:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tricity again[edit]

There is an issue with placement of Gdansk (Tricity) on the list. According to reference documents it has nearly 1100000 of population. Polar says it is different category. Maybe yes maybe not. Nevertheless if we count only strict are of Tricity (Gdansk+ Gdynia+ Sopot+Rumia+Pruszcz Gdanski) we still are over 750 000. We need to find a way to include Gdansk-Tricity in the list Eon 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a cite from the Polish Central Statistics Office that we can link to for the urban area? The LUZ concept in the Eurostat Urban Audit program is defined using commuter criteria and is not an urban area, which are usually defined by land use and/or population density. --Polaron | Talk 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


What about Riga (Latvia)? The city itself has about 750 000 inhabitants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Title and England and Wales[edit]

The title of this article is misleading. It does not follow official statistical Urban Area definitions in England and Wales. It should either:

1) be moved to something else (try "urbanized region" or "conurbation") to avoid confusion with the official English-and-Welsh English term "Urban Area"; or:

2) be altered to follow National Statistics' definitions for England and Wales (which at least attempts to be consistent (I won't go into its flaws now)). It has already been suggested above that the values represent original research. I would further suggest that the research quality is poor: it seems to have used some sort of metropolitan area figure for Liverpool-Manchester, rather than the individual Urban Area figures, whilst giving a figure ~300k *lower* than the Urban Area figure for Birmingham; this is clearly inconsistent, and seems totally absurd when you consider the relative compactnesses of the UAs (look at the maps) and the core city sizes. (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


The metropolitan area of Ostrava has approximately 1,165,000 inhabitants ( Why there isn't mentioned this information in your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flemish diamond[edit]

I don't agree with putting the Flemish Diamond in this list, because it ignores the fact that the urban area of Brussels continues into Walloon Brabant (which is not a part of Flanders) Therefore 2 things should change: -the population number should go up (since it does not count the Brussels urban area in Wallonia) -It should be renamed to something like "Brussels-Antwerp" and NOT Flemish diamond--Lamadude (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Therefore I changed the name back to Brussels-Antwerp, if somebody disagrees please say it here. Note that I do not say that the Flemish Diamond does not exist, I'm just saying it ignores Walloon Brabant, the borders are political rather than based on the actual urban area--Lamadude (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are never 5,477,000 people living in the "Brussels-Antwerp area", whichever that may exactly include. It's a list of urban areas with above 750,000 inhabitants. Well, the Flemish diamond is such an area. Wikifalcon (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a mess[edit]

The source is broken, there are missing cities... well, I have tagged it as incomplete, because it is incomplete.David (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the table to use the urban areas list by Demographia. This will also make it consistent with the global list of urban areas. --Polaron | Talk 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about East Europe?[edit]

I agree with the previous post. There are a lot of areas missing. Eg. Budapest, Bucharest... Well, it even stops before reaching Austria, Vienna is missing too... (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The three cities you mentioned are all already listed. You must have missed them. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


There's no Krakow on the list, despite the fact that the city alone has over 750 000 residents. - (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I tried to add Krakow to the list as Krakow agglomeration is 1,450,000 according to Polish government statistics, however someone has removed it from the list.The city itself has 755,000 according to Wikipedia so I don't understand why it is not on the list. I hope someone could look into that. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete list of Urban areas of the EU[edit]

Is there any? -- (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Page is in dire dire need of repair (or deletion)[edit]

All the links (outside of the non-notable Demographia) are dead. The methodology of the list is lacking, there are different standards for different countries and the list itself looks bizarre.

I think it gives undue weight to a fringe theory and as it can not be verified by any outside sources, I recommend deletion, but I am willing to wait a couple of weeks for some interested party to make it look a bit less loopy (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Data for Vienna old an incorrect[edit]

The data vor vienna are too low. Even inside the City area there are around 1,7 Million people nowadays. [1]. The urban area _should_ be larger than the city area, which proves a quick look at the map. -- (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)



The picture for Rome [4] is St. Peter's square in Vatican which is technically not part of Rome, not even part of Italy. Meursault2004 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Can anyone provide a good reason why should be considered a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia? Those wonderful lists of population figures that fill that site all come from..... where, exactly? Nothing is cited. In fact, Demographia is run by the controversial figure, Wendell Cox. Here's an article about said figure: I don't think this sounds like the kind of source we need around here. (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does someone keep changing the Demographia figure for the Paris urban area to around 12 million? The figure - plainly there in the document - is 10,858,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruhr Area[edit]

As the list shows, the Ruhr Valley currently is the 3rd largest urban area in the EU but it is not represented by a photograph, instead someone put a photo of Lisbon, a beautiful city, but "only" ranked 12th. Could this be changed, please, or could a photo of the Ruhr Area be added? One of Essen or Düsseldorf representing the whole area would just be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

European Urban Audit[edit]

What is the Urban Audit? The Urban Audit provides European urban statistics for 258 cities across 27 European countries. It contains almost 300 statistical indicators presenting information on matters such as demography, society, the economy, the environment, transport, the information society and leisure. The Urban Audit was conducted at the initiative of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy at the European Commission, in cooperation with EUROSTAT and the national statistical offices of the 25 current Member States plus Bulgaria and Romania. Following a pilot project for the collection of comparable statistics and indicators for European cities the first full-scale European Urban Audit took place in 2003, for the then 15 countries of the European Union. In 2004 the project was extended to the 10 new Member States plus Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Under Eurostat coordination, the work of the Urban Audit involves all national statistical offices as well as some of the cities themselves. The second full-scale Urban Audit took place between 2006 and 2007, and involved 321 European cities in the 27 countries of the European Union, along with 36 additional cities in Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Urban Audit Home Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Urban Audit uses the concept of a "functional urban region", which is an administrative center plus surrounding area with sufficient in-commuting. The Urban Audit concept is more of a metropolitan area rather than a purely morphological urban area like this list. --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian capitals[edit]

I updated the population numbers for the scandinavian capitals. Some of the numbers represented the metropolitan area and not the urban area. There are probably alot of other cities in this list with the same problem. I personally think that this list is pretty pointless unless you have the right numbers, wich I doubt that the majority of the cities on this list have. -- (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the 750 000 cutoff?[edit]

why not limit the list to urban areas above 1 million, or extend to those above 500 000? 750 000 number looks kind of random.Rudi Maxer (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Cracow is the second biggest city in Poland, why smaller cities from poland like łódź and gdańsk are in the list and cracow is not with population 1 468 427 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracow Again[edit]

here is an article, as i said before IT IS THE 2ND LARGEST CITY IN POLAND, why still smaller cities like łódź gdańsk are still higher then cracow with urban area 1 468 427 dated on 30 VI 2010?

the newest datas are here —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracow Again 2[edit]

here are all datas with polish urban areas , 1st Katowice 2nd Warsaw 3rd Cracow.

i hope someone would check it and correct all . thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Statistics Sweden measures the Swedish urban areas every five year (... 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010). The figure in the list seems to be the same as 2005 estimate. This source shows the figures for 2010 [[5]]. The population is currently at 1,372,565 (p9) and the desity at 3,597/km2 (p17). These figures are in conflict with the Demografia-figure of 1,285,000.

Interestingly the source says that they use figures from statics Sweden [[6]] and have extrapolated this for the current year. But the growth rate has been much been much higher than they appearently have taken into account. It should be mentioned that the "Demografia" paper was released in april 2011, while the correct figures were published in june the sam year. So their figures weren't probably incorrect given the extrapolation procedure. Should we use the correct (higher) figures or should we use the obsolete estimtes from "demografia"? What do you think? Nirro (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Warsaw haven't got population even close to 4 500 000, I have no idea who type so silly number. Check - whole Warsaw MA has about 2 600 000, so about 2 000 000 less than in the article... And second thing - the largest MA in Poland is Silesian MA (Katowice MA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


It's listed twice. Zweifel (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources[edit]

Currently, this list is in very poor shape. While it started out perfectly fine, it is now plagues by original research and errors up to the point where some studies are included twice on the list, with very different population figures. What some users obviously fail to understand is how to use sources. If we have a list, and this article is a list, then there is one source for the whole list. If you come from a city on the list and you think the figure is incorrect, it doesn't matter. If you surf around and find a source, even from your country's official statistics, that support your belief, it still doesn't matter. In lists of this kind, the most important thing is knowing that all data has been measured and treated in the same way. As long as we use one reliable source, there is no problem. When individual users add one source for a single city, it wreaks havoc with the list. Currently, the French city Toulouse is featured twice on the list, and the list has very little connection to the source, which is given as Demographia. We can always discuss which one source to use and I'm very open for any discussion on another source than Demographia if a convincing argument can be made for another source. What we under no circumstances can do is to have a list based on one source, but with exceptions for some cities. A list of this kind only makes sense when all cities are measured in the same way, and that can only be guaranteed by using the same source for all cities.Jeppiz (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not affected by this article. So I think i'm impartial in this. I do not think some general source is a good way to make a good reliable article or List. Maybe most online sources are good for Anglo-saxon stuff, they are often very close to crap regarding several other countries. There won't be a balance in a single source and I doubt information and collected data was the same for all the cities mentioned. I may agree with a single source, but backed by official data. As for Europe, the thing may be not that hard, there's the LUZ thing, which can be used.

Another thing, the Cities from Russia, Ukraine and the Caucasus, are here for what reason? --Pedro (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

European Union vs. Europe[edit]

Would it not be wiser to include non-EU urban areas in the list and rename the list, like in the list of metropolitan areas in Europe? Non-EU urban areas are mentioned later, I think it would be better to have a common list, to be able to compare areas in the entire Europe. In fact, the two largest European urban areas, Moscow and Istanbul, are outside the EU. --Oddeivind (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


The number of inhabitants of the urban area is approx. 2,3 mil, so much more than it says here. Also, the wole Randstad could be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You might confuse urban area with metropolitan area. But still, number is kinda small. Amsterdam wiki-article states urban area to be 1,2 million. Inkogn (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Athens and criteria[edit]

Athens ? 3.200.000 perhaps in 1970... The criterion to identify the metropolitan areas isn't linked to population density rather than the extension ? If we consider the criteria of New York or Los Angeles, all the North of Italy from Milan to Venice (obviously without Alps and the lowlands) is a metropolitan area ? Surely in this area there is more population than New York. The criteria are perhaps administrative ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Urban Area City of UE[edit]

According User: Subtropical-man Paris is more populous than London. He always insert the data of proper city. You can see the page Greater London Urban Area. User continue to edit warring with other user, but that isn't the population of urban area. --Music&Co 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And.....his website sources is NOT ACCESSIBLE!!!!!!!! he talk about verificability!!!!!!!!! --Music&Co (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not according to User:Subtropical-man, but according to the independent sources. More information is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HELPPPPPP. PS. Greater London Urban Area is not urban area, this is statistical area defined by the Office for National Statistics. Urban area is part of urban geography and demography, urban area is not statistical formation. Please do not confuse two different things: Greater London Urban Area (statistical) and London urban area (urban geography/demography). Subtropical-man (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
As Subtropical-man points out, this list uses an independent source, and the list is based on that source. In order for a list of this kind to be meaningful, all population data has to be based on the same source to avoid individual users cherrypicking individual sources that may count populations differently. We are definitely not changing the population of one city based on a different source. If a user has an alternative source that also gives population figures for the largest urban areas of the EU, we could and should discuss the merits of that source. In the absence of such a source, the question is moot.Jeppiz (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my bed English for first thing (SONO ITALIANO!!) My trash English make sensation more than the Sanremo Music Festival Awards :) ihihihi However besides the United Nation Table, the true reality is that

  • City of London (business center) = 7000
  • Great London (city proper) = +8 million
  • Great London Urban Area (urban area) = +11 million
  • Great London Metropolitan Area (meter area) = 14 million.

I have ascertained the nature of source, and that the whole page concerns him to that source. I believe that however it need to specify this page that this table keeps in mind only of a source (what it is not of certain the only believable to the world..). I believe that need to specify..--Music&Co (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This data are wrong, this is nonsense. Greater London Urban Area is not urban area, this is statistical area defined by the Office for National Statistics. Urban area is part of urban geography and demography, urban area is not statistical formation. Please do not confuse two different things: Greater London Urban Area (statistical) and London urban area (urban geography/demography). What is it "Great London (city proper)"? There is Greater London with a population of 8 milion, but this is not "city proper". Not exist "Great London Metropolitan Area", there is London metropolitan area. Furthermore, stop spamming - what you write about London in three pages? Subtropical-man (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Music&Co, it is already clearly stated in the article that it relies on one source, and several limitations of the list are also mentioned in the article. That being the case, I would say that all your suggestions are already adressed in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Subtropical-man, skipping his antipathy (!!) and his conceitedness (!!) I don't intend to go further to this discussion. I don't need your explanations, also because I have a degree in geography and statistic;) can you say the same for you?!! however I wanted to contribute in the English version of these articles, but there is a coeso monopoly, I am very more satisfactory and exhaustive the Italian version, very more democratic and less dull. Stop.

For view only: it:Area metropolitana it:Lista di aree metropolitane del mondo per popolazione it:Aree metropolitane europee

Ciao.--Music&Co (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A few problems[edit]

Hi all,

  • The inclusion criteria for this list have been lowered even further; setting a lower bar guarantees that we get an unmanageably long list which is harder to keep updated. It doesn't help readers.
  • Most entries in the list are unsourced. Please stop adding unsourced content.
  • A long series of decorative photos of selected cities is probably not a good idea.

bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • is harder to keep updated? nonsense. I regularly updates the data, update of article takes about 1 hour.
  • all data in the article have a source
  • you have a different opinion about the photos? it's just your opinion
you still have any problems, you still can not see the source even if they are, you still removing large amounts of data from Wikipedia, you still act destructively on Wikipedia. Your behavior has not changed. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


The figure for the annual increase is nonsense. Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits shows Greater London increasing by well over 1% annually, so unless hundreds of thousands have moved out of the commuter towns in the last decade something is awry. (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Source ?[edit]

The source to the UN page isn't available. Doubt certain figures. Boeing720 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

UK urban areas[edit]

Why on earth is the UK Government's official names for UK urban areas being reverted? Links to articles about each urban area are being removed in favour of links to individual cities within each urban area, including where multiple cities have separate LUZs within individual urban areas. What makes "Demographia" a better source for UK statistics than the Office for National Statistics? Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Demographia is neutral and universal source, independent of government data from each individual country. Source use specific names, Wikipedia must use these names. Also, names of articles, for example, Bristol Urban Area etc is name by the Office for National Statistics (statistical data), it not be confused with the urban area (urbanization data). Urban Area by Office for National Statistics and urban area is two similar but not the same things. To sum up: you have to use the name as close as possible to the source. But ok, I fixed four links. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what you're basically saying is that a secondary source (Demographia) is better than the primary UK government source (the ONS), when Demographia themselves quote that they take the primary sources as their source? Really? And Urban Areas should not be confused with urban areas? Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition, Demographia take 2001 UK census data, not 2011 data which is now available, and have unilaterally changed the names of the urban areas AWAY from their original names, as well as estimating all the data. If you go back to the original 2001 source, which is the ONS, then oddly enough, the correct names are given. If the ONS's Urban Areas (now renamed as Built-Up Areas) are so wrong to use, then why does Demographia use them so badly? Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
For a long time, Wikipedia use Demographia as main and the only source to articles about urban areas (not to be confused with Urban Area by Office for National Statistics or Larger Urban Zone by Eurostat etc because it's a different things). A few years ago there was a big mess, users of Wikipedia decided to use a one neutral source, not associated with government data by each individual country (often the data were overstated and each individual country know the different term of urban area). If you have a problem, then write in the discussion. First discussion and consensus between other users, later changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is this consensus recorded? It does not appear to be on here. And the Demographia source uses ONS Urban Area data as its original source for the 2001 data - then estimates changes (with no description of methodology) from there without using the latest data available. So exactly how is the Demographia "urban area" different from the ONS Urban Area data? What is the methodology differences between the two data when the base 2001 data on Demographia is the ONS Urban Area data?

To demonstrate, the table below compares the 2001 census data for the three largest UK Urban Areas outside Greater London as given by the primary source, i.e. the ONS, and the base 2001 data given by Demographia.

Greater Manchester UA 2,244,931
Demographia "Manchester" 2,245,000
West Midlands UA 2,284,093
Demographia "Birmingham" 2,284,000
West Yorkshire UA 1,499,465
Demographia "Leeds-Bradford" 1,499,000

As can be seen, the base Demographia figures clearly use the ONS data, and then rounds them to the nearest thousand. This shows once and for all that the base data used by Demographia is the ONS Urban Area data (now superceded by the 2011 census data), and this nonsense about them being somehow different can be put to bed. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter. You want to add a new sources to data about UK, user X to data about other countries, user Y also etc etc and will again be a mess. To use sources outside Demography must be new consensus between users. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And again I ask, where is this consensus recorded? Fingerpuppet (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Urban Areas/Built-up areas are one attempt at defining urban areas, but we probably shouldn't use the ONS figures here because of Wikipedia:Synthesis. A separate part of the table with the data from the 2011 census, and possibly from other primary sources, would be bad as well because they'd be from different dates and Wikipedia:Synthesis again plus with the UK stuff they can just go to the relevant article on British Urban Areas. Linking to the names of the urban areas not the cities is not a bad idea. Does Demographia have a reason for not using the UK 2011 census data or are they just out of date?Eopsid (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eopsid - that's a decent reason for not using the latest ONS data rather than some mythical "consensus". Given that, I'd be happy to use the correct names of the urban areas (and link to the correct articles), and where they differ from an individual city name use those cities with LUZs in brackets afterwards to pick out the major city/cities within each urban area. As for why Demographia are estimating from old data meaning that the quality of that data is so poor, I have no idea. Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Non EU urban areas"[edit]

Why does an article titled "Largest urban areas of the European Union" need to have a section called "Non EU urban areas"? They are outside of the article's scope. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Alex2006 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Why has London only got a population growth of only 0.07%, when it is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe? --Logicgold (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Between 2011 and 2012 it's population grew by 1.3%. --Logicgold (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

New source for 2015:[edit]

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs provides estimates for the population of urban areas in 2015:

The 30 Largest Urban Agglomerations Ranked by Population Size at Each Point in Time, 1950-2030, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 revision, Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 22 February 2015.

To be clear, these estimates are from 2014, for 2015.
Rob984 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Native names instead of English names?[edit]

This is ridiculous. I have no idea "Wien" is Vienna. Considering this is the English Wikipedia, the list should obviously be legible to English speakers. Rob984 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as per WP:PLACE § Use English. -- Dr Greg  talk  17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of urban areas in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of urban areas in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


someone added this urban population of katowice, without any sources or references. 21mis (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cities growth and full list[edit]

Cities bigger than 440.000 inhabitants have a strong growth as a constant pattern in comparison with the environment for "all" cities, from Russia, USA, Brazil or Europe, just check the cities list of those countries and their growth change with the years, and where is the knick of bigger regression, it's clear already in wiki list, in green and red colours.

The list of metropolitan areas must be then starting in 400.000 habitants.

And include the failing metropolitan areas from the different countries.

Areas with higher than 1000 hab./km2 have strong cost reduction in public service,...

Cities bigger than 10 million or over 5000 hab/km2 start to habe strong saturation cost. South Korea took a radical solution to avoid the Tokio saturation cost, and started around Seul a dense net of interlinked cities to avoid saturation.

-- (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoever you are (and I don't think a major change like the one you've done today should be done anonymously), you have inserted an "ESPON" column, but you claim it comes from the same Demographia source as is used for another column. It doesn't. We can't check your work. You've added cities in Norway, which is not in the EU, but not Switzerland or the UK, for instance, without any explanation why. The reason for using a cut-off of 500,000 was clear: that's what Demographia lists. Please supply the source for the figures you added, and delete Oslo and Bergen, or give a justification for including them alone of non EU cities. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed duplicate entries, the polycentric areas which didn't fit the definition of the page, the Norwegian cities, and moved the new additions into their own table, since they don't have the fundamental qualification for this, ie above 500,000 in the Demographia list, though they might be of interest, if someone wants to check their data and that there aren't other candidates for inclusion by the same criteria. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Cities from Norway included, but not Switzerland, or the UK[edit]

The list includes Oslo and Bergen, but not the large Swiss cities (at Demographia, one of the sources, Oslo is 813,000, and Zurich 815,000). The UK cities were removed on the day it left the EU, so the criteria seem to be "proper EU cities", in which case Oslo and Bergen should go. That would fit the page title, anyway. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)