Talk:Metropolis

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Russia

Conveniently left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59A4:6100:D41:3DBF:FE29:DE32 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Zagreb

What is Zagreb doing in the list of metropolis ??? That place is a village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.68.214 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Metropoli

Okay not sure about the pluralisation there - but just writing about the idiocy of having citi counted as metropolises. I've just deleted about 10 German cities that failed to meet any of the criteria. I've had to do similar things on the UK pages about metropolitan areas. Its rediculous - city pride just making people add their cities on here for no good reason. Way to go you like your city - but its not a metropolis just for that reason. It makes wikipedia practically useless if we can't keep to some agree standards.

Maybe the cause of this problem is here: ".....a big city,[1] in most cases with over half a million inhabitants in the city proper,.....".
"In most cases"; in what cases yes, in what no?
As long as there isn't a definition, that gives a description that leaves no room for doubt, in a way they all can say their city is a metropolis.
So as long as this problem still exists, it seems better, to leave the table away from this article. Like that it won't be necessary, to use as the decisive criterion, wheter it's a city, in which there is a subway ("metro") or not. James Blond (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be an idea to expand the table also to include the population of the city proper and city's urban agglomeration (as mentioned in Cleanup and POV-Check on this talk-page), that way people would actually have to do a little research before they where adding "their" cities. Of course that would make the tables somewhat larger... /Hebster (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Others could do that too. James Blond (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by that comment? I still think my idea is could work as a filter, though i'm also aware that the random insertion problem is decaded, compared to when i originally wrote the last comment. /Hebster (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Definition

Since the United States section gives an alternate definition to the word, should it be with the general definition above the contents? - JaKaL! 15:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful that would be. That definition is really just for demographic purposes, and has little to do with how the word is generally used. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was just wondering. I thought it would be best to ask. I'm kind of new at this. JaKaL! 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prague

How come Prague is not indcluded in the European metropoleis? MiShogun 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropoleis?

Where is this weird "metropoleis" coming from? On Goole, metropoles beats metropoleis by 1,890,000 to 1,990, nearly all of them Wikipedia mirrors! Jpatokal 17:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the original Ancient Greek. As usual, Google result counts are no substitute for actual research. By the way, metera is Modern Greek. I'm changing it. Florian Blaschke 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metropoles is the plural of metropole, something quite different. Metropolis is pluralised as metropoleis just as polis > poleis and megalopolis > megalopoleis. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Google result counts, although no definitive answer on many things, are often good indicators of spelling trends. In fact, in ordinary English, as every native-speaker knows, the usual plural of "metropolis" is indeed "metropolises". A Google search here will lend support to this. In fact most dictionaries of the English language (one hopes backed up by sound lexicographical research) will tell you the same. Nevertheless, "metropoleis" does have limited use, and so I changed the part about plurals in the hope of reflecting that actual state of the plural form in modern English. If I had my druthers I wouldn't use "metropoleis" in Wikipedia text as it is not "plain English".
Given that the Shorter Oxford does not list "metropoleis" as a word for the plural of metropolis, does it really merit inclusion? --82.13.146.160 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Shouldn't there have been a little discussion before the removal of all those pictures? Who decided what stayed and what went? At the very least it would be helpful to broaden the image selection with a picture from each inhabited continent. Or if we're going with only two, it would be better to use the "most" metropolitan cities in the world, i.e. Mexico City and Tokyo. The two there now have an obvious bias for Anglophone Western Civilization. Please convince me and the rest of the editors of this page that there is some merit to leaving New York City and Johannesburg specifically or I will be bold and change the selection myself. I would prefer to see some discussion on this page about which cities are used for samples. Techgeist 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the remover of the images, I'm happy for Mexico City and Tokyo to be used - the important thing is to keep the images trimmed down to a sensible minimum. (But why do you condone being bold but then criticize me for removing images without prior discussion? After all, I was just being bold myself...) Metro Mover 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I condone being bold because it tends to break up stagnation through indifference or shyness, encouraging people to react and discuss the issue under question, which your action did, so I don't mean to say I think it was altogether bad. I myself feel that a large selection of images for the page helps to illustrate the concept of a metropolis and so don't necessarily agree that we should strive for a bare minimum. I'm sorry if my comment seemed hypercritical. I simply prefer to see some discussion before major changes to a page, which is what I was trying to do.Techgeist 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are far too many. At least get rid of a couple so that the pictures don't go further than the end of the writing!! Jake95(talk!) 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has too many pictures. I will remove some of them. The criteria for removal are "smaller metropolis by population", and "non-Global Cities".The Fat Guy 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but there are still too many pictures.The Fat Guy 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The collection of images is good, speaks volumes about the subject of the article. LordHarris 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the majority of the pictures into a gallery with good visibility on the page. The Shanghai pic is featured now, but with so many great pictures, any would be good. Bantosh 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and POV-Check

cleanup: unreasonable number of pictures + pov-check: many cities added are not metropolises. Lord, help us all. The Fat Guy 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the definition, I propose:

  • Metropolises
    • city proper >= 500,000 (if it does not belong to the metropolitan area of a larger neighbouring metropolis, usually named after the metropolis itself)
    • city proper < 500,000 AND city's urban agglomeration (=< 1600km2 800km² urbanized area centered in countiguous to the city limits) >= 1,000,000
  • Non-metropolises
    • city proper < 500,000 AND city's urban agglomeration (=< 1600km2 800km² urbanized area centered in countiguous to the city limits) < 1,000,000
    • A city with over 500,000 but belonging to a larger metropolitan area from other city (examples: Cairo (metropolis) and Giza - they belong to Greater Cairo, Tokyo (metropolis) and Yokohama - they belong to the Greater Tokyo Area)

Best regards The Fat Guy 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Db1944 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me JeffreyN 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

I've tried to make a list of the issues, arguments, and proposed solutions. However, it seems to be difficult to reach a consensus. There are users boosting their prefered towns and claiming they are all metropolises. The article do not need a list of metropolises, world metropolises are well know and easy to find by anyone using the definition or not.The Fat Guy 10:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this even be an article at all?

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about things, not words. This article is fundamentally about the *word* "metropolis", not about the category of large cities. Coming up with a consensus definition of the word, furthermore, drifts into the area of original research, and it does not reflect the way the word is used. Usage is generally more poetic than technical

I also think it is wrong to say that the U.S. census definition of a metropolitan area amounts to the definition of a metropolis. The two terms have diverged.

If we must have an article about metropolises, it should be about *really* big cities, say 2 million or more in the metro area. Mark Foskey 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in North America

Most of the sources defines North America as a continent comprising Canada, the US, Mexico, the Central American countries and the West Indides or Caribbean. This is the geographical model/criteria that should be used if somebody wants to/must to categorize the countries in North America. The geomodel that divides North America into "Northern America and Middle America" is by far not the most common and using it is a clear violation of the Wikipolicy of Undue Weight, that tells that giving too much importance to information/versions that are not the mainstream must not be done. This "model" is NOT the most used and common division of the NA continent. That's why I changed it to an alphabetically ordered list, and then to group only the Central American countries and the Caribbean, the most natural and known division.

However, alphabetic order is always the most neutral solution to follow, but clearly not the most wanted, since the group of Central America and the Caribbean conforms a very specific and well defined group of countries.

Please notice that the North America article presents an alphabetically ordered list of countries in order to avoid such discrepancies when "categorizing" the continent.

AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of North America:

We are dealing with major cities here, not countries. Alphabetical order already prevails in subregions for the various continents, North America -- for which there are a number of definitions, including those which exclude Mexico (or have you forgotten?) -- needn't be treated differently. Subregions merely provide added structure, and the one proposed by AC is no more or less 'natural' than others, or plastic for that matter. In fact, why should we change the listing to satisfy your nationalism/boosterism? Garner consensus before changing the article (which has previously been reverted anonymously despite other edits) or thestatus quo will 'boldly' be restored. Corticopia 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must the article see the continents subdivided at all, guys? Corticopia prefers one way to do this, and can find sources to back it up. Alex prefers another, and can find sources to support it. So I've got a simple proposal: just re-sort everything by continent, and leave out subdivisions entirely, as they depend too much on the preference of individual editors. Otherwise this edit war is going to restart the moment the article is unprotected. Can either of you find any reason this plan is a bad idea, other than the fact that it isn't your first choice? Picaroon (t) 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read, that is one of my proposals, just to sort cities alphabetically by continent. That way nothing is going to be controversial. That was the solution in the article North America, the table of countries is just ordered alphabetically. It is Corticopia that is editing every article about North America into the subregions he likes. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware, but it also seems to be the most neutral and the least likely to provoke further edit wars. Corticopia, your thoughts? Picaroon (t) 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know if I explained myself: I do agree with your proposal. Just continents and alphabetic order. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, AC, you have continually advocated for alphabetising North America, but have remained mum about Europe and Asia. This has nothing to do per se with definitions of North America that AC is regurgitating (which are not the issue). But, ultimately, this isn't about that editor. Thus ...
I would think that some degree of categorisation is necessary: the volume of names for each region, let alone each continent, makes a multi-unit list unwieldy. Some of those lists would have dozens of names. Otherwise, by extension, why don't we just combine Europe, Asia, and Africa? And, not subdividing by region (whatever that may be) is ultimately a disservice to visitors and those who may actually use this page, since it makes it more difficult to find relevant information. I am merely attempting to put things into a manageable, sensible order, whereas the other party must contend with their pride about where said country is placed. And, I again fall back to the regions used for Europe and Asia; given the volume of entries for North America, there is 'no reason to treat it differently. Corticopia 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what subdivisions does the United Nations use? From my perspective, we either need one authoritative organization to use the definitions of, or the subdivisions should be abandoned altogether as entirely to much trouble - but I agree with you that this would probably not particularly help the readers. In Africa-related articles, it is sort of standard to use UN definitions of regions for the sake of standardization, even though there are alternatives. Assuming the UN has made divisions of North America like it has for Africa, would you both agree to use and accept theirs? Picaroon (t) 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would -- I am very familiar with the UN geoscheme, actually a big promoter of using it because of its 'neutrality' -- but this would not be acceptable to AC because the UN reckons Mexico to be in Central America, which by most accounts is not in that region (which is not precisely true). I might add that such a scheme was in place at North America, long before the other party couldn't grapple with that. If anything, the current scheme in place in this article is little different, and at least subs in a more correctly referenced term (Middle America), which the other party also has difficulty with (inexplicably, unendingly, when one considers the blatant removal of said template from Mexico). Corticopia 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think the UN geoscheme is the best solution because as Corticopia stated it includes Mexico in "Central America", and most definitions, specially the geopolitical definition, doesn't include Mexico in that region. Both Mexicans and Central Americans do not consider Mexico part of CA. Only a part of Mexico is physiographically in Central America (12.2%), and not all the geographers think the same.
The solution I proposed is the most uncontroversial, because the regions of Central America and the Caribbean are well defined (as you can read in their respective articles) and I can assure you that no Central American or Caribbean would complain. In fact, Central Americans have complained here in Wikipedia about being included in North America (the continent). And most importantly, almost every important encyclopedia or publication do subdivide North America only into C.A. and the Caribbean (Mexico, Can and the US are uncategorized).
Another solution is only to avoid subdividing North America. Why? Because of the small number of cities compared to the amount of cities in Asia or Europe. That's the most uncontroversial and neutral solution, but Corticopia uses the argument that it must be "treated" equally to the other continents, which is not practical or real, given the differences in definitions. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I think we have two choices to choose between in an attempt to go forward here. Either go with the UN geoscheme as evidenced by the map in that article, adding a note in italics at the top of the list explaining that the UN geoscheme is being used and that the subdivisions listed are not accepted by all, or file a history and geography request for comment to see if consensus towards the version you'd prefer can be gained. I'm in favor of the former, because it looks like the easiest way to put this dispute behind us. Which of these do you think is preferable? Picaroon (t) 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of practical and real schemes are used to subdivide North America into regions: it just so happens that the other party will only accept a scheme which always agrees with one's inherently prideful/boosterist/nationalist position regarding Mexico's place in the Americas. I'm sorry but, for utility, that is not -- cannot always be -- so. Relatedly, compare the version with North America sorted and unsorted, and one will realise how kitschy the latter is in appearance and functionality.
As well: the assertion that Canada, the US, and Mexico are always left uncategorised is blatantly false. In my Encyclopedia Britannica yearbook for 2003, for example, Anglo-America and Latin America are used to separate countries (subsequent volumes are the same); the former essentially equals Northern America. Encarta also parallels this in some instances: note use of the appropriate terms. At least the current scheme is a conciliation to not use terms based on linguistic divide but merely on location, yet are practical and real. Corticopia 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, I honestly believe that the solution you think is the fastest way to go (United Nations geoscheme), is certainly not the best. That particular geoscheme is not the only one the UN utilizes in its various organisms. That geoscheme is particularly used by the United Nations Statistics Division. Other organisms within the UN use other geoschemes, for instance the one dedicated to environmental problems, I don't remember the name, I'll paste the link later, the FAO and more specifically the Forest Commisions [1]. I think we should give the request for comment a chance. The fastest solutions are now always the more reliable I believe. Thanks for all your help! I deeply appreciate it. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting North America in Northern and Middle America has caused several edit wars un many related articles, to avoid this I'd prefer to no split North America in regions or split it in Canada, USA, Mexico, Central America and the West Indies. JC 11:55, 27 September 2007 (PST)

It only causes edit wars because of the boosterism of certain editors involved, specifically, regarding Mexico's location in the Americas. As discussed above, not having any regions makes it unwieldy and more difficult for users to find information; regarding 2nd point, we would have to split Asia, Europe, and other continents into countries/'quasi-regions' based on similar subjective criteria. Stop. Corticopia 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the "certain" involved editors are usually: many vs you. Keep North America as one, like Africa and South America, and the problem is resolved. JC 12:12, 27 September 2007 (PST)
Sorry: that won't cut it: Africa and South America needn't be subdivided further (though I would support doing so) because they have relatively few metropolises. Regarding your other comments, flattery will get you nowhere ... and your perception of 'many' is as skewed as your edits are. Get over your personal demons about location and belonging, and the problem is solved. Corticopia 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess a consensus is needed to let rest our personal demons about location and belonging, and the problem is solved. JC 12:45, 27 September 2007 (PST)
Wikipedia isn't the place to deal with your and collegial demons about location and belonging. Become politically active, help out charity, or do something else instead of spinning our collective wheels unnecessarily. Corticopia 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Letting the demons aside, North America can't be splitted in Northern and Middle America because the definition of Middle America may include a few South American nations. Per talk ([2]), Middle America is not considered an exclusive region of North America. JC 21:00, 28 September 2007 (PST)
I agree. And as I also have repeatedly said, this "division" is not even close to common. Most of the reliable sources divide North America into Central America and the Caribbean. Take for example Britannica. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 04:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so: how little we forget. As demonstrated on the relevant talk pages and elsewhere, Middle America is generally defined as North America south of the US; Colombia and Venezuela are only rarely included, insistence on which is an attempt to conflate that definition -- see Britannica's article for 'Americas'. Definitions for Central America may or may not include Mexico, Belize, or Panama, and North America may or may not include Mexico. We can always split the table into Anglo-America and Latin America (the latter per UN geoscheme; also in Britannica, or shall I scan those pages too?) or North America and Latin America (as this is a fairly common understanding), but splitting it as proposed puts undue weight on metropoli in the major countries of North America as opposed to say, China in Eastern Asia. Corticopia 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that Colombia and Venezuela could be included, rarely, but could be included. If Middle America is considered an exclusive region of North America, then the Middle America (Americas) article will be moved to Middle America (North America). JC 17:25, 30 September 2007 (PST)
Don't get the people confused. Central America doesn't include Mexico. What definitions are you talking about? We are talking about geographical definitions, not "english usage" definitions (in case you want to mention, again, Oxford English Usage Dictionary). Geographically Mexico is not part of Central America. Physiographically, the territory east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is considered within Central America, by some geographers. See Encylopaedia Britannica. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AC: since you perennially decide to place your comments out of place, out of some misplaced sense of trying to be on top all the time, I won't respond to them. And since your use of English above is rather unclear, (e.g., use of 'geographically' when more specificity is required) and overuse the bold feature, it's useless responding. Either place comments within the chain as is customary, or you will be ignored. Corticopia 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no point, since many other regions may or may not comprise any number of territories or overlap. Oceania may exclude Australia, Russia may be included in Europe or Asia, etc., but your subjective fixation with conflating a particular definition is a waste of time and will not get anywhere. Corticopia 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answered, is Middle America an exclusive region of North America or not? JC 18:04, 30 September 2007 (PST)
As the article implies, it depends on context. Corticopia 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to end this. Supaman, JC and I all agree that the use of the division "Northern and Middle" America for NA is undue weight and POV pushing, given the fact that, as the references/evidence pasted at the begining of this debate suggest: NA is always defined as "Canada, US, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda, St. Pierre and Miquelon, the countries of Central America and the Caribbean". This broadly used definition should be the way to go.

This article originally didn't divide North America, it simply alphabetically presented the cities... until Corticopia changed the article and introduced his POV pushing version of NA divided in Middle and Northern. I think we should list alphabetically as a point of contension or compromise, other way the issue is going to be resolved by voting. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-aggrandizing behaviour and 'evidence' above notwithstanding, Americas (terminology) et al. provides all the 'evidence' that is required to justify the current edits and scheme: North America (when taken to not mean the usual continent) sometimes does NOT include Mexico (as opposed to Latin America (Middle America + South America), etc.). Polls being evil aside, the current version is equitable regarding this, with cities of North American countries on par with other macro-regions like Europe and Asia, which have far more metropoli. As well, each country is already identified with flags, so listing them further skews content in their favour (as opposed to, say, China). We can always switch to the UN system, or use Anglo-America vs. Latin America, the latter of which may again require subdivision. So, that's that. Corticopia 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Asia

{{editprotected}} Novosibirsk was included into the section "Eastern Europe" but that Russian metropolis is located in "Northern Asia". Please, create a "Northern Asia" section with the cities of Novosibirsk, Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Barnaul, Novokuznetsk, Irkutsk and Tomsk. Dontrustme 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection expires in a few days. Please wait until then. This request is not urgent, or requiring immediate admin attention. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is stated as in Israel and palistine when it is ofcource just in israel his should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.225.150 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brussels Skyline.jpg

Image:Brussels Skyline.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map text

Changed the map text from "Cities with at least a million inhabitants in 2006" to "Cities with at least 500.000 inhabitants in 2006", because most of the dots on the map doesn't have over million inhabitants. (for example USA has only 9 cities with over a million inhabitants, and finland has none)Ilyushka88 11:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation revert

"(cur) (last) 22:11, 10 December 2007 83.186.4.105 (Talk) (36,950 bytes) (Undid revision 176491741 by James Blond (talk)) (undo)"

Why, which one(s) of the removed is/are more than 500.000 (and since when?) James Blond (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Europe

Strange, all Brittish towns are under Northern Europe, while Amsterdam and Antwerp are Western-E. This, whereas the Brittish towns are situated more western than the Dutch and Belgian and not really more northern (some even more southern). The best solution of this matter seems to be dividing in Northwestern, Northeastern, Southwestern and Southeastern Europe. James Blond (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed

In the image gallery, the caption for the image Las Vegas strip.jpg needs to be disambiguated from Las Vegas. While the photo is actually of the Las Vegas Strip, the context of the page would denote that the link should actually point to Las Vegas, Nevada with the link piped so as to render Las Vegas. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the whole "Contemporary metropolises" section

{{editprotected}}

The section entitled contemporary metropolises should be removed to comply with WP:V. Reasons:

  • Many of the cities in there are not a metropolis by the definition at the top of the article. Just an example of something that is blatantly false: the "Western Europe" section contains 8 cities from Belgium. Belgium has a population 10 million. Many more are also not metropolises by any definition.
  • The most efficient way to improve this section is a full rewrite, based on sources, rather than checking the current list.
  • The amount of work a rewrite would take means that this is unlikely do be done in the near future, leaving false information on Wikipedia.
  • It most likely does not belong in this article anyway, and is redundant with List of urban areas by population and List of metropolitan areas by population.

User:Krator (t c) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done yet, because this section is the focus of the dispute for which the page was protected. however, I do agree with your reasoning, and if there is an apparent consensus on this talk page, go ahead and put back the template. —Random832 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any serious objection to my above reasoning? User:Krator (t c) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree that the list should be removed. I clicked on a city at random and it had 90 thousand people which is not a metropolis by anyone's definition, let alone the one on this page. It looks like people have been adding their own cities again without actually reading the criteria for the list. And as no effort's been made to provide citations for any item on the list it would be best deleted forthwith. - Aucitypops (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham is not a Metropolis

Nottingham UK does not fit into the definition of metropolis. The population of the City of Nottingham proper is c.230,000. When the surrounding towns are taken into account the population is increased by around 500,000 to 730,000. So I have deleted it as the article expressly suggests that a metropolis is a population with 500,000 plus a further 1,000,000 in surrounding areas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.198.79 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is exactly why having a big, cumbersome, unreferenced list of "metropolises" on this article is a bad idea. The pictures make it even worse. Why is there a gallery here? What is its purpose? I'm going to move it. If people want to look at lots of little thumbnails they can click on the link. - Aucitypops (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "metropoleis"?

Does a source exist for the claim that "metropoleis" is a plural for the English word "metropolis"? The OED online (in its draft revised entry for "metropolis", dated as September 2008) makes no mention of it. The same can be said for "megalopoleis" as a presumed plural for the English word "megalopolis" - in the latter case the OED is even more explicit (it says "Plural megalopolises, (irreg. rare) megalopoli, megalopolii, megalopoloi"), and yet Wikipedia has an article titled List of megalopoleis. Thylacoleo (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or part of the precipitate

In the United States an incorporated area or group of areas having a population more than 50,000 is required to have a metropolitan planning organization in order to facilitate major infrastructure projects and to ensure financial solubility.

I don't think I've ever seen solubility used in this sense! —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Beirut

I changed the caption. It had previously read "thumb;" I changed it to read "Beirut." I just wanted to clear it with you guys, since I'm not a frequent, or experienced editor of wikipedia. Also, someone may want to expand my caption. The captions under photos of the other cities have more information in their captions, and the name of the cities is linked to that cities article. I'm pretty dumb when it comes to computers, and wasn't confident I could do a link without screwing it up, and I didn't bother looking up any other information for the caption. Still, I figured an unlinked "Beirut" had to be a better caption than "thumb." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.123.232 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolis. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metropolis. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

The use of plurals in the article is roughly split between metropoles and metropolises. This can be confusing for the reader; a single plural form should be agreed upon and used throughout the article, for consistency. —capmo (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive amount of pictures

I’m noticing that the article has way too many pictures. Not every metropolis needs a picture as it makes the article longer that it should. IBlazeCat (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment India is the only country with excessive amount of pictures, others are fine. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Metropolis"