Wow - this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. Wikipedia has such a tendency to be default US-centric, I think any correction of that is a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:27, 10 March 2022 ( talk)

The caption under a picture of Istanbul incorrectly states that the Istanbul metropolitan area is the only one that spans two continents. As noted explicitly in the article on Port Said, "Port Said's twin city is Port Fuad, which lies on the eastern bank of the canal. The two cities coexist, to the extent that there hardly is any town centre in Port Fuad. The cities are connected by free ferries running all through the day, and together they form a metropolitan area with over a million residents that extends both on the African and the Asian sides of the Suez Canal." The caption should perhaps be edited to say, "Istanbul, one of only two metropolitan areas that span two continents, the other being Port Said in Egypt." -- Wbush89 ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

There is a lot of images on this article, and some of them just show skylines of cities, not the metropolitan area of the city. Shouldn't these be removed? Rob ( talk) 10:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not the skylines themselves that are the problem - highly developed skylines are indicative of very large cities, and one or two of them should be included to illustrate the type of area that forms the article's subject matter - but the sheer number of images in the article is grossly excessive. It's almost as though editors from each country have tried to ensure that their own country is represented. Surely that can't be the case? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

My observation has been that editors from each country have tried to have their own country represented. As long as there is a section for each country, I don't mind there being one picture associated with it. I would draw the line however at no more than one per country. Hwy43 ( talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The images aren't suppose to show the largest cities, but rather the variations in metropolitan areas, and there build up. I think we should have pictures of well-known cities of various size, build up, density, etc. For example, the skyline of New York City could been compared with the skyline of Berlin to show contrast between two well known metropolitans. Rob ( talk) 02:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I have inexpertly tried to fix a couple of the thousand things about it which are horrible. It should be drastically shortened because it already has its own article, and metro- is different from megalo-! I don't want to remove it completely because obviously the concepts are related. Domrivers ( talk) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The second image on the page has the caption:

"Gangnam in Seoul Capital Area, South Korea, the world's second largest metropolitan area"

But if you click on the image you get a bigger version of the image with the caption:

"Tokyo, Japan, the world's largest metropolitan area"

Fholson 01:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson ( talk • contribs)

Now that you've added skyscraper-skylines to (most) all of the sections, Castncoot, the 'United States' section looks a little less Murica-centric-non-sequitur, but these additions to an article outlining each country's definition of the term 'metropolitan area' is, for sure, 'pretty', but still arguably off-topic. TP  ✎  ✓ 12:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

A little exaggerated on your part, I believe. The article is (and should be) far more than simply about definitions. Certainly more on point than what used to be there. Castncoot ( talk) 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The article is also far from U.S.-centric. One has to remember that the U.S. has far greater depth, breadth, and complexity with respect to this topic than most other countries, with many more metros, many more definitions of metros, and many more available statistics about metros. Having seven or eight panoramas of countries' largest metropolitan areas constructively demonstrates illustratively the differences and commonalities between metropolitan areas globally. If anything, this article needs to be expanded, and the glaring voids that come to mind immediately involve China and India; it would be helpful for someone to work on those and build them up. Castncoot ( talk) 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

How does embellishing only the US section (with non-sequitur illustrations) not seem 'Murica #1'-ish? And these illustrations are of no informative value at all, as they give no sense of the breadth, depth, etc., that even here you need words to describe... they are but a 'pretty bunch of skyscrapers', nothing more. TP  ✎  ✓ 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with ThePromenader. The article text needs to be expanded. But it's very hard to see how a profusion of panoramic images of (mostly) western city centres - pretty though they may be - expands readers' understanding of the concept of the metropolitan area. Perhaps retain one - the rest should be moved elsewhere. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The problem with some editors is that they don't seem to read carefully. I clearly said that we need more material on China (with none now) and India, and that would include with accompanying pictures. There's also nothing to stop The Promenader or anyone else from adding more material about France or any other country for that matter, in the diagram caption and/or text, as their topic experience allows. Either have zero images, or (more sensibly) have seven or eight panoramas of metropolitan areas to effectively illustrate the differences and commonalities between the actual physical layouts of different metropolitan areas around the globe. Castncoot ( talk) 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

By the way, it is not a correct statement to make that the images are of "mostly" Western cities. Only NYC and Toronto are even in the Western Hemisphere, and Paris is the only other city to be considered a "Western" city. Castncoot ( talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

See Western culture. All bar (debatably) Istanbul are "western" cities. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh please, stop with the cultural attribution that was never intended and do something about your complaint by building China and India sections. Castncoot ( talk) 23:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The only question here is whether your edits improve this article or not, and my view is that they do not, because they distort it and add little or nothing of encyclopedic value. I'd advise you not to assume that other editors can guess what your intentions might be, and not to suggest to other editors what they should be doing. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Castncoot, you're either 'misinterpreting' the intent and scope of this article, or are attempting to change it. Until now, it was but a description of of how every country defines/uses the term "metropolitan area". Again. adding pictures of skyscrapers to this just adds a 'pretty factor' to it, and nothing more, and distrating attention to 'sections that need more material' is non sequitur and does nothing to change that. Now, if one wanted to add maps of metropolitan areas to sections, that would be a more informative and useful illustrative addition, but you seem more intent on promoting your affinity with skyscrapers ; ) TP  ✎  ✓ 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh please, stop with the histrionics. The pictures are all clearly panoramas - that's the best way to illustrate the physical flavor of a metro area. Most (but not all) metros have a skyscraper core. How many skyscrapers are there in the Istanbul picture? Castncoot ( talk) 23:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Why do you think that panoramic views of city centres are "the best way to illustrate the physical flavor of a metro area"? As ThePromenader says, maps would be more informative. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

What 'histronics' - and ad hominem as a foremost argument is a pretty good sign that there is none ; )

But another question: if only the core of a metropolitan area has skyscrapers, how is that representative of the entire metro area? That would mean that such illustrations have even less value for this article. TP  ✎  ✓ 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I've placed a more representative image of the NYC metro area. The area still has a ton of skyscrapers, but this image expands far beyond Manhattan. Castncoot ( talk) 03:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

maps would be more informative.

Maps don't show topographic relief of land or buildings, while pictures are worth a thousand words. That's the argument. Castncoot ( talk) 03:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

All metropolitan areas are culturally defined and identified by their cores. And these panoramas are of the metropolitan areas, including their cores. Castncoot ( talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The panorama images make the article look like some coffee-table glossy for a real estate marketeer. They are a distraction from the actual subject. Batternut ( talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

It's quite unfortunate that this article is being taken in a direction that completely ignores the actual visual and culturally definable aspects of a metropolitan area. Nevertheless, I'm willing to work with you on what diagrams or images would be acceptable to the consensus, which seems to be saying that more geographic rather than photographic emphasis is preferred. For starters, I've changed the sarcastically named title of this section to the more constructive "Images or diagrams".

Let's begin with NYC:

I hope that one or both of these images/diagrams would be acceptable to people:

Best, Castncoot ( talk) 20:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

What I think could be useful would be a map or satellite image showing how a metro area is constituted from a set of distinct urban areas, separated by rural land. Ideally also showing the transport links connecting the lot together. The NY metro county map does not advance our understanding of what makes a metro area. The NY area at night image, although it doesn't have the metro area extent marked, might have some use in either the general definition section, or the lead. Batternut ( talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, sounds like a reasonable suggestion...will place the satellite image in the General Definition section, with a clarifying caption. Best, Castncoot ( talk) 23:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Metropolitan areas vs cities: use of concepts by country Information

I know that the concept of metropolitan area is popular in the US because of post-1950s deurbanisation. However, it is a marginal concept in some other countries. For example, I never encountered it being used in Russia - e.g., something like Mozhaysk or Serpukhov are not definitely not considered a part of Moscow socially. Likewise, I don't think e.g. Oxford is considered part of London in the UK, and the London commuter belt is also a distinct entity. German cities also seem to be considered distinct from one another, though don't take my word on it. It would be good if somebody could highlight the differences in the cultural perception of the concept. -- Humanophage ( talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I've started a discussion at Primate city#What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?, which is more relevant here and for the city and conurbation pages.

I see it as a matter of self-definition, which can be ideologically or politically driven, so not objective in any way. See for instance Jerusalem municipality vs. Tel Aviv & Gush Dan aka Tel Aviv metropolitan area. There must be many examples, but this one is arguably within the same country and therefore more poignant. The "city" might have less contiguity of its built-up areas than the "metropolitan area" or "conurbation", but being called a (or one) city makes it be at least perceived as more unitarian and compact. Conundrum. Arminden ( talk) 06:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit by User:107.127.46.35 adds a citation template to this article. I don't understand the justification for the edit, which is summarized in edit history as "Tagged". In order to improve the article, I'm asking for some guidance about what specifically needs to be improved. A number of editors have put effort into including reliable citations. However, reading the article now, most statements are factual and supported by legitimate sources. So I'm at a loss as to why the citation template would apply here, or what would need to be changed to justify removing it. Clarification would be appreciated, and absent any clarification I will WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Cleter ( talk) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply