Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Big cities

How does one define “big cities” (population? 100000 seems rather small; how about area?). Unless a clearer guideline is provided I see no point in this and all subcategories. (They seem to be the sole work of User:Sbb1413 modified by User:Verdy p). Qualitätssicherung (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — Cities are generally defined by population (or population density) and not by area, unless you are talking about countries where "city" is just an honorific of an urban settlement. In India, cities are defined as urban settlements with a population above a lakh (100,000). German towns with a population above 100,000 are also called cities. So, the category Category:Big cities might be useless for countries whose minimum city population is 100,000. However, it might be useful for countries where "city" is just an honorific of an urban settlement, like the UK. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is based on the Wikidata item on big cities, which is widely used in different city items. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also based on the classification used in OpenStreetMap. The criteria is effectively not the area but the population, but it is dependent of countries: within very populated countries, the criteria of population for distinguishing "big cities" from others is higher, but they tend to merge to a common criteria based on world population data. Strictly speaking, it is not referring to "administrative units" (whose land area which changes over time by splitting/slicing/merging them), but on urbanisation criterias whose evolution is much slower and independent of administrative units ever changing due to local politics or laws (for example, where do you define the limits of London, Paris, Shangai, or New york City to count "their" population? The "municipal" population is not relevant here for geographic classification, urban and environmental planning, communications...). verdy_p (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since all big cities in that category are in country-sub-categories could changing the parent-category definition/description to something like "big cities as per the definition of the respective countries" solve the problem? Instead of using a random number for population like 100,000 or some sort of area parameter, just say "a big city in the US is whatever the US define to be a 'big city'" and if Italy uses a different measure then that's perfectly fine because it's their right to have their own understanding of what constitutes a "big city" - be it population or area. Nakonana (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This is a mushy category that doesn't offer a particularly valuable distinction. We can of course adopt the 100k line as an arbitrary boundary, but that won't necessarily comport with what a lot of users may be looking for if they are looking for "big" cities. The discussion over what constitutes a 'city' and how to measure its size is immediately apparent if one starts researching cities by population or any other measure. Also, cities and their populations are constantly changing. In the end, I'm not sure of the value of sorting images based on the population of a city, but if we are going to do it and use arbitrary lines, we should name the category accordingly, so rename this one to Cities with over 100000 residents or something clear like that, not just "big". Josh (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete this and the related Category:Small cities. I had created this category since the classification is present in Wikidata and OSM. However, as Josh has pointed out, it is unnecessary to sort files based on the population of a city, which changes constantly. Also, "big" and "small" are problematic terms to use in Commons. I will propose my settlement hierarchy in an upcoming CFD. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]