Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Europe List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: How do we present cities that are split between Asia and Europe, such as Istanbul? A: The entire population is listed, and a footnote provided noting details of the split. The discussion that resulted in the current policy was Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits/Archive 1#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?.

London isn't a city. There is "The City of London" but that's one of the smallest cities in the UK. London is a metropolitan region that comprises boroughs, one of which is a city in and of itself (City of Westminster) and it is administered by the City of London. But if you go to the UK page you are told, quite clearly, Birmingham is the largest city in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom

It might be, for this list, a "special note" might be added for London pointing out whilst many people THINK of London as a city it technically is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B00D:8B00:7073:3B00:E29:D7C2 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the City of London, Greater London is still run as a single city. GL has a Mayor and Assembly responsible for the entirety of Greater London. The only difference between the City of Westminster and the other London boroughs is in name only. Westminster has no more power than Camden or Lambeth. City status in the United Kingdom is only ceremonial and completely different than city status in the United States and other countries. Greater London may not be a single city on paper, but in reality it is.Bjoh249 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia article on Greater London:

Although Greater London would appear to be a city, it lacks any formal recognised city status in the UK and has not been granted an official city charter from the monarch.[10] Instead, Greater London is officially a metropolitan region, not a city.[11]

^[1]

Hey, Tbilisi is in Asia, not Europe. Could someone update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.176.6 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just above the table, there reads: The cities are sorted by the column labelled Official population.
However, the table does not have column with that text. So, which column was meant? 82.141.95.48 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, the municipality of Brussels had 175,534 inhabitants. Using the population of the entire Brussels Region is an error. This has been mentioned before; see Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits. — 37 ^(talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian user from Moscow has changed the list to make Moscow the largest city. No explanation was given, and it seems to be a case of socking as well. Any reversion by the same user or a sock of theirs will go to ANI. BRD calls for discussion, not explained and repeated nationalist POV-pushing. Jeppiz (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes because the ranking of cities is misleading. I have read the discussion above and agree with the opinion that only the European part of Istanbul should be considered as relevant in the ranking because the article deals with Europe, not Asia. I have provided references to support my position. These references have been ignored by the user Jeppiz who have been undoing my edits and deleting references a number of times.Denghu (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The result of the discussion above was "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant", but your edits did not show the full population. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC

• Maybe restoring my edits and indicating Istanbul's entire population while ranking it second in accordance with the population of its European part would be accurate?Denghu (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps something like that, though the result might be confusing. Perhaps you could demonstrate it somewhere? Batternut (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if colour-coding as used at List of European countries by population might help? Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jeppiz: I did find Jeppiz's revert comment somewhat inflammatory, and not very informative. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I also find Jeppiz's revert comment somewhat unfriendly, yet I am more insterested in improving the accuracy of the article so that my edits are not targeted. I would go for colour-coding but would also resume the discussion concernting splitting the population of transcontinental cities because some users might ignore the colour and remain unaware of the geographical borders of Europe and whether or not they are relevant in the ranking.Denghu (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to resume discussion whether or not the population of transcontinental cities should be taken into consideration in the ranking of cities in this article. My argument is that the title says "European cities" and there are conventional borders of Europe. Therefore the ranking should be based only on the population of the European part of transcontinental cities because the article does not mention Asia or Africa. This approach would make the data in this article more reliable and accurate. Colour coding would also be helpful, however it is not enough. Denghu (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a wider discussion is worth-while, as it relates to more articles than just this one perhaps it could be worth raising at one of the interested wikiprojects - WP:EUROPE or WP:WPLISTS...? Batternut (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do I start a discussion there? I am new to this.Denghu (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on opening RFC's is at WP:RFC, and on challenging closed discussions is at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Btw, List of urban areas in Europe has the same issue. PS I'm new here too! Batternut (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Denghu: should the same approach as you describe also be applied to the country lists, eg List of European countries by population and List of Asian countries by population, featuring the transcontinental countries of Russia and Turkey? Likewise Europe which you have just edited to place Moscow above Istanbul, though in the politics section the population and area stats for Russia and Turkey remain the country-wide figures rather than the those for just the European parts? Batternut (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, factually it is more accurate to consider only the population/area of European Russia and European Turkey in the list of European countries by population/area. It simply doesn't make sense to list Turkey as a European country with a population of some 80m when most of its territory is geographically in Asia. The same goes for Russia. This seems to be a wider issue than I had expected and a broader discussion is necessary. The goal is to make Wikipedia articles more accurate in dealing with issues like this one. Denghu (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I point out we already had an RfC on exactly this topic in the autumn, and the close was to include full populations. One cannot choose to ignore RfCs, as Denhgu is doing, just because one doesn't like the outcome. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz:, if one doesn't like the outcome, one can resume the discussion, especially if one didn't take part in it and if the discussion involved just a few contributors. If you are satisfied with the current solution, it doesn't mean other people are expected to like it and remain silent.Denghu (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, came across this by chance. I would like to point out the obvious, there is only one Istanbul and it's considered a European city. I recognize that it is a transcontinental city but it is still just one city. Thus it should be included on only one page and since it's located here it ought to be presented as a full entity. Therefore I could only recommend using the entire population of Istanbul. If necessary note the population split in the comments. As per RfC. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Istanbul is indeed one city, however the article deals with European cities, not transcontinental cities (Europe and Asia, Europe and Africa). This issue has to be addressed because factually the current ranking is inaccurate. Either the title of the article has to be changed, or the ranking adjusted to conform to the geographical notion of Europe, or two tables made for cities fully in Europe and for transcontinental cities which is a separate case.Denghu (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue has been addressed. That's what an Rfc is, an opportunity to present different views ans reach a decision. That's what we've already had, and the decision was to count Istanbul as one city with all of its population. Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is fine, the single table is fine, Istanbul shouldn't be cut into pieces, this level of nitpicking is not necessary, the footnote completely solves the minor problem. Let's all move on and stop trying to get people blocked because they made an edit or two that you didn't like. Sepsis II (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Gonrah (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) The position of Belgrade in the list is wrong. It is placed 16th with population of 1,166,763 while the 17th city in the list (Barcelona) has a population of 1,602,386 which is much higher. It is the same with all the cities until position 27 (Rostov-on-Don with population of 1,104,000). So, in order to fix this, Belgrade has to be moved down the list on position 26.[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Sayles, he doesn't need to, the error is in the article. Take a look at the table with Belgrade on it and then above and below it, it's been put together wrong. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude I already saw the table, and the source. It does not appear to reflect the number in the table correctly. 1166763 corresponds to Насеље Београд, but it is not clear from the document that this corresponds to the city limits. 1659440 corresponds to Београдски регион, which seems to translate to Beograd region, which would make the placement in the table correct. I cannot say that based on the source provided that the requested edit is actually appropriate. But if anyone else feels more comfortable with translating Serbian...  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Sayles hilariously, I happen to speak Serbian (though Cyrillic is a pain for me). I'll take a look tomorrow and notify you of what I find. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually quickly; Насеље Београд -> Naselje Beograd -> Town of Belgrade and Београдски регион -> Beogradski region -> Region of Belgrade. Hope that helps. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Becky Sayles No ref is as no change to the figure is requested, Mr rnddude and Gonrah are right. It's just about correcting the position in the table. The clue is in the description of the table: "The cities are sorted by the column labelled Population within city limits". You don't need to read the existing reference. Batternut (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If translation is needed, I have provided it in my last comment. Насеље Београд/Naselje Beograd would refer to the Town of Belgrade, this would be the population within the city's limits. Whereas Београдски регион/Beogradski region or the Belgrade region would be referring to both the population within the city limits and all the surrounding regional populations. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut While your analysis seems reasonable, I believe it may be incomplete. The edit request does address changing the position in the table. But as an editor responding to the request, it is necessary to adhere to applicable policy. Based on the original request, it appears that there is an error in the ordering. This could be because the numbers do not correspond to the populations within city limits listed, or because the figures listed are incorrect. Moving Belgrade down to 26th on the list would suggest not only that 1166763 is the correct and verifiable figure based on the translation provided above, but also that each of the other cities figures are correct and verifiable because assigning an order indicates their relative position on the list. Just starting with Barcelona there is a problem as the source cited does not appear to list Bercelona. Given that the page was protected due to edit-warring/content dispute, it would seem inappropriate for a responding editor make the requested edit without addressing underlying and related issues. This should probably have reliable sources as well as a consensus established before being requested again.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Sayles Really! I think it places the bar too high to expect passing editor Gonrah, noticing that the ordering of entries in a table doesn't match the figures in the table and trying to tidy it up a little, to go and check a shed load of references and fix any discrepancies by means of locating new RS. The ref for Belgrade's figure is RS, and confirmed by Serbian speaker Mr rnddude. If the figure is acceptable, the position should match the figure. If you doubt Barcelona's figure, or any others, either fix it or put a "content is disputed/unverified etc" warning on the page. If you really want an rfc to move 'G' to between 'F' and 'H', then I'll do it for you, but surely that's a hammer to crack a sesame seed! Batternut (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put the matter to rest;

Becky Sayles and Batternut

So I've taken a close look at the reference, and, here's what I can say.

First; Beograski Region or Region of Belgrade with a population of 1,655,940 is split into the groups of Gradski or Urban population of 1,344,844 and Ostali or everyone else/remainder/other at 314,596. This is not really too important.

Second; Naselje Beograd, is referred to in the census as the settlement of Belgrade. A distinctly odd choice, it's sort of like saying the settlement of Brisbane or settlement of Paris, like, these places aren't settlements, they're towns (or cities) but I think I've found the reason for it.

Note; Naselje would correctly translate to settlement, I used town because, why would it refer to Belgrade as a settlement? Well read on and you'll find out.

Third; Right beneath Beogradski Region there's another entry, Beogradska Oblast, Grad Beograd or City of Belgrade and it has the same population as the first Beogradski Region. Now you would think that the City of Belgrade refers to the City of Belgrade, but, no it doesn't. This is because, the City of Belgrade is it's own administrative division and doesn't fall or break down into any districts. So, what has happened is that the administrative division is separated from the actual city. In essence, the City of Belgrade (administrative) is not the City of Belgrade (city). So what is? The Naselje of Belgrade, the Naselje as a settlement refers to the City proper.

Right, so let me tackle the many Belgrades problem, to make it short here, I can breakdown each of the individual values into the correct corresponding thing (I guess).

1. Beogradski Region, refers to all of the population in the district of City of Belgrade, 1.6 million.

2. Beogradski Region (Urban), refers to the entire urban population of the district of City of Belgrade also 1.6 million.

3. Naselje Beograd, refers to all of the population in the town or city proper of Belgrade, 1,166,763.

Which is the correct value for this article, the third one. The administrative division has 1.6 million people living there, but, the actual city-proper has only 1,166,763 people living there.

The last bit of business, WP:OR, I also went ahead to try and find a citation for all of the above work (part of which is my own, part of it is Wikipedia, and only the values are RS). Page 12 of the census is written in both Serbian and English. Thank god, cause while I can read cyrillic, I translate it into latin letters in my head to do so. In other words, it's like reading a cipher.

Here's a select quote from the bottom of page 12; "Settlement Belgrade represents a part of the City of Belgrade and it includes the whole territory of six urban municipalities (Vračar, Stari Grad, Savski Venac, Zvezdara, Rakovica and Novi Beograd) and parts of the territories of four more urban municipalities (Voždovac, Zemun, Palilula and Čukarica)."

Note that the City of Belgrade is the administrative division.

now refer to Page 15 which gives you an exact image of what constitutes the settlement of Belgrade in the upper right hand corner. The shaded area is the city proper, while everything else, is the outer farmlands or plainlands that belong to the city but are not part of the city-proper. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work dude! Batternut (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at for example Barcelona; I found this unambiguous, provisional, population of Barcelona for 2011 for both sexes and at all ages[1]. Around 1,611,013, which I hope helps. Note, you'll have to scroll down a bit to find Barcelona, ignore the 5.5million figure for Barcelona at the top, that's for the entire municipality. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the requested edit is under discussion, and autoconfirmed editors who would be able to respond appropriately to carrying out the edit if sources back it up. Don't think this needs to stay open for more visibility. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Done. Batternut (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, hopefully these statistics and sources will satisfy the need of the article. I will note quickly that I couldn't find Perm or Niznhy Novgorod and that Volgograd is last year's statistic. Hopefully these will help. They're all in Russian cyrillic, but, if you ctrl-f the value I provide (without commas) and then just translate whatever is written in that section, you ought to find that these figures are indeed correct.

What I found;

I have found Saint Petersburg 5,225,690 for 2016 [ [2]]

I have found Volgograd 1,017,451 for 2015 [3] Refer below

I have found Voronezh 1,032,382 for 2016 [4]

I have found Ufa 1,121,429 for 2016 [5]

I found Rostov na Don for 2015 1,117,341 but not the reported 2016 one [6] Refer Below.

I found Samara, 1,170,910 as currently reported, its in an excel file (31.03.2016), here as close as I can get you to it [7]

I have found Kazan 1,216,965 [8]

I have found Moscow, 12,330,126 as currently reported, its also in an excel file (06.04.2015), here is again as close as I can get you to it [9]

I can confirm Perm, 1,041,867 refer to the fourth link (excel) here; [10]

I can confirm Volgograd, 1,016,137 for 2016, you'll need to translate the whole page. [11]

I can confirm Rostov-na-Don, 1,119,875 for 2016, you'll need to translate the whole page. [12]

What I have not found;

I also couldn't find the statistic for Nizhny Novgorod, although it hasn't been included anyway.

Here you go, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nizhny Novgorod is not yet uploaded, which is why I did not update it. Rostov-on-Don for 2016 is here [13] at the bottom of the page. Perm is the fourth link here [14], also the only Excel link there. Volgograd 2016 is here [15], also at the bottom of the page. --Turnless (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those, I'll take a look at them shortly and update the list. I'll let Batternut review them, and he'll update them, if not, then I can do that myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Am going to start wrapping this up, and the other reverted edits. Batternut (talk)

Turnless, Mr rnddude, It is done, pending your satisfaction... Batternut (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, I appear to be satisfied, thanks for going through and fixing up the article. Turnless, thanks for helping me find the necessary sources and translating Russian. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for helping me with inserting and finding the sources as well! --Turnless (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about Novosibirsk? Wiki itself calls it "the third-most populous city in Russia, after Moscow and St. Petersburg" --180.183.75.182 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current list is very random at ending at 36 cities. I think that extending it to 50 cities would make more sense. 50 is a good number for a list of cities and would be more consistent. --Turnless (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone agrees with the expansion, can anyone help figure out what are the next largest cities of the continent. Thanks! --Turnless (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the particularly late response to this Turnless, I had completely forgotten about this proposal. If you want to have a community discussion on this, since nobody seems to have responded yet, I can take a look and see whether an RfC would be appropriate or if there's another venue for this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to go the other way, and cut it off at cities over 1 million. This removes the three last cities.

The problem with this list is the sourcing of data. Presently the article cites individual sources for each city, then combines them to form this list. This is problematic as it relies on editors having added all cities for the ranking to be accurate. The further the list is expand, the more likely that a city will be missed out, resulting in incorrect rankings. The other thing I would say, is because the date is not the same for all figures, the data is not comparable and the rankings are potentially incorrect. The only solution to this would be if there was a combined source listing all the cities.

Rob984 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a RfC on the issue to see what other users think. --Turnless (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by an IP has suggested that Amsterdam has been skipped in the article with a population of about 1 million, if this is correct, then Amsterdam should be on the list. If not, then nevermind. Just making an good faith note of it since the editor placed the comment on the article where it does not belong. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 800,000 according to its article. Rob984 (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IP pointed out a glaring omission in this list. There's no mention of Athens anywhere, and at a population of apparently 3 million it should most definitely be included here. I'm making a not of it here if anybody gets to it before I do. Will strike this comment if I handle it myself. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal population is only 664,046 according to its article, so the list isn't long enough to include it. 3 million is its urban population. Rob984 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... so it is. In that case, carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of European cities by population within city limits. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624025136/http://www.stat-info.net/largest-cities-in-russia to http://www.stat-info.net/largest-cities-in-russia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151109014922/http://belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/otrasli-statistiki/naselenie/demografiya_2/operativnaya-informatsiya_1/o-demograficheskoi-situatsii/o-demograficheskoi-situatsii-v-yanvare-sentyabre-2015-g/ to http://belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/otrasli-statistiki/naselenie/demografiya_2/operativnaya-informatsiya_1/o-demograficheskoi-situatsii/o-demograficheskoi-situatsii-v-yanvare-sentyabre-2015-g/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Bucharest Skyline at Night.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterinburg is in Asia, not Europe, east of the Ural Mountains. AdmiralHood (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with this already.. Turkey is not part of Europe. I know the argument, and in that sense obviously the UK and Iceland should not be considered part of Europe. It's an Asian country. Onoufrios d (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople is on the European side of the Bosphorus. There was a time when the Turkish state almost reached as far as Vienna, but that did not mean that the Balkans had magically become part of Asia. Geography is independent of politics. Toddy1 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, geography is independent of politics. But half of Istanbul is geographically located in Asia. So then you need to specify a population of less than 15 million and remove Istanbul from the top of the list. The population of the European part of Istanbul is much less than the population of Moscow. Nokiandr (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Istanbul and most of Turkey is in Asia just like much of Egypt is in Africa and most of Russia is in Asia and if Moscow was in Siberia wouldn’t be in Europe either Nlivataye (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a transcontinental city straddling Eurasia, Istanbul, as a whole, has a population of around 15,519,267 people. While the European part of city, which has 25 districts, has a population of 10,067,617, and the Asian part of the city, with 14 districts, has a population of 5,451,650. However, Moscow, the most populous city entirely within Europe has a population of around 12,615,279 people, larger than the European part of Istanbul, which has 10,067,617 people. The list is about European cities by population within city limits, but Istanbul's Asian part's population is also included in the list, which shouldn't be included. Without it Istanbul becomes the second-largest city in Europe, after Moscow. Danloud (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... Istanbul is administratively a single city, there is no legal distinction between it's Asian and European side. Turkish metro municipalities legally have the same boundaries as the provinces themselves. Districts within the province do not have any kind of autonomy in metro's and all fall within the larger metro municipality, which is IBB. I have made this same argument on the now defunct Istanbul(province) page, and since then we have gotten rid of that article. Anyway, on the article it clearly states that "Note: The cities are sorted by official population." , and the official population of Istanbul is -according to official Turkish Census Bureau- is around 15.5 million. If there was an official administrative division of the city as such (Istanbul in Europe), then it could be very appropriate to list only the European side's population. But since we are taking only the official figures when making this list, along with Wikipedia policies that prevent us from calculating it ourselves (no original research), the current figure creates a problem. It is my opinion that we should provide the full population of Istanbul on the article. The footnote [a] should be enough. Of course this is a political issue, so it would be very hard to stay neutral on this topic and find a right answer, understandably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

73.202.30.21 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that for Istanbul, only the European population should be considered, which is about 10,072,000 people. Else this list does not make sense, since the rest is in Asia. Istanbul is tricky since it is a transcontinental city, but categorizing it as entirely in Europe makes no sense for the purpose of this list. Eccekevin (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 Nlivataye (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration. The current picture of Paris on this page stands out in a negative way. All other cities have photos of beautiful skylines and Paris (which has a beautiful skyline as well), only has a close up photo (with part of Le Louvre, without pyramids and the Pont Royal on it). If you'd pick a close up photo, why not the Eiffel Tower or Arc de Triomphe, but even then: why would place a close-up photo for Paris, while every other city on this page has a skyline photo.. Summarized: This is not a photo of Paris, it is a photo of Pont Royal which in no way gives a good impression of what Paris looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.20.190 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twice I removed Tbilisi from the list because I consider it as Asian (and not included Baku and Jerevan I consider also Asian). I'd be OK if all 3 are included: there's no reason why only Tbilisi should be included, but I'd like to see them with note saying they can be considered Asian. So please let it be or include all 3 of them.--188.75.177.218 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you “consider” Tbilisi or other cities to be is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that some respectable definitions do place it in Europe and so removing it entirely is simply wrong. The argument that all three cities should be included or neither is simply absurd. First of all, not all definitions include all three. There are some that place parts of Georgia in Europe but do not extend all the way to Yerevan (one following Kura River). Secondly, if you think other cities qualify for inclusion, nothing is stopping you from including them. Deleting one just because you think they all should be here is childish, destructive, and contrary to the spirit of this encyclopedia. Lastly, please do yourself a favor and stop repeating what you personally “consider” European, this is not a personal blog.--185.70.55.119 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider them as Asian because I learnt that in school and they're Asian according to most definitions. In Europe the most common boundary line is northern of Caucasus: Kuma–Manych Depression or the base of Caucasus, worldwide the more common variant is on crest of Caucasus; but neither of them includes Tbilisi to Europe. According to this article, the Kura river hasn't been used as Euroasian border for 2500 years. The boundary lines that include Transcaucasian region in Europe exists, but most of them include all 3 states completly to Europe and therefore Jerevan and Baku should be included here, too. Because most definitions consider these 3 cities Asian I don't think they must be here, however they can be here (but with a note), but it's nonsence to include only one.--188.75.177.218 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your opinions are your own and what you “consider” to be the boundary has little bearing here. Not everyone uses the Kuma Manych definition so there is no reason to prioritize that above all else. To reiterate, if you think it is more fair to include all three capitals, then do so. You have no right to erase content just to make a point and just because you think other cities could be included as well. If you think others should be included, show some respect and actually take the time to contribute that content instead of ceremonially removing somebody else’s work just to make a point.--185.115.5.247 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the other discussion below is closed, just dropping here my two pennies as I feel the urge to have it noted for the record. The discussion is really held very arbitrarily along only one aspect: the (imagined) pure geographical definition of a border between Asia and Europe. There is no consensus here as there is no universal consensus within the geographical profession either, as some reactions proved. The discussion below is very typical (I wont go further in qualifications just to stay nice). Anyways, an important aspect not even mentioned once if I read correctly, is that all three South Caucasus nations are associated with multiple (yes, not one, but multiple) pan-European political organizations. F.e. leading organizations such as OSCE, CoE, and not least of all, just like "Asian country" Cyprus, are considered to be within the geographical limits of the EU and could technically become EU members, by design of the EU treaty (which doesn't apply to any country beyond the South Caucasus, East and South - nor to any country West of Ireland or Iceland, so the EU has at least a clear nation bound definition). Moreover, also in sports they are part of pan-European cooperation such as UEFA and so on and are taking part in European, not Asian championships in all sports. I can't recall these three are tied with major political (or sport) pan-Asian organisations. Yes, they are "borderlands", where no clear and cut definition can be given of what constitutes Europe or Asia, geographically, culturally, politically and in supra-national association. The sheer resistance to an open mind on all these factors by some is baffling. We are not talking about including Lusaka, Lima, or Damascus. But three capitals of countries that the European Union, thé embodiment of what Europe constitutes considers within the territorial reach. And many other organisations also consider to be part of the "European family" regardless some vague and arbitrary discussion about a border which bears no professional consensus anyways. Just include them, and leave it at that. Labrang (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Baku and Jerevan, the article would need statements about geography, because I do not think that the article currently qualifies as Wikipedia:Popculture.

This is a list of cities in the geographic region of Europe. Sports and the EU do not imply geography.

The European Union could in theory encompass nations of the Francophonie, etc, and not just geographically European nations. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come Russian cities on europe top list? Russia is not european but Asian… 2A09:5E40:500D:130:A924:6A1F:36CA:FB19 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is located partly in Europe and partly in Asia. Only cities from the European part are included. FromCzech (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa/Odesa should be added in, because it has 1,015,826 people, over 1 million, using the source that the list uses for Kyiv and Kharkiv. Jrg (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table 7.19 on the page 308 says 998,163 people. FromCzech (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh i was looking at the present population document instead of the resident population document whoops Jrg (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the source of the information. On January 1, 2022, 1010,537 people lived in Odessa. http://www.od.ukrstat.gov.ua/ Arbornaos (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in the text. The explanation of the difference is above. The link you provided does not include the number you quote. Unfortunately, the current population is well below 1 million anyway, so there's no point in debating it and trying to get it back there for a short time. I wish it were different. FromCzech (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add Athens to the list? It's definitely in the top 10 Norad73 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the Athens page says, the population is 664,046. FromCzech (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note has been placed next to Tbilisi. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Tbilisi (Baku and Yerevan) be added to the list? Is there a conventional boundary between Asia and Europe that should be used? FromCzech (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put a note next to Tbilisi: Although sources say it is "European" in "cultural" contexts, this would create a "contradiction" with the formal definitions, so without a note it would have to only be included in Asia. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out what was mentioned below, it is not only in "cultural" contexts this comes up in, there are in fact geographic definitions that include it in Europe, which are pointed out above. The note has been added, saying placement varies.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The note would be better if it showed which sources put Tbilisi in Europe. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user repeatedly adds Tbilisi into the list. In July and August 2021 Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan were also added by an unregistered user and removed by various users. As was explained in the edit summary and similarly in the Talk page at the time, most agreed southern border between Asia and Europe is the watershed of the Caucasus Mountains and the Kuma-Manych Depression and according to both of them, Tbilisi is not in Europe. Therefore it is included in the List of Asian cities by population within city limits. It is also clarified on List of transcontinental countries#Asia and Europe which parts of Georgia or Azerbaijan lie geographically in Europe.

I think it has already been sufficiently discussed and justified and removing Tbilisi (Baku, Yerevan) is a uniform approach across Wikipedia. A different border should definitely not be used for lists of European and Asian cities. FromCzech (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is only one definition of continental boundaries but, alas, it is not the only one: “Europe's eastern boundary has been the subject of much debate. One widely accepted scheme draws the dividing line along the crest of the Greater Caucasus range, putting the portion of the region north of the line in Europe and the portion south of it in Asia. Another puts the western portion of the Caucasus region in Europe and the eastern part (the bulk of Azerbaijan and small portions of Armenia, Georgia, and Russia's Caspian Sea coast) in Asia. Still another scheme identifies the Aras River and the Turkish border as the line of continental demarcation, thereby locating Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in Europe" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Caucasus)

I wish things were as clear cut as you suggest but they are not. From what I can tell, this has been discussed endlessly and I see no point in adding more to this discussion because there is no universal agreement on this topic. It is a perfectly viable solution to keep Tbilisi on the list with a sufficiently detailed explanation that its placement may vary based on continental boundaries. We should not censor alternative views from other reliable resources just because they don't fit your own or somebody else's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:19A3:D9F3:73A3:AD4 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was no other definition, just that these are the most commonly used, which your source also confirms ("One widely accepted scheme..."). Other approaches are rare and your use of them on this page is obviously purposeful. I agree that geopolitically Georgia is a European country, but geographically Tbilisi is in Asia. There is no any "sufficiently detailed explanation" on List of Asian cities. It is also not clear to me which definition of the border you are using and why you are not arguing about Baku and Yerevan. FromCzech (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading something in the National Geographic Magazine, which said that Tbilisi has "become one of Eastern Europe’s most innovative cultural capitals" (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/ten-places-that-deserve-more-travelers), which is partly what sparked interest specifically in Tbilisi's placement. Feel free to add other Caucasus cities as it seems they had been added in the past. According to the definition cited by Britannica, they may well qualify.

To your point about commonality, even if something is commonly used, it does not mean that it is without alternative or that it should be unquestionably used without any reference to other viewpoints. Which is why keeping Tbilisi with a note is the most viable option given the general trend of including it in Europe in everyday use (and considering some geographic definitions, like the Aras river referenced above, do actually place it in Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "given the general trend of including it in Europe in everyday use" is a geopolitical approach. "Reference to other viewpoints" makes sense if these viewpoints are equivalent, not if one is rare and is not used by the professional or lay public. It is enough if this viewpoint is mentioned on Boundaries between the continents of Earth. The presence of Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan is simply confusing for the majority of users, if you look at previous discussions and edit history, and the majority don't want them here. Many people probably do not even know about the existence of an alternative border. And then there's still the inconsistency within Wikipedia. Focus on these issues and don't keep repeating that there is some another point of view, because it was never questioned. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The resources I have referenced are not by any means geopolitical and there is no evidence that inclusion of Caucasus is “confusing for the majority of users”. This page probably has thousands of viewers and, of those, there is only a tiny portion of opinionated readers who have found their placement here bothersome and removed them. There also seems to be a comparable number of those that want the opposite, otherwise this issue would not be a perennial problem as it appears to be. If someone is “confused” about the placement of these cities, they should do what all other reasonable, literate people do and read footnotes, which will explain that the placement may vary based on definition. They can't erase things just because it doesn't fit their opinion or because they "do not even know about the existence of an alternative border". I'd like to think that the purpose of any encyclopedia is to educate people, rather than to cater to their preconceived notions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations views it as part of Asia. CIA World Factbook say "geographically it is Asia, only Georgians view themselves as part of Europe". Britannica, as we have already said, mentions that it is most often classified as Asia. These are the sources we should stick to.

From what I traced from the edit history of last years, Tbilisi has not been included for the majority of the time, and the leading text included a note that conventional boundary between continents is used. It disappeared during the ping pong of editing and vandalism in August 2021. To avoid confusion and different interpretations (and because you like explanatory notes), I will put the note back there. If there should be a change and Tbilisi should be included, then only on the basis of consensus. FromCzech (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being so persistent but your arguments simply do not make any logical sense. First you speak out against geopolitical/political definitions of boundaries, and now you’re citing United Nations, which is a geopolitical organization. Even that is highly misleading because the UN’s position also varies. For example, here’s a UN division of regions that places Georgia in the Eastern European group. It includes Georgia in Eastern Europe, even though EU-member Cyprus is listed in Asia. (You can read more at United Nations Regional Groups).

My point is that regardless of whether you look at geographic or geopolitical definitions, there is no single, unquestionable definition that should apply everywhere and it will not become so just because total exclusion of certain areas appears to be your personal preference. The most impartial way to address this is to keep Tbilisi with a detailed explanation. Anything short of this is simply misleading and one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So once again: United Nations is a geopolitical organization, which has official methodology for delineation of geographical regions. United Nations Regional Groups are, as the first sentence on the page says, geopolitical regional groups. So let's agree that the UN has both geographic and geopolitical regionalizations, which are different, and we won't mix them together.

I returned the explanatory note about used boundary there, but you again removed it with edit sumary that there is no such thing as a "conventional" boundary. This is completely contrary to what I have been writing all along. So once again: according to conventions, Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan are geographically outside of Europe, the border along Aras is unconventional. See the given references in my previous response and see the 1 and 2 wikipages, where did you copy the quote from Britannica and the geopolitical position of the UN. FromCzech (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the stable version is the one without Tbilisi, and you shouldn't keep putting it back there until the discussion ends. And I hereby inform you that I have asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion. I was hoping someone would join in the discussion on the request in Wikiproject:Cities, but unfortunately not. FromCzech (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I even mentioned United Nations is because you brought it up as an argument to totally exclude Tbilisi. You can't have it both ways, cite a geopolitical organization when it suits your argument but dismiss it when it proves the opposite point. There is nothing "geographic" about that resource you are pointing to. The UN link you referenced even says that particular regional definition is merely for "statistical convenience", so it is hardly a geographic authority.

Regarding conventions, there are clearly some geographic conventions that place it in Europe, such as the Aras river definition referenced by Britannica. And depicting this definition on maps is not unheard of (see referenced example)

And regarding discussion, there is clearly a double standard. Somehow no discussion is needed when people erase information that doesn't suit them, which has happened numerous times from what I can tell. The issue of Tbilisi has recurred numerous times and it will continue recurring because total exclusion is clearly not viable, hence inclusion with a footnote. From what I can tell, it has been here on and off, without even a footnote, so footnote is the right direction. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A1DB:3548:CD9A:8369 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heading in UN source says "Geographic Regions". It is not excluded that the UN has a geographical and geopolitical perspective. For me it is clear thing, for you obviously not.

The map you posted is from 1916 and hardly can be an evidence for what is today conventional. "Conventional" means widely accepted, as Britannica explicitly says. Britannica mentions three schemes with the Aras river as the third. For me it clearly support what is conventional and what is not, for you obviously... not. But I'll leave that to someone else to judge us.

CIA World Factbook was rather not commented by you. Then there is this entry on National Geographic's website if you were interested in the company's attitude, and not just one wording in an article by one journalist.

Tbilisi was always removed because there was the explanatory note about boundary which is used, to avoid confusion. Nobody added it with edit summary that there is no such thing as a conventional border. Should I say that you erased that note because it does not suit you? It was there much longer than Tbilisi, and yet you see the injustice of erasing Tbilisi. FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that Tbilisi was "always removed". It has been here time and again, but repeatedly removed by people who believe in these one-sided arguments that total exclusion is the only solution. Moreover, nowhere does it say that articles have to follow one particular definition or the other, however convenient that may be or however you may personally like it. I cited that map to make a point. It is not the only map that exists. The fact that it is from a century ago does not discredit it. On the contrary, it confirms that inclusion of Caucasus is not something "new" that I invented but rather an existing and longstanding precedent, regardless of whether everyone agrees on it or not.

The CIA factbook is not a geographic authority, nor is it consistent. For example, it lists Cyprus under Europe, even though many definitions, including one you like, would place it entirely in Asia. This just confirms my earlier point, which is that definitions vary even among organizations. And you can't have it both ways, citing CIA when making an argument that Caucasus has to be excluded, but ignoring other aspects of CIA's definition, such as the fact that it conflicts with your "convention" on Cyprus.

For UN, that particular UN source is from their statistics division. I don't see why think statisticians should be taken as experts on geography, the two are not the same, especially when they explicitly state that particular definition is for merely "statistical convenience", whatever that means. I see that you are a statistician, so perhaps that is why you like that particular source? But as I said, there is no consistency on this even within UN and we should account for this fact with a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just in brief, and I suggest waiting for a third opinion:

• As of 2018, the city is not included, and when someone added it (and usually without justification in the edit summary), it was soon deleted with a justification.
• Fortunately, we're talking about Georgia, and the CIA's view of Cyprus is irrelevant. Their opinion on Georgia is clear.
• The UN reference is used across Wikipedia, incl. already mentioned Boundaries between the continents of Earth#Modern definition. We already discussed that it is OK to have different geographical and geopolitical definitions, so I don't know why you are pointing out inconsistencies, when they are two different things. A geopolitical definition can change rapidly over time, so it does not fit the definition of statistical regions at all, and a fixed definition is necessary. This is also why this methodology has a high weight and is used even outside the UN.
• And please, finally create an account so I know who I'm talking to. It's hard to take you seriously like that, especially when you haven't even learned how to sign comments.FromCzech (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How these organizations/sources view other countries is not irrelevant because it is indicative of whether they follow the geographic definitions that you're citing them to support. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot cite these organizations to support one particular continental definition and ignore the fact that there is clearly no agreement or consistency even within said organizations.

Separately from this, I must ask you to show some respect and stop disparaging or dismissing me just because I'm not editing from an account. The very first sentence of your very first comment emphasized how I'm "unregistered" and now you continue to emphasize this point. You think your arguments are worth more because you have an account with a pretty interface?

"Some registered Wikipedia editors and administrators treat IP address editors as (at best) unwelcome party-crashers or as potential vandals. Some ignore the opinions or revert the edits of IP address editors simply because they are "anonymous". There is no Wikipedia policy which supports this treatment...The treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is counter to Wikipedia policy and the spirit of anyone-can-edit collaboration."[16]

So I don't really need to prove anything to you personally. My arguments speak for themselves. Yours are full of factual and logical inconsistencies. This article is apparently of little interest to most users (hence why nobody responds to your third opinion request) and you are simply allowed to do as you please based on cherry picked, one-sided arguments. This has to stop one way or another. There has to be some accountability beyond just the fact that you have a nice looking account.--2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You started looking into what I am and pulling into the discussion – see the mention with the statistician. So I'm sorry that I perceive it as unfair when I can't get an idea of what you have to do with the edits on this page in the past and what your personal bias is for this issue. FromCzech (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Europe: As per Wiki, "The modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct." Agree with 2600:1700:20:1D80:C843:C0EB:C1F9:3E41; modern construct, as described above, puts Tiblisi, Baku and Yerevan in Europe.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwinog2777: Per Wiki and per cited sources in the discussion (UN, CIA World Factbook, Britannica, National Geographic), modern definitions still put most of Georgia (and whole Caucasius) in Asia. FromCzech (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiki:The South Caucasus nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are included in definitions or histories of Eastern Europe. And EuroVoc map. Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Wiki: "Eastern Europe is an ambiguous term that refers to the eastern portions of the European continent. There is no consistent definition of the precise area it covers, partly because the term has a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic connotations." Since it's ambiguous I choose Europe. We have to choose something.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have already chosen, the cities are on Asian list. So you vote for moving the cities from there, right? Description of the map on the South Caucasus page (File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png) says that "B" and "F" lines are the modern mainstream definitions. And South Caucasus is not included in Template:Regions of Europe. EuroVoc includes the Caucasian countries, but on Central and Eastern Europe they are not. Consistency within Wikipedia is in favor of not incorporate the Caucasian cities into Europe. FromCzech (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian victory in 1813 and the Treaty of Gulistan which moved the border of the Russian Empire well within Transcaucasia." Russia annexed Georgia in 1796, and Bahu in 1813. Two centuries of European acculturation. Two centuries of geopolitical and cultural history have weight in this determination. Even if as you claimed:"Consistency within Wikipedia is in favor of not incorporate the Caucasian cities into Europe," there are those that disagree, and wish to change Wikipedias continental identification of these cities/states that straddle. I am one of those.Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion above, I already mentioned that I agree that Georgia is geopolitically Europe, but this is about determining the geographical border. Otherwise, you would have to include Kazakhstan, or other Asian states that were part of the USSR. And according to the current political situation in Russia, to think about annexing the whole of Russia to Asia. FromCzech (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man-made geographical boundaries are whatever you say they are; different maps, different answers; look at the maps of Eastern Europe redrawn after WW2. And look at at this map from an offical branch of the E.U. We don't need an artificial definition drawn up remotely by who knows who, likely some academic geographers of the 19th Century. Let the consensus decide where Tiblisi and the others are. If the consensus says Eurpope, it's in Europe. If consensus says Asia, let it be. More opinions would help. I think we've all said what we have to say at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_sub-regions_(according_to_EuroVoc,_the_thesaurus_of_the_EU).png#/media/File:European_sub-regions_(according_to_EuroVoc,_the_thesaurus_of_the_EU).png. I agree completely with @Jonwilliamsl: below. And I hope that @FromCzech: doesn't again delete my comments.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cited only modern, currently used definitions, according to which the page has been designed so far. But now there is pressure to change the geographical criterion to a geopolitical or cultural one. I would also like more opinions, but despite the traffic of this site and past disputes, it has been difficult to attract anyone here.

P.S. It's the exact opposite, look at edit history. I added my reply on 05:37, 20 July 2022 and you removed it eight minutes later. And now you don't like that I put my comment back there? FromCzech (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Europe: In Boundaries between the continents of Earth#Asia and Europe, Georgia and Azerbaijan are both mentioned as being transcontinental but culturally European. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonwilliamsl: I couldn't find any mention of such a border on that page. Can you please be more specific? How is the cultural borderline defined? Does that mean that all the Russian, Turkish or Kazakhstan would be included too? In the past, the cultural border was condemned, because it would lead to the list being extended to include other cities from Russia, Turkey or Kazakhstan, and the overseas territorial of France, etc., would also theoretically fall there. FromCzech (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech: Per Wiki, "...every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct." One just can't ignore culture in countries that straddle the borderline; the weight of this information tilts the scale to Europe for this editor..Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's no single way to define the line between Europe and Asia using solely geographical methods--hence the 18(?) different borders on the above-mentioned page. Therefore, cultural as well as geographic considerations (the geographic considerations would exclude Vladivostok and Cayenne for example) must come into play. Questionable transcontinental cities that are culturally European--as Tblisi and Baku are both described as being (and logically Yerevan would be too, since it's between the two of them)--should be included in this list. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image and there is 10 possible boundaries, out of which 7 concerning Caucasus; according to the explanation in the above-mentioned pages and in the image itself, the most common is F. The effort to combine boundaries is the expedient introduction of such a boundary that suits the interests of the individual who proposes it. Wikipedia should not define its own boundaries, but adopt existing ones based on available sources. FromCzech (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this map (and the other map with additional options at the same place) proves that there is no single "natural" place to draw that line. The available sources tell us that this line is hazy. Line A and line E exclude all 3 from Europe. Line F includes Baku, lines G, H and I include Tblisi and Baku, line J includes all 3. Culturally European cities which are geographically questionable--and seems quite clear to me that the geography is questionable--should be placed in Europe. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonwilliamsl well said. The totality of evidence suggests that inclusion of Caucasus cities in Europe with a good explanatory footnote is the most neutral approach. Total exclusion is extremely one sided. Ironically, everything FromCzech has referenced thus far can be questioned by other authoritative sources, even by sources within the same referenced organization (e.g. UN). The problem is that this user seems to have already made up his mind and is using hand-picked sources to substantiate this preexisting disposition. I have no other explanation. As an example, see what's happening at Template:Twin towns. FromCzech supports total exclusion of even those countries that are unquestionably transcontinental and all because of the same "statistical" definition of Europe that he has shared here as well. There is no rule on this encyclopedia that says every page should follow a single "statistical" definition of geography, whatever that even means. The whole things is absurd.--2600:1700:20:1D80:11A6:94A4:BDDF:5294 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above: "The whole things is absurd." Enough already with the outdated academic geographers of the mid-19th Century; enough already with the hobgoblin of consistency. The cities will be where Wiki puts them. And, the decision appears to be moving in one direction. I am disappointed we do not have more opinions, however.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both. What prevents us from having these cities both here and in the list of Asian cities? They are already in that list btw. Alaexis_¿question? 11:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asia: Georgia and Azerbaijan have small northern bits of their territories falling within Europe, if we consider the Caucasus watershed as the boundary between Europe and Asia. Armenia falls entirely within the Asian mainland. Point is, since this city is not "geographically" located in Europe; why should it be added? Because of cultural reasons? In that case, Europe is also often divided by ethnic groups, and these countries would be not included by many in that category since these peoples are not considered European by most. If we were to add Tbilisi - then why is Yekaterinburg, a Russian city miles away from Urals, excluded? It is arguably much more European in every sense, considering it is a Russian city. Even French overseas territories and Vladivostok in the Russian Far East are culturally European. So going with the geographic definition is the best choice. Stuntneare (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are geographic definitions that include it in Europe, which you would see if you had bothered to familiarize yourself with what is already written above. But you don't seem interested in facts, instead you're making baseless assertions, such as that "these peoples are not considered European by most". Who are you to speak on behalf of "most people" and what they believe in? Did you conduct a statistically sampled survey of "most people"? This is nothing more than personal bias, which is confirmed by your other comments ("Yekaterinburg...much more European in every sense, considering it is a Russian city"). Since when is Russia the golden standard of what it means to be European? It's not.--2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get all riled up. You seem to be from Georgia. Anyway, your country is not included in most modern maps of Europe since its geographically so eastern. Georgians do not ethnically fall into the main European ethno-linguistic groups (Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Celtic etc.). Universally, it is not considered European. You reverted my edit claiming that apparently Tbilisi was always present in the article before its "removal" - no it was not. Actually, it has not been present in the article for over a year now. Even before, it wasn't. Everytime its added, it gets removed, because the majority of users and GEOGRAPHY tells us that Georgia is not in Europe. And do not put words in my mouth; I never said Russia is the "golden standard" of being "European", definitely not by politics. But going by culture, history, demographics, and geography, it is, since 40% of Europe is Russian territory, up to the Urals. You ignored my main point. I said why should Tbilisi be included in this article, despite being in Asia; and other cities like Baku, Yerevan, Izmir, Ankara etc. be excluded? Add them too. For impartiality. Stuntneare (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with cities like Izmir and Ankara are inappropriate. As evidenced by maps provided on this page, there are in fact geographic definitions that place the Caucasus in Europe - the same cannot be said of Izmir and Ankara, at least not that I have seen. Also language families have nothing to do with this. Basque is not part of any of the groups you mention, neither is Greek just for the sake of argument, Maltese is a Semitic language, and Ossetia, which is geographically in Europe, speaks an Iranic language.--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D19:371F:876B:55F4 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions you are mentioning are obsolete, and are not used in the 21st century. Its quite fascinating how old some of these maps are, dating back to pre-WW1 times. The entire Caucasus was a part of Imperial Russia during this period. The most agreed upon modern boundary between Europe and Asia are the Caucasus Mountains, which puts Georgia in Asia - along with the two other South Caucasus countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan. One thing to note here is that, the northern part of the Caucasus is in Europe - the southern part is not. Anyway, since Tbilisi is added... I believe Baku and Yerevan should also be added with the same note. Otherwise, the whole thing just seems sketchy. Stuntneare (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old doesn't necessarily mean "obsolete", and less common doesn't necessarily mean that it should all be purged in favor of only one definition. I intentionally provided these "old" maps to show that there is longstanding historical precedent of including Caucasus because there were some who argued earlier that inclusion of Caucasus was a modern development (which it is not). In any case, nobody is stopping you from adding other Caucasus cities, feel free to do so. (I tried but I'm not good at using this so looks like I somehow messed up the whole table)--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D19:371F:876B:55F4 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source given in the note show that Tbilisi is sometimes considered European. We should give credence to this designation per NPOV. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who do not care to read everything that's written above, here's another map from a reputable source, Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, clearly including Caucasus in Europe, with the rest of the surrounded area faded out. You can see a quality image here. So there's clearly a longstanding precedent of Caucasus being included, and for that reason its total exclusion is unjustified and one-sided.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi is universally-accepted as Asian, and not European. If people want to talk loosely about a "cultural Europe", then they still need to specify. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to read arguments provided above, including various geographic definitions, it would be apparent that there is no universal agreement. You saying so doesn't make it so. Arguments made by @Mwinog2777: and @Jonwilliamsl: speak for themselves and don't rely on such extreme generalizations. --2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding: my comment is to be interpreted as needing a note. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One definition of Europe marks the Caucasus Mountains as its border, putting Georgia firmly in Asia. Other definitions place the whole Caucasus region, including Georgia, in Europe which is where most Georgians feel it belongs." ^[1] Tiblisi is NOT universally accepted as an Asian city. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi cannot be included in the list without a note saying it is not considered European by every major organization like the United Nations and the CIA. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these organizations is a geographic authority. Secondly, there is no agreement even within various UN bodies (see United Nations Regional Groups), which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the above arguments. There is already a note attached to Tbilisi explaining that continental placement may vary.--2600:1700:20:1D80:AD7F:9DF1:B555:1631 (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The note wasn't there when I made my comments. Thank you for adding it. I support that decision for the article. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the note has been added to explain the differences.--2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "10 things you might not know about Georgia". BBC News. 2013-07-04. Retrieved 2022-08-14. There is controversy about its continental (Asia or Europe) location.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this artikle there are used different areas of the cities, for example for belgrade it states the population of the metropolitan area but if we do use the metropolitan area for every other city then athens is a lot bigger than it is stated. 37.122.166.216 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Red Square, Saint Basil's Cathedral, Moscow, Russia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Caucasian cities be included in this list?

Currently there is no clear approach to cities in Caucasus (Tbilisi, Baku, Yerevan) and it causes edit wars. There has been a lot of discussion about it here but it's too long to read and despite the lenght it gives no clear guidelines about their inclusion/exclusion. So I think we should solve it once and for all. In the end it should end up in FAQ as Istanbul ended. The only consensus that has arised from the discussions so far is that they shouldn't be included without note about their unclear placement to Europe. --Pan Někdo (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need answers to the following questions: Should we include only one, or two, or all? Should we include them in the main table or should we make another table for them? If we include them in the main table should we rank them or let them unranked? And if you can think of any other possibility add it here as well.

Here are my opinions: We should include them all or exclude them all (I am in favor of excluding them all). There is only one definition that puts some of them to Europe and some of them to Asia and it even isn't a very popular definition. I don't think we can say their culture is European or Asian without saying the countries are European/Asian in the first place so I don't think argumentation about their culture is of much value.

I don't think it's good idea to put them in separate table or at the end of the table. However, I can imagine to include them without ranking. --Pan Někdo (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically, all capitals of the South Caucasian states are located out of Europe. None of them should be included. And if Tbilisi is included, then all three should be included. In my opinion, either they can be added with a note, or they should be excluded as a whole. Calesti (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excluded. I still think none of them should be included because they are out of Europe and because they distort the ranking. Baku doesn't even fit on the map of Europe. Instead of adding them into the table, they could be mentioned in the lead with explanation and link to List of Asian cities, or, as it was proposed, in a separate table after the main table. FromCzech (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They "distort" the ranking and don't fit on the map? Then get a bigger map. I have a newsflash for you, Europe doesn't end in East Berlin. Total exclusion of the Caucasus is a fringe view, an opinion, a preference, nothing more. Plenty of indications that support the opposite but why keep beating a dead horse.--2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not directly related to this but for what it's worth, I have actually seen some shameful maps of "Europe" that don't include much of Ukraine. For this reason, in my view "they don't fit on the map" is not a great argument. It only shows preconceived, entrenched biases and lousy attempts to justify them.--2600:1700:20:1D80:C8C3:64FA:327F:BE5F (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude all None of the cities are in Europe. I still don't understand why only Tbilisi is included. Calesti (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance related to User:Stuntneare? Just curious. --2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include all of them with the same note as what Tbilisi currently has. What is the benefit of ignoring volumes of information already discussed on this topic quite recently and instead repeating the same tired talking points that have been voiced probably many times before? There is no universal agreement on continental boundaries. Also, distinction between geographic and "cultural" Europes is very muddled because the whole Europe-Asia boundary is itself a “historical and cultural construct” to begin with.^[1] Adding these cities with the same note as Tbilisi is the most neutral approach. This way they will be on both European and Asian lists, as suggested some time ago by @Alaexis: As a courtesy also tagging @Mwinog2777: and @Jonwilliamsl: who have made valid points about this topic.--2600:1700:20:1D80:2C48:9BB4:2A5:B3CF (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this discussion is to not have these discussions any more. The current situation with only Tbilis is (IMO) the most ridiculous one and when tried to add Baku and Yerevan it was immediately reverted by FromCzech. So any change to this article regarding these 3 cities currently requires long discussion with someone who insists that the current state is better. In the past simmilar problems were with Istanbul and it ended up in FAQ on top of this talk page. If we came up with an consensus we could add this issue in the FAQ and prevent these pointless discussions.--Pan Někdo (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first discussion was about whether to add Tbilisi or not, no consensus was reached regarding other cities (not sure if also regarding Tbilisi). Pan Někdo proposed approaches that may be "more neutral" than the current one, and can satisfy both parties (put them in separate table, include them without ranking). We would avoid the absurd claim that Baku is in the top 10 European cities, when it doesn't even fit on the map. FromCzech (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue of "not fitting on the map" is totally artificial. There are plenty of maps that would fit Baku, such as this one or any other map of your choosing. This is not an insurmountable problem as you make it seem.

Putting Caucasus cities into a separate list is reminiscent of segregation.

If the problem with ranking is that Baku will outrank Paris, and you find that "absurd", then perhaps not ranking it is an okay solution. However, I still think doing that is very risky because it seems you're "bothered" to see Baku near the top, similarly to how some people are "bothered" to see Istanbul at the top. Something shouldn't be de-ranked just because it bothers someone.--2600:1700:20:1D80:4D:BB27:272B:27AD (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]