Talk:Conurbation

Early comments

Urban conurbation isn't silly. I've seen the terms 'urban conurbation' and 'rural conurbation' both used. Mintguy

Does the San Francisco Bay Area qualify as a conurbation? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I find it strange that the New York Metropolitan Area (and perhaps even the Washington, New York, Boston Urban Corridor) are not included in the examples. --WikiMartin 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Locals would know such things better than people half a world away. Conurbs seem to ne an unavoidable outcome of the automobile culture. I suspect that there are hundreds, of different syles. Alex Law 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

List

This list is getting outta hand. It's turning into a "List of every City Ever, Some of Which may be Conurbations or not but Who Cares". - Randwicked Alex B 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I nuked it. - Randwicked Alex B 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There are going to be more nad more conurbation areas as we grow older. At some point on the future i bet that it will be rare to see a gap between cities and countys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.159.44 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

De-stubbed

This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. As part of my personal crusade to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged for no apparent reason, this article has been disenstubified. If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than add actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"disenstubified" -- I love it! I think that "Disenstubify" belongs in the Wiktionary. SFFrog (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Concerns

This seems rather unencyclopedic - like an environmentalist's manifesto. If this is to be included, there should be info on why conurbations form and why people seem to like living in them. Algr (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are a couple references, but the whole thing seems rather one-sided to me. It refers to environmental and social concerns without addressing much else, then segues into a sort of semi-Marxist class warfare analysis that seems awfully speculative to me. Fedallah (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a tag to this section, and to the article as a whole. The whole thing is unreferenced, partial, and generally unencyclopedic. It reads like a student essay, and a pretty poor one at that. If I remember to do so I'll have a go at improving it at some future date, but hopefully someone else better qualified will get in before I do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole section strikes me as one-sided, political, unsupported by references, and probably containing inaccuracies and maybe even nonsense. For example, the writer whines about the loss of land and habitat for animals as people build habitat for humans in conurbations. But the alternative of building those same human habitats farther away from urban areas would still consume as much land or more with similar effects. I'd be in favor of deleting the entire section if it is not improved soon. (It has already been tagged about two months but maybe that is not quite long enough.) 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully support 72.208.61.246 on this - I have again deleted the text as it is wholly biased and POV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Some examples cited in the article are not conurbations, but agglomerations. Conurbations don't evolve around a single city, but around multiple centers and bedroom communities don't count as centers. As such, London, Los Angeles and Brisbane have to go. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "have to go" is too strong - we should get a consensus first. I don't know about LA and Brisbane - you may be right in one sense about London, but there are other major centres within the built-up area (e.g. Croydon), and it is defined in official statistics as a conurbation (I'll need to find a reference for that). The whole article could do with a fundamental rewrite, but there are always going to be problems about people wanting to include or exclude their pet areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

South East Queensland is in a sense a conurbation of the cities of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, as they started distinct cities and merged through suburban sprawl. The other municipalities listed are just suburban areas that have always been subordinate to Brisbane. In the meantime I'll rewrite that section to clarify. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually maybe I won't, as it's not the best example and would be better deleted. The large "example" lists these articles tend to accumulate should be discouraged. It would be best to have just one or two "classic" examples for illustration. The Ruhr Area comes to mind as the granddaddy of conurbations. - Aucitypops (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, LA might be considered a conurbation, but the LA metro area isn't several medium-sized cities that have grown towards each other, but one big city that absorbed lots of smaller towns. Same with London. If we could consider London a conurbation (regardless what official statistics state - there is an expert definition of a conurbation not subject to local changes), then we could consider any megapolis with a few bedroom communities and edge cities a conurbation. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the definition is very clear. BTW, I was wrong about Brisbane, its metro area really is a conurbation and Aucitypops, Ruhr is indeed the best example. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this become too esoteric and begun to miss the point? There is a need to simplify and clarify. In everday language there is little need to be so specific and conurbation and agglomeration are essentially pseudonyms. I would say that (in UK English) conurbatation is the more widely used. They are both urban areas which have grown into each other so that from a map or 'on the ground' the boundaries are administrative only. Then we can progress to the academic discussion which is what most of the conurbation entry is about: they are not necessarily agreed definitions. This can be SUMMARISED here but as it stands, the existing text isjust a sample of the discussion and if additions are allowed to continue could be of indefinite size. Detailed academic discussion is surely not what a wikipedia entry should be, refernce to varying views are. (This is noit a specialist area of mine, so I have chosen to make my point rather than make any changes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The population of the New York Tri-State Area is described as "with an estimated population of 21,961,994 in 2007.". Later the population of the National Capital Region (NCR) of India is also described as "it had an estimated population of 21,961,994 in 2007." Can these two numbers really be identical? The first number has a citation; the second does not. Fritzson (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I grew up in Los Angeles and now live in Ventura County, slightly to the north of it. I don't really care if you call Los Angeles a conurbation or not, but I would like to point out that radio KNX (AM) has, for decades, referred to it as a "Megalopolus." "From Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, from the mountains to the sea." Considering how many cities, towns, and other municipalities there are in that vast (by urban standards) area, it seems reasonable to list it as a conurbation, but again, YMMV. JDZeff (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition

It would be incorrect to say that a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas. It consists of cities that have evolved to merge their urban areas, but still retain their distinctiveness. A conurbation is not an area which is known mostly for one city, but also includes some small suburbs, that is an agglomeration. Conurbation is made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Admiral Norton could provide some citation for the comments that "a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas"; or that it is "made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size". That is one editor's opinion, but it is not necessarily a shared view. Some conurbations - such as London, to give the obvious example - are dominated by a single main centre but also contain many other smaller historic centres. That still makes "Greater London" a conurbation, at least in UK usage of the term. This site gives more information on definitions used in the UK. For example, C. B. Fawcett: "a conurbation is an area occupied by a continuous series of dwellings, factories and other buildings, harbour and docks, urban parks and playing fields, etc which are not separated from each other by rural land." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is London really a conurbation or is it just a British definition? According to your definition, I could as well name Brasília a conurbation. According to Geddes's book London is an agglomeration, not a conurbation, since it is predominantly one city with suburbs, like any other. The reference No. 3 provides a British view of the subject, which is fine, but not acceptable since it isn't the worldwide view. This problem is similar to the nearside/outside motorway lane. The difference here is that this isn't an article about motorways in UK, but about conurbations in the whole world. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Norton's edits state that "the definition [of a conurbation] is very clear", and you clearly have a strong view that it is something different to an "agglomeration". Could you provide citations for the "very clear" definition, and for your views on the difference between a conurbation and an agglomeration? Unlike Brasilia, London did form through coalescence of existing settlements, albeit dominated by outwards spread from one main central area (well, two technically and historically - London and Westminster). I really don't want to argue the point unnecessarily, and would be happy to have a wording in the article that recognises that different definitions of "conurbation" may exist - which may be differences between countries, or simply between different experts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard about this agglomeration being conurbation thing, but I was taught in school and I read books saying conurbation and agglomeration are different things. Agglomeration is the expansion of a metropolitan area around one major core and conurbation is the expansion around two or more equally important major cores. E.g. Zagreb also formed through annexation of nearby settlements and it also formed from two cities: Gradec and Kaptol of which none has been more dominant than the other (this does not apply to London and Westminster), and yet it isn't viewed as a conurbation. It was a conurbation, but it ceased being one either in 1851, when Gradec and Kaptol were made mere neighborhoods by unification of Zagreb; or around the end of the 19th century by which time the city expanded enough so that neighborhoods that were larger than the original cities were formed, such as Peščenica or center. Although it previously had two cores, the city has expanded so much that these cores remain indiscernable on small maps, similar to London.

I guess you wouldn't deem a geography textbook a reliable source, so I'll try to find better sources tomorrow. Good night.

P.S. Please don't refer to me in third person. I don't know for UK, but it's offensive in my country. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article talk page not a user talk page, so others may wish to be involved in the discussion, and it's helpful if everyone knows whose comments are being referred to. That's the only reason - apologies for any offense caused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to your substantive point, the administrative arrangements that applied in Croatia shouldn't be assumed to apply elsewhere - they don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging with Metropolitan area. The distinction that is sought does not exist. Look, for example at the Dallas metropolitan area (sometimes called the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area. Look at Los Angeles. Look at the Midland-Odessa "metroplex". Look even the Albuquerque metropolitan area which subsumes Rio Rancho and Bernaillo in Sandoval County. --70.57.246.220 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The two concepts are distinct. The characteristic of a conurbation (an internationally recognised geographical descriptive term) is the physical spreading together of originally different built-up areas. The characteristic of a "metropolitan area" (as I understand it, primarily a North American term) is a "zone of influence" over areas not necessarily physically contiguous, and/or an administrative area. All the examples cited in the proposal are in the U.S., which has a number of unique features which do not apply elsewhere, e.g. in Europe. Although there is obviously some overlap, the two concepts are distinct and require separate articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Ghmyrtle. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I'd oppose since I've found different definitions for a conurbation, but the current does not differentiate it in any way from a metro area. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The keyword in the definition is polycentric. Metropolitan areas aren't necesarily polycentric. Conurbations are a specific type of agglomeration, and not equivalent to the concept of 'metropolitan area', which is based on labour markets, etc., not on physical connectedness. - Aucitypops (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've never heard the term conurbation before today in my 58 years. I don't see a need for it. I live in the Denver-metro area. Who here lives in a conurbation?71.218.228.204 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

i live in a conurbation. The New York State Capital District is fully polycentric where the cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy have their own separate urban centers and Albany doesn't quite dominate Schenectady or Troy 160.72.94.4 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

British conurbations table

It shows in the wrong section, don't know why, but it's kind of weird like this. Junuxx (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisit: Merge

I know that this was discussed a year and a half ago but I'd like to suggest revisiting merging with Metropolitan area. My thoughts:

• First, as yet there has been no real effort made that I can see to upgrade the two articles and establish a genuine distinction in the topics covered. If this is not going to happen I don't think arguing that it could happen some day is a good justification for keeping two articles.
• The distinctions suggested between the terms are, IMHO, very source-specific. In general the variety of definitions used for both terms overlap heavily (entirely really). So far as I have seen the only objective distinction that could be made (and this is stretching a bit) is that a conurbation is sometimes used to describe a type of or characteristic of a metropolitan area. Even if that distinction is valid, it doesn't seem to me that distinction merits separate articles (i.e. this seems like a detail that can be elaborated on in some section of a combined article).
• There was a previous comment about "polycentricism". Though there are different definitions used for metropolitan area, the term is commonly applied (by demographic experts and reliable sources) to polycentric urban areas. And again, even if you want to argue that perhaps according to some body of experts the term metropolitan area is best applied to a region with a single urban core, this does not seem to me a distinction that merits a separate article (and to title such an article "Metropolitan area" would be a bit misleading since clearly the term is widely used in a much broader way).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding Agglomeration to this proposal. As is, the article is not drawing a significant distinction and the areas that it lists overlap with with these articles. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. These are related and overlapping, but different, concepts. An agglomeration is a physical merging together of a central core area, expanding to encompass other settlements. A conurbation is a physical merging together of several built-up urban areas with separate and distinct core areas - it may be a subset of "agglomeration", although the term "agglomeration" itself is very rarely used in the UK. A metropolitan area is essentially a combination of administrative areas. The term "metropolitan area" is in many respects a US term, where the emphasis is more focused on administration. The term "conurbation" is more widely used in the UK and Europe, where the differentiation between physically urban and physically rural areas is often more clear-cut and important thatn in the US. But they are different concepts. Those editors opposed to the article on "conurbation" seem to be predominantly US-based, where I accept the word may be less regularly used, but merging articles on different concepts would be a retrograde and unnecessary step. The articles do explain the differences, but there is always scope for clarifying and improving them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah but ... first of all you seem to be taking this as nationalistic. Who says the final article shouldn't be named "Conurbation"? Apart from that, though, do you have authoritative sources to say that the distinctions that you are suggesting are widely recognized in the use of the terms? Frankly some of what you are saying seems to me WP:OR:

• Though I understand that "metropolitan area" is more of a North American term (Wikipedia is not a glossary) I am not sure how you come up with the notion that "the emphasis is more focused on administration".
• You seem to be indicating that the agglomerations in the U.S. and Europe are different and that is why there should be different articles. That doesn't make sense. Having articles like United States metropolitan area and European conurbation may make sense but that doesn't explain why having metropolitan area and conurbation be separate articles makes sense. That's like saying that because the fuel mixtures in the U.S. and Britain are a little different then gasoline and petrol should be different articles.

Here are some articles that indicate that "conurbation" and "metropolitan area" (and "agglomeration") are essentially synonyms: [1], [2]. Additionally as I poke around different sources, some say that a metropolitan area is composed of multiple conurbations whereas some say that a conurbation is composed of multiple metropolitan areas. This seems to indicate that the terms themselves do not have fixed meanings that distinguish themselves from each other.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. And the articles do not explain their differences in any appreciable ways. Apart from a lack of even technical differentiation of the concepts, Agglomeration and Conurbation currently include the New York metropolitan area, among other examples. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Thanks for notifying the WikiProject. I agree with Ghmyrtle, the term "metropolitan" is most often used in administration and urban planning, while "conurbation" and "agglomeration" are more conceptual terms used in urban studies and design, and therefore should have separate articles. On a general note, all Urban studies and planning articles are in pretty poor shape (when they exist at all) and mostly reflect US and eventually UK use only, so there is thremendous work ahead to get some better coverage of this topic in Wikipedia. Elekhh (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Forgive me if I'm being dense but I don't understand the rationale. The argument sounds like "since different disciplines favor different terms there should be an article for each term, even though they refer to the same thing."

Also, as a general comment, may I request that the discussion be focused on sources? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I only studied geography up to A-level (18) so apologies if this comment seems a little naive to specialists amongst you. However, according to two book sources that I have, the Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography and the National Geographic Desk Reference, 'agglomeration' is primarily a term of economic geography rather than urban design. It refers to the spatial clustering of people or productive activities to facilitate Economies of agglomeration.--Pondle (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not clear what your point is. You are pointing out a facet of the same concept. That Economies of agglomeration should be a separate article from Agglomeration is obvious. But how does that make Agglomeration fundamentally a different topic from Conurbation? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: for me, a conurbation means a continuously built-up urban area, formed by the merger of several separate settlements. Agglomeration means the spatial clustering of people or economic activity. Metropolitan area is an American term for a large urban area. Three closely-related but separate concepts. Personally I would rename the 'Agglomeration' article to 'Urban agglomeration' to distinguish it from the dictionary definition of the word.[3]--Pondle (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make a different request. For those who see a reason to maintain separate articles, can I request that you actually articulate what it is that you believe are the actual differences in the topics (with references). The discussion seems to be centering around where each term is more commonly used which — to me — isn't particularly relevant. Ghmyrtle at least provided some differentiation but no sources to indicate why those are anything more than opinion. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some points: "Metropolitan", as used in administration and urban planning refers to a legally defined entity, (i.e. demarcated boundaries, policies that apply to the area, administrative responsibilities, etc.), which is a major difference to the general concept of conurbation and/or urban agglomeration. Derived from this, it generally refers to large and in some way formalised connurbation/urban agglomeration only. It is not exclusively a US term, it is broadly used in Australia as well (some examples: Metropolitan Strategy Melbourne 2030, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, South-East Queensland). I fully agree that there are major overlaps between the three terms, however they cover a vast area which can easily fill three articles, so merging would be temporary only, and soon be followed by split, so I don't see it usefull or leading to improvement. Elekhh (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

Responses:

• "Metropolitan", as used in administration and urban planning refers to a legally defined entity - This is, in general untrue. Some countries may define administrative units called "metropolitan areas" but this is not universal. In most countries there is no legal entity referred to as a "metropolitan area".
• As a point of comparison, from what I understand of the UK, for example, Greater London is a legally defined administrative unit around London, the Greater London Conurbation is a non-entity which the National Statistics Office defines for demographic purposes, and the London metropolitan area is yet a larger non-entity which they define for larger statistics.
• The point here is that, setting aside how any particular source may choose to use these terms, in general usage they do not distinguish unique concepts ([4]). Certainly there are some unique concepts being discussed that probably merit separate articles but

1. These terms should not be used to distinguish those articles.
2. Regardless, the current articles do not make any appreciable distinctions anyway.

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I still think these are three distinct terms, and even if not consistently used worldwide, they might have in a particular context (of a country, or scientific field) clearly distinct meanings. In con-urbation there is an emphasis on the distinct identity of its constituents [5], in metro-politan there is an emphasis on its large size [6] and a common identity, while in urban agglomeration there in no emphasis on these. That's why merging the articles and providing a definition like the one proposed below which basically presents these as synonyms would be misleading for the reader. Elekhh (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Check your refernces. The second one says the terms are synonyms. Neither entry makes clear the distinctions that you are trying draw. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we seeing different pages?

• con·ur·ba·tion = "an extensive urban area resulting from the expansion of several cities or towns so that they coalesce but usually retain their separate identities."
• me·trop·o·lis= "any large, busy city" (my emphasis). Elekhh (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is more a question for you.

• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conurbation:

con·ur·ba·tion [kon-er-bey-shuhn]

–noun

an extensive urban area resulting from the expansion of several cities or towns so that they coalesce but usually retain their separate identities.

Origin:

1910–15; con- + L urb- (s. of urbs) city + -ation

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

...

con·ur·ba·tion (kŏn'ər-bā'shən)

n. A predominantly urban region including adjacent towns and suburbs; a metropolitan area.

[con- + Latin urbs, city + -ation.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Mind you, this is the same entry I quoted below. American Heritage is very clear about these being synonyms. Regarding the size and separate identities thing, the Random House entry uses the term "extensive" which certainly implies size. Even setting aside the fact that American Heritage says they are the same thing, there is nothing else in these entries that indicates a real distinction.

At the risk of being insulting (which is not my intention) you guys are grasping at straws. To be honest there are reliable sources that actually do draw a real distinction between the two. But they don't consistently draw the same distinctions (i.e. they commonly draw the opposite distinctions). So the reality is that any distinctions drawn are entirely source-specific and do not reflect common English usage (in the same way some sources might say there is a difference between a car and an automobile but in common usage there is not a real distinction).

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as do others. There seems to be little chance of getting a consensus to merge - so perhaps it would be more fruitful all round to improve the existing articles, as you have suggested. If further work on the articles leads to a consensus between editors that they should be merged after all, so be it. But the priority should surely be to improve the existing articles first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was not clear, my primary goal in proposing this was to improve the articles. Since there seems to have been little forward movement in cleaning up these articles since the last merge proposal I had hoped that editors would agree that it is better to focus efforts on getting a single article to a mature level and then, if meaningful distinctions emerge that merit separate articles, the efforts could branch out from there.

Anyway, the proposal is closed. Good luck. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It goes without saying that your input towards improving the articles would be most welcome - there are not many editors around who are as interested in the topic as you clearly are, and those of us who are interested often have other priorities as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lead

In order to clarify what is being proposed above in terms of merging, I thought perhaps proposing a lead section might be helpful.

A conurbation, also known as a metropolitan area or urban agglomeration, is a large area of closely tied communities and municpalities typically anchored by a one or a few major cities. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines a conurbation simply as a "predominantly urban region including adjacent towns and suburbs; a metropolitan area". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an extended urban area, typically consisting of several towns merging with the suburbs of a central city". Such regions may be legal entities established by central or provincial governments (e.g. Greater London), or may simply be unofficial groupings with varying degrees of recognition by the governments and the communities (e.g. the London commuter belt or the New York metropolitan area).

The term conurbation, coined in 1915 by Patrick Geddes in his book Cities In Evolution, emphasizes the growth of neighboring cities until they form a region of unbroken urban development even though they remain separate municipalities. In some contexts, particularly in Europe, the term may explicitly exclude neighboring communities where urban development is not continuous (e.g. the Greater London Conurbation is distinct from the London commuter belt because of the green belt). In others, however, the term may be used to refer to much larger regions containing significant areas with minimal development (e.g. the New York-Boston conurbation cited by Geddes himself). The term metropolitan area is predominantly a North American term that tends to emphasize economic connections between neighboring communities more than continuous urban development. In some contexts, though, metropolitan area refers to a dense urban core at the center of a conurbation. Agglomeration is generally the most generic term and can be applied to any large grouping of nearby communities that are seen as being tied in some important way.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References

FYI: Proposal you may be interested in

I have put forward a proposal wrt to articles discussing conurbations/metro areas/agglomerations in Wikiproject Cities and am seeking feedback. It is tangential to the above discussion but I figure that those of you that had an interest in this issue probably have opinions on the proposal. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be of wider interest. I have notified one group - WT:UKGEO - but there are other Wikiprojects elsewhere who may well wish to comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Golden Horseshoe

I think we really need to expand the Canadian part of this article. It still isn't any longer than the American part is.--Antigrandiose (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to include the full golden horshoe, as it extends into the United States? Cuting it off at the international border makes it half a horseshoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

China?

Why isn't China part of this? It's urban sprawl is continuing inland. I was surprised it was not included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.33.86 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very unreliable article

• Never trusted this article. And just checked one of its claims in Google maps, the Vienna-Bratislava conurbation, which does not exist. Are pretty well separated, although neibourhing cities, and in the middle there are pretty well separated villages. Other claims are pretty much not that different. in the other way around, conurbation must be something different from what I understand as conurbation or this article is just crap. So sorry... --Pedro (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources to help

• Conurbation, student dictionary

"a number of cities or towns that come one right after the other with no countryside in between"

http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=conurbation

• The San Francisco Bay Area conurbation

21st Century Geography: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1 edited by Joseph P. Stoltman

http://books.google.ca/books?id=7WrVewV6rOwC&pg=PT317&dq=%22Conurbations+occur+when+several+urban+areas+blend%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DF79UL35N4v62AWh0IDIDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

French Wickipedia article

• http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

Conurbations of India

• Hooghlyside

"Subregion E-2, with its core in Midnapore District, straddles the Hooghly River in the east and Calcutta and the great Hooghlyside conurbation, which is among the largest metropolitan clusters in the world."

Singer, Milton; Cohn, Bernard S., eds (2007 (1968)). Structure and Change in Indian Society. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-202-36138-3. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Orphaned references in Conurbation

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Conurbation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SC2011":

• From Vancouver: "StatsCan 2011 Census for Vancouver CMA". 2011 Census data. Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2012-02-09.
• From Greater Montreal: "Census Profile - Montreal Census Metropolitan Area". Canada 2011 Census. Statistics Canada. 2012-02-08. Retrieved 9 February 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

UK

The British data is taken from urban areas, not conurbations. The British statistics are there for underestimated compared to Japan for example. It is serously ridicilous that Japan has Taiheiyō Belt mealopolis (not conurbation) with 82.9 million people, while London (Greater London Urban Area) has only about 10 million people. This list needs much more unified criteria! Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

3rd paragraph a total mess

The third paragraph of this article is a complete mess. Can someone please get to grips with it? Argovian (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

UK Liverpool Manchester conurbation

Can somemone explain why I find references to the name Liverpool Manchester conurbation from the University of Manchester here: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:89997, and in this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and in this book on Metropolitan Governence and Spatial Planning here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and we have no entries for it or any UK conurbation it lists Urban area's?--Navops47 (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Why are these here--Navops47 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mexico?

Where is mexico here? It belongs to north america, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.198.41.246 (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue with the layout of the article

Greetings! I've just concluded some copyediting on this article, along with a few, albeit minor, adjustments to the layout. I wish to proceed to remove the flag in the "See also" section. I suspect editors have, over time, addressed this issue and although the article could still do with some improvement, I'm of the opinion that the template can now be safely done away with. If there is anyone who thinks otherwise, kindly let me know. - BroVic (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conurbation. 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/20150924002318/http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf to http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901061446/http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/ to http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505213723/http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf to http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf

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) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Reorg and rework needed

This article is bloated with what is effectively a poorly structure list of cherry-picked urban areas that do not aid understanding of the subject. The list section fails most of the Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts. A better list of conurbations exists at List of urban areas by population. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This, (mega)city, metropolitan area,...

I've started a discussion at Metropolitan area#What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?. No sharp distinction possible, it seems to me, and definitely not based on titles chosen by the settlements themselves. Arminden (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

China megalopolis

I am not sure whether the Chinese megalopolises Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, and Jingjinji should be considered conurbations or not. Dmdogs900 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)