I'm so confused about this. North America has nearly 600 million people, which means Honolulu AT LEAST has 14 million in the urban area. The urban area of Honolulu basically just contains Oahu (~1 million people). Even if the entirety of the state of Hawaii were contained in the Honolulu area, that's just 1.4 million! How in the world is Honolulu over 14 million? Oahu is more like 0.2% of North America.
Drive from Logan, through Beenleigh and Ormeau to Southport and tell me when you find that 60 km gap between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. If Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Dongguan are considered one contiguous metro area, then it makes sense that Brisbane and the GC also be so considered.
And that's the problem with urban area population. No one living on the Gold Coast would consider themselves a part of Brisbane and vice versa. The cities have vastly different histories and demographics (though admittedly not as different as some of the Chinese cities that are lumped together like Guangzhou and Shenzhen). However, it is the best system available to standardise all city populations
The stupid thing about Brisbane / Gold Coast being agglomerated by citypopulation.de is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics - surely their primary source - compiles a list of agglomerations (which it calls Significant Urban Areas) on which Brisbane and Gold Coast are not combined. Even Wikipedia, which uses the ABS data, gets this right.
You want the Quizmaster to go through every country’s own statistics individually? Never mind the problem that creates with different methodologies being used across different states, how much spare time do you think the poor bloke has? Lmao!
As someone who lives in Brisbane, while I understand the struggles of making quizzes, I must admit, Brisbane and the Gold Coast are very separate cities. Please just count them as different areas.
but then if you go against the source, people will start asking to make exceptions about other situations, which will honestly probably be too much for Quizmaster to handle
The problem in this case seems to lie with citypopulation.de
While it may not be reasonable to expect Quizmaster to go to each country's primary sources (although in the instance of "large cities in Oceania" it wouldn't be hard, as only Australia, NZ, and USA have any), it's not unreasonable to expect citypopulation.de to use primary source information from each country without arbitrarily altering it on a whim.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, while citypopulation.de decided to unilaterally merge two separate cities on its list of world agglomerations over 1m pop, it *doesn't* merge the same two cities on its list of Australian agglomerations:
This second source from citypopulation.de not only correctly lists Gold Coast and Brisbane as separate cities, but also correctly lists Canberra an Newcastle as being large enough to be listed in this quiz.
Wow. Just noticed that the source given now puts Guangzhou's population at over 65m, so well over 1.01% of Asia.
Whatever criteria they're using for this, and to combine Brisbane and Gold Coast in Australia, would also - if consistently applied - combine NYC and Philadelphia (and possibly Boston and Washington).
Just out of interest, how did you incorporate Istanbul? Did you take the entire population and have it as a percentage of Europe's and Asia's population, or did you find figures for how many people live in each half of the city and used those?
Oh man. Only one I missed was Guangzhou, in last place. I didn't think that there would be any from Asia on the list given the massive population of Asia.
I've always heard Tokyo is the biggest city. Maybe that is metropolitan area and not urban area. So I tried Tokyo and didn't bother trying other Asian cities
Tokyo is the largest through some sources. Guangzhou is only the largest when you include Shenzhen, Dongguan and Foshan. Some do and some dont because they are all very large on their own.
The Pearl River Delta is not a metropolis.... it is a megalopolis. Including it as one thing means you should also include everything from Washington DC to Boston as one, or the entire Seoul area.
Missed Guangzhou. Typed Tokyo and thought that there weren't any Asian cities. Completely forget about the Guangzhou/Shenzhen/"Other mega-cities" metropolitan area...
Do we consider Hawaii to be part of Oceania or North America? The Wikipedia article on Hawaii says that it is "geographically located in Oceania, although it is governed as a part of North America". Since we generally go by strictly geographical definitions (see the Cyprus debate), I guess Honolulu should be added?
Istanbul is partially in Europe. Most of Turkey isn't and the capital isn't, so Turkey isn't in Europe. No part of Cyprus is in Europe so there's no call to add Nicosia. Even if countries the cities are in are considered part of one continent, Jetpunk has still before too put cities on the continent they actually are (usually with a caveat). And Russia seems often to be divided to Asian and European part.
I disagree and don't think your Puerto Rico analogy is accurate. It would be more like saying Puerto Rico was part of the Lesser Antilles. Though that's not a perfect analogy either because the lesser and greater Antilles are better defined.
A better analogy would perhaps be saying that Mallorca is part of Africa. Mallorca is a constituent part of Spain. It's closer to the European mainland than it is to Africa. There's not really any good reason to put it in Africa. But it sits in the middle of the Mediterranean so it could go either way...
or perhaps arguing that the island of Rhodes is a part of Asia. Rhodes is close to the island of Cyprus which is usually counted as part of Asia. However it is closer to Greece than it is to Cyprus (though closer to the Asian mainland than the European one). And it is a part of Greece. So is it Europe? Or Asia? I think there's a stronger case for Hawaii being North American than for Rhodes being European.
I would not be surprised to see an older map that grouped in islands that are today considered European and Greek, such as Rhodes and Kos, with Anatolia and Asia Minor. But these things aren't definitive they are cultural and political constructs.
Hawaii is definitely closer to other islands in Oceania than to the American mainland. Majuro, the capital of the Marshall islands, is around 200-300 miles closer to Hawaii than California. Even if we say that Hawaii isn't part of Oceania, it definitely isn't part of North America. It has no historical, cultural, geological, or proximal connection to the mainland, just to the other pacific islands and the Polynesians.
It could be erased from this quiz and included in the NYC agglomeration.
I know that's kind of ridiculous, but they've done that with Brisbane and Gold Coast in Australia - two separate cities whose outer reaches abut each other, so by the same logic Philly is part of NYC.
I've never before seen Guangzhou estimated to have a higher population than Tokyo. To get that number you have to combine Guangzhou with five other cities. The area covered by this agglomeration must be massive.
Does anybody know why citypopulation.de does it this way? It seems arbitrary to me. Though I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere and that always will be somewhat arbitrary.
wth... since when is Honolulu in Oceania? I mean I know it's in the middle of the ocean but that's just weird. It is closer to the continental landmass of North America than it is to the continental landmass of Australia. by a pretty big margin, too.
Yeah, I could understand reassigning cities if you were talking about continents as defined by landmass and not just politically (French Guiana, for example, is often considered part of South America because it sits on the actual landmass)...but Hawaii isn't even on a land mass. It's just chilling out there on its own, pretty far from everything. It is part of the US by law, so I think it belongs in North America.
I don't think cultural similarities carry weight either, because there is a multitude of cultures on every continent. If Hawaiian is Oceanian because of its culture, then New Zealand is European. It does raise questions about territories though...I don't think anyone would consider Guam North American, for example. Anyway, the new Jimmy Eat World song is pretty good.
If Australia is not the continental part of Oceania then 1) that makes Australia an island, contradicting many other quizzes on the site, and 2) what is? You might want to look up the definition of continent
Well wikipedia (not the most authoritative source I realise) doesn't even describe Oceania as a continent. And the name is perhaps a clue to the fact that its main component is, er, ocean
Aaaarraarhhghghghh... missed Honolulu, misspelled Philadelphia, typed Dallas and Austin but missed Houston, missed Miami, and typed Georgia instead of Atlanta!!
Loved the quiz but I think there's a few missing cities. Honolulu is not that big. According to the source it listed it at 1 million so Montreal at 4.2, Vancouver at over 2, and even Guadalajara at around 3 should be on here.
I don't believe it's ridiculous. Cayenne is a French city in the French equivalent of a state and it is clearly in South America. Inconsistent, potentially, but not ridiculous.
I wouldn't say that *just* because Hawaii is a US state that automatically makes it part of North America. But being in the middle of the Pacific ocean and closer to the American mainland than the Oceanic one, I'd say it might as well be. And I'm guessing a large portion of various resources include it as being in North America including other quizzes on this site.
The notion of Oceania, however, is not centred on its Australian mainland. Instead, as the name suggests, it is also precisely meant to include several island groups scattered throughout the Pacific Ocean, which indeed share many geographical and historical characteristics. In that context, Hawaii is part of Polynesia, which in turn, as the caveat explains, is one of the constituent parts of Oceania.
Only missed 1. The one I missed was because since it's part of a country in North America, I didn't think to count it as part of Oceania. Even though a hint was given. I will warn people pay close attention to all the hints given.
The Canberra and Newcastle (NSW) urban areas ('agglomerations') are both larger than Wellington (agglom). See citypopulation.de . So Wgtn should drop off, and Newcastle at least come on. Newcastle does not seem to be part of the Sydney agglom, only Central Coast is. Plus a trifling point: Australasia is redundant as NZ is part of Polynesia. Just say Australia.
I'm bored so i'll give figures - if you're using agglomerations, Wellington is 418,000 (https://www.citypopulation.de/en/newzealand/wellington/), yet Canberra is 457,000 and Newcastle 487,000 (https://www.citypopulation.de/Australia-AggloEst.html).
If you're using urban areas, Wellington is 209,000 (and FYI Christchurch is 374,000) (https://www.citypopulation.de/en/newzealand/cities/) yet Canberra is 432,000 so still above Wgtn (and Chch). Newcastle drops down to 322,000. https://www.citypopulation.de/Australia-UC.html
So it seems anyway you look at it Canberra pips Wellington and Guangzhou. And Newcastle too if you're consistent in using agglomerations, as ur using the Wgtn agglom not urban area.
(Even if you include Kapiti in the Wellington agglom,, which NZ stats do not, Wellington would be abt 465,000, so it's still pipped by Newcastle).
Ok, Oceanic pedantry over. I've probably bored many non-Oceanians too much...
I know it is already in the comments but Wellington is on the list while Christchurch is not. According to citypopulation.de Christchurch has 383,000 people, and Wellington has 215,000. Her is the citypopulation.de New Zealand page for reference. Also neither Christchurch or Wellington should be on the quiz in the first place because Canberra (and arguably Newcastle) is bigger with a urban area population of 432,000 (citypopulation.de) and its agglomeration being 462,000.
Gold Coast (718k) is not part of Brisbane (2.58m), and should make the list in its own right.
While the M1 corridor between the two cities is becoming developed along its length, they are considered separate cities by Australians, and indeed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, our peak demographic institution. If they're the same city, then by the same criteria, so are New York and Philadelphia.
Canberra (463k) and Newcastle (505k) are both bigger than 1% of Oceania (and are both bigger than Wellington), and should make the list.
Even if you insist on counting the Gold Coast as part of Brisbane, as absurd as most Australians might find that to be, I still don't understand why Canberra isn't on this list. Using citypopulation.de Wellington has a population of 217k compared to Canberra at 478k, Newcastle at 350k and even the mighty gong at 279k.
While not cities and hence not qualified for this quiz, I wonder if any of the research stations in Antarctica have more than 1% of the continent's population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population
While it may not be reasonable to expect Quizmaster to go to each country's primary sources (although in the instance of "large cities in Oceania" it wouldn't be hard, as only Australia, NZ, and USA have any), it's not unreasonable to expect citypopulation.de to use primary source information from each country without arbitrarily altering it on a whim.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, while citypopulation.de decided to unilaterally merge two separate cities on its list of world agglomerations over 1m pop, it *doesn't* merge the same two cities on its list of Australian agglomerations:
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/australia/cities/
This second source from citypopulation.de not only correctly lists Gold Coast and Brisbane as separate cities, but also correctly lists Canberra an Newcastle as being large enough to be listed in this quiz.
Whatever criteria they're using for this, and to combine Brisbane and Gold Coast in Australia, would also - if consistently applied - combine NYC and Philadelphia (and possibly Boston and Washington).
Come on, it should have counted!
this time
"Belo" is just wrong.
Makes me wish Nicosia were big enough to make the European cutoff.
A better analogy would perhaps be saying that Mallorca is part of Africa. Mallorca is a constituent part of Spain. It's closer to the European mainland than it is to Africa. There's not really any good reason to put it in Africa. But it sits in the middle of the Mediterranean so it could go either way...
or perhaps arguing that the island of Rhodes is a part of Asia. Rhodes is close to the island of Cyprus which is usually counted as part of Asia. However it is closer to Greece than it is to Cyprus (though closer to the Asian mainland than the European one). And it is a part of Greece. So is it Europe? Or Asia? I think there's a stronger case for Hawaii being North American than for Rhodes being European.
It should be erased to make all quizzes easier... (just kidding)
I know that's kind of ridiculous, but they've done that with Brisbane and Gold Coast in Australia - two separate cities whose outer reaches abut each other, so by the same logic Philly is part of NYC.
Does anybody know why citypopulation.de does it this way? It seems arbitrary to me. Though I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere and that always will be somewhat arbitrary.
I don't think cultural similarities carry weight either, because there is a multitude of cultures on every continent. If Hawaiian is Oceanian because of its culture, then New Zealand is European. It does raise questions about territories though...I don't think anyone would consider Guam North American, for example. Anyway, the new Jimmy Eat World song is pretty good.
If you're using urban areas, Wellington is 209,000 (and FYI Christchurch is 374,000) (https://www.citypopulation.de/en/newzealand/cities/) yet Canberra is 432,000 so still above Wgtn (and Chch). Newcastle drops down to 322,000. https://www.citypopulation.de/Australia-UC.html
So it seems anyway you look at it Canberra pips Wellington and Guangzhou. And Newcastle too if you're consistent in using agglomerations, as ur using the Wgtn agglom not urban area.
(Even if you include Kapiti in the Wellington agglom,, which NZ stats do not, Wellington would be abt 465,000, so it's still pipped by Newcastle).
Ok, Oceanic pedantry over. I've probably bored many non-Oceanians too much...
Gold Coast (718k) is not part of Brisbane (2.58m), and should make the list in its own right.
While the M1 corridor between the two cities is becoming developed along its length, they are considered separate cities by Australians, and indeed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, our peak demographic institution. If they're the same city, then by the same criteria, so are New York and Philadelphia.
Canberra (463k) and Newcastle (505k) are both bigger than 1% of Oceania (and are both bigger than Wellington), and should make the list.