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
There's a reason it's often referred to as "Australia & Oceania." Oceania's just lumped in with Australia because it's so distant from every other continent. Also Line Islands are in America according to you...
It's just stupid to arbitrarily gatekeep an arbitrary classification. Just lump all those islands together, why justify unreasonable claims because you got 36/37 on a quiz because of it?
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.
Interesting but because of citypopulation.de not considering agglomerations with less than 1M inhabitants, this quiz may be wrong about cities from Oceania. Maybe Port Moresby, Christchurch or Wellington could make the list, who knows?
If you are considering the urban area population you are missing many urban areas in Asia larger than Guangzhou. Delhi, Mumbai, Tokyo, Dhaka, Beijing, Shanghai, and a few others all have more populous urban areas.
Melbourne ahead of Sydney? Since when? And as for Brisbane/Gold Coast being listed as a single urban area, that's quite plainly ridiculous. They're a good 60km apart with other cities in between.
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.
It's just stupid to arbitrarily gatekeep an arbitrary classification. Just lump all those islands together, why justify unreasonable claims because you got 36/37 on a quiz because of it?
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.