Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wuhan

The population of Wuhan (city proper) is just around 4.5 million, the population of Wuhan municipality with area of 8,494.41 km2 is around 8 million . In size of population Wuhan is just ranked 7^th among the most populous cities (city proper) of China , after Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Shenyang and Chongqing. So that this article ranks Wuhan (city proper) 14^th in the list wholly incorrect.

Something is still wrong with the Wuhan numbers all the way around. Most notably, the area given (400 square kilometers) simply can't be correct. The smaller urban area measure of Wuhan yields an area of 1,557 km2, so there is absolutely no way that if you measure it by districts to get "city proper" that the area measurement could be smaller than 1,557 km2. These measurements of Chinese cities are just getting plain silly. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the area of Wuhan. It does seem way off. Perhaps a new source to replace Wuhan? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is other more believable source, Wuhan should temporarily be gotten out of the List of cities proper by population.--Tutino (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this would be for the best. What someone needs to find is the inner-most districts that could be designated a "city proper" (i.e. those districts that cover the urbanized area), and then include the city on the list. This is what we've done for every other Chinese city since their municipal boundaries are so huge. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Moscow

The Moscow page lists density as 11454.9, but this page lists it much lower. I tried to change it, but it was reverted. 206.169.65.43 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

85.91.128.82 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris

I'm shocked. Is Paris too small to be in the chart? :) 85.91.128.82 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)yavor

Paris is actually smaller than you might think. There is quite a large suburban area around it, but Paris itself is considerably smaller and less populous than, say, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

City Proper

For this article the criteria should be simple. City proper refers to the city in question and the boundries which are defined and the city has legal authority over. This would exclude suburbs because they are urban and near central cities but the city governments have no legal authority over them

Ask yourself, do those areas vote for the city mayor or councilmen. If not they are not part of the city proper. If areas have their own police or fire protection or have to pay a central city for their use they are not part of the city proper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.106.62 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dehli Inquiry

Does the Dehli population and area figure include the independent city of New Dehli, as well? BTW, I'm working on finding the official 2001 Census numbers for India's administrative divisons. I've been able to find Mumbai's, but need to sign-up at India's statistics site to find the rest, so don't change anything concerning the Indian cities for the moment. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which is equivalent to a province or state holds 3 separately governed municipalities: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Delhi), New Delhi Municipal Council (New Dehli), and Delhi Cantonment Board (Delhi Cantonment). This page should ONLY include the population of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is Delhi City. So, please make sure that is the case. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to use the 2001 census populations for Indian cities (municipal corporations), these are the correct figures:

• Mumbai: 11,914,398
• Delhi: 9,817,439
• Kolkata: 4,580,544
• Bangalore: 4,292,223
• Chennai: 4,216,268
• Ahmedabad: 3,515,361
• Hyderabad: 3,449,878

You yourself say that you want to make sure that the Delhi figure doesn't include the entire union territory. The Delhi agglomeration is 12,791,458 while the Delhi NCT is 13,850,507 (these are 2001 census figures).

And just so you're aware, there are also provisional 2001 census figures still floating around. The provisional figures are 13,782,976 (NCT); 12,877,420 (UA); and 9,879,172 (MC).

Why didn't you give your signature? You've provided no source for your numbers, and I got mine directly from the Indian 2001 Census. It clearly shows that Delhi Cantonment and New Dehli make up a very small part of the overall population of the National Capital Territory. We really must stop using random World Gazetter numbers when we have official information from the statistic bureau of these countries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? The 2001 Census clearly shows that the Delhi Municipal Corporation (the "city") governed +13 million person as of, with New Delhi and Delhi Cantonnment, the only other two municipal governments of the territory only taking up a few hundred thousand persons. The 11 million number must only be for the urbanized population, but the administrative area that is Delhi had over 13 million persons as of 2001. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The DMC is 9.82 million. The Delhi UA is 12.88 million. The Delhi UT is 13.85 million. The UT contains areas outside the three municipal corporations known as Census Towns (CT). The 11 million figure used by World Gazetteer is a projection for 2008 of the 9.8 million 2001 census figure. --Polaron | Talk 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a map showing this? From everything I understood, those three municipal councils covered the entire area of the National Capital Territoy (Union Territory). --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Delhi NCT is divided in nine districts, further divided in so-called tehsils. The tehsils are divided in smaller urban or rural units, in this case one municipal corporation (Delhi), one municipal council (New Delhi), one cantonment (Delhi Cantonment), several census towns, and many rural villages. Delhi and New Delhi have parts in more than one district. Detailed files can be found here. Anyway, the area for the Delhi Municipal Corporation in this list is not correct, as 1,483 sq.km is for the whole NCT. I don't think the area for the Municipal Corporation is more than 650 sq.km, at most. For some additional details, see my comments on Delhis urban agglomeration here. --Pjred (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chongqing: Biggest City in the World

I've added China's three other municipal cities to the list, since they are specially-administered city-provinces, but I can't bring myself to add Chongqing. I kind of have to add if if we're to be consistent, but its borders just seem far too large. It is both the largest municipality in area and population. But, this page is, after all, not to measure urban population or even metropolitan population, but simply the population within the confines of a council government. Opinions? Just for reference, Chongqing has an area of 82,300 km² and a population of 31,442,300 (as of 2006). The land area for the municipality is larger than many small nations, but I guess that really shouldn't matter. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should matter, because it's fairly clear that the Chinese word which is translated as "city" means something rather different than what we normally mean by the term. What about "Prefecture level cities"? Aren't those just as clearly cities as Chongqing? Chongqing isn't a city in any of the normally understood senses of the term, and I don't think it should be included here. john k (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's unclear why only the province-level cities are included with an arbitrary exception. The list is now missing the prefecture-level cities that are large enough to make it on the list (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Wuhan, Shenyang, Dongguan, Chengdu, Xian, Nanjing, Guiyang, Haerbin). If we're going to stick to areas with a defined government as the criterion for inclusion, I would prefer to exclude the Chinese cities as their city propers (as usually defined, they are a statistical group of urban districts) do not have an associated government. Ultimately, I think the list should be of "city propers" in the traditional sense rather than municipalities, even if those areas do not have an associated single municipal government. --Polaron | Talk 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn because, then, what is the use of a list for the worlds largest urban areas, then? At the same time, it doesn't seem right to list "cities" the physical size of small nations. I guess, then, it's best that we leave out ALL Chinese cities from this list, then. For instance, Hong Kong should also be removed because very little of its 1,092 square kilometers is developed land. If you'd like to remove them, I guess I don't mind. But, to me, a "city" is simply a municipal government, regardless of how little or how much non-urban area it contains. Not the whole of London, for example, is urbanized. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How are we to distinguish a municipal government from any other kind of local government? For instance, what about the various "chartered counties" in Maryland, whose function roughly corresponds to that of a municipal government? Several of them (Baltimore County and Howard County) don't even have any chartered municipalities within them. Why do they not count? The whole conception of this list seems flawed. I tend to think that, given that different countries are organized so differently, we should really just have a list of urban areas, which can be defined in a uniform way, and avoid the pitfalls of this list, which is bound to lead to constant arguing. john k (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that this list doesn't make sense. As different as countries administrate there area, there is such thing as "local government" or municipal-level government in just about every country. As for chartered counties, what does that have to do with anything? Baltimore is both a municipality and a county. This page is for both traditional and non-traditional local governments. No one would argue Baltimore is any less a local government because it's also a county. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The City of Baltimore is an independent city, not part of any county. There's also Baltimore County, which is separate, does not include the city of Baltimore, and functions very much like a municipal government. It does not contain within it any chartered municipalities, but has more or less full local self-government. Why isn't it a "city" in the sense of Chongqing? It isn't called a city, and it isn't as densely populated as a traditional city, but in terms of government, it's not too different from one. What about British council districts? "Local government" does not at all correspond to what we generally think of when we use the word "city." Sometimes the local government roughly corresponds to the urban area, sometimes it is much smaller, sometimes it is much larger, and sometimes there are several levels of local government which make it extremely complicated to say. But defining "city" to mean "unit of municipal government" strikes me as dubious, especially if it forces us to do things like include Chongqing. john k (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of this list is basically to show density of people, there should be a slider = area. You slide the area and the list changes to say the maximum number of people in that area...hmmm... should it be a circle? This all boils down to the problem with trying to define things! Oh... the human desire to know!

Solution for this Page: How to Define "City"

As we all know, defining "city" by the definitions of a "city proper" is usually quite easy. But, there are a few cases where it is more difficult (Chinese cities). I propose that we keep those traditional and easy-to-define city propers that exist on the list, but for those less easy to define that we define them as the local government officially defines them. For instance, Tokyo's "23 Wards" should represent Tokyo, here. As long as these local governments exists as administrative areas we should be able to piece together the population of say a Shanghai or Beijing without having to add thousands of square kilometers of empty rural space. Still, in this case, cities like Santiago still wouldn't belong, here, and it would be hard to make a case for Lagos. But this new definition of "city" would allow quite a few more cities to be added. Opinion? --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The 23 wards is simply the area that used to be Tokyo municipality before it was dissolved. It is now simply a statistical area. How is that different from the 16 LGAs making up Lagos or the 32 municipalities making up Santiago. Inclusion of Tokyo necessitates inclusion of these two (as well as the Chinese cities). Let's not make arbitrary decisions here. How about we just find some respectable entity that has already tabulated administrative cities rather than debate what gets included or not. There is no single definition that would satisfy everyone. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about World Gazetter of the UN than I would not agree, at all. The people that know their cities best, and know the best ways to define them, are the national or local statistics organizations. Anything else is too much of a guess to be taken seriously, even if it is consistent. I'd rather see this page be inconsistent and exact, than consistent and far from exact. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong Definition

Hong Kong, from what I understand, has no formally-defined cities. The administrative divisions within Hong Kong are more like boroughs than indepedent cities, so Hong Kong should be added. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

China cities vs. US cities

In any case, the city proper of a China city is much more conservative than a US city, probably except for Chongqing. The city proper of a US city includes so many suburbs that I don't even consider any city in the US except for New York City a city, compared to cities in China. You find skyscrapers everywhere in a city proper of China, yet for any US city except New York (probably except Chicago too, but not any other), there are at most 10 blocks of downtown area, and then there are one-story residential houses. The contrast is very obvious. Hardly any intermediate buildings exist. A mid-sized China city might not have many super-talls, but if you look at the skyview of any such city, it is very dense and urbanized with tons of 8--9 storied buildings. If you think the city proper of a China city doesn't have an associated government, then the only equivalent of that part in a US city should be the downtown area. How big a population does downtown Los Angeles have? The definition of Chongqing might not be very proper, but that doesn't harm other really big Chinese cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, etc. I would say, even the definition of Chongqing is probably more proper than a city like Chicago. Chicago's skyline can be seen from miles and miles not because it is so much higher than other cities, but because the rest is so flat. I don't think I have to say anything about Los Angeles. Anybody who has been there knows it is just a giant village.

If you decide to remove all Chinese cities from the list, but include cities from anywhere else, please make the title "List of cities by population except China". I do believe that China doesn't have to compare with the rest of the world in terms of city sizes. China has 1.4 billion people and most of them live in big cities of the east coast. You can imagine how dense and urbanized those cities can be.

Whoever wrote the above paragraph got it totally wrong. The city proper means EXACTLY that, the city limits which the city government has jurisdiction over. Very few cities in the USA are over 500 sq miles. A metropolitan area or a consolidate metropolitan area refers to a city and it's suburbs.

If you don't know what you're saying don't say it. And whoever wrote the above paragraph didn't have a clue 63.26.106.62 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)eric

SYDNEY

there's like 4mil people in sydney, therefore it qualifies, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.91.186 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See directly below. Aucitypops (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sydney is reported as having over 4 million people, yet it's not on the list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.71.197 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this list only includes "city proper" or municipality population for better or worse, an equivalent figure for Sydney would be the popn of the City of Sydney, i.e. only ~154,000 people. - Aucitypops (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes well London made it in as "Greater London" "Greater Sydney" is 4 million, put it on the list. this list is very inaccurate.

There's no such thing as "Greater Sydney". Aucitypops (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I sujest you research "The County of Cumberland" the city of Sydney is entirely enclosed within this county, as are its 4 million residence, Sydney has a place on the list!

Nope. Substantial parts of that 4 mil. figure dwell outside Cumberland County (whose border is the Hawkesbury/Nepean River), e.g. on the Central Coast and in the mountains. And the Cumberland County hasn't had anything resembling a government since the 1950s. This list is limited to municipalities. There's no Greater Sydney municipality. - Aucitypops (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are you from, Are you from Sydney? If you were you would know that the area classified as Greater Sydney does not include the central coast, the hawksbury, the blue mountains or wollongong. When you enter city, from all these places, you pass a sign, "Welcome to Greater Sydney, pop. 4 something million". The number 4 million included the CBD itself and its surounding suburbs, as in London, and London is on the list?

Yes, I live in Sydney. There is no official "Greater Sydney" that population figures are published for, so there's no figure which can be compared with the other entities on this list. The only official statistical entity covering the whole of Sydney is the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Sydney Statistical Division, which includes the Central Coast and Hawkesbury, the Blue Mountains and Wollondilly Shire (but not Wollongong). If there are signs at the Hawkesbury River crossing saying that 4 million people live south of there then they're wrong, I'm afraid, and a sign that even the authorities have trouble understanding their own definitions. - Aucitypops (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OHHHH, GET BACK!, THIS MANS ON FIRE!

Many there be who come! from fear set free,

From anger, from desire; keeping their hearts

Fixed upon me- my Faithful- purified

By sacred flame of Knowledge.

-Aucitypops (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The sacred flame of knowledge, I got one of those!

Should be at "List of cities proper" or "List of municipalities" by population

Like I mentioned in the deletion discussion, I think this article should be at one of the above for clarity, and "List of cities" should direct to the generic definitions page, World's largest cities. Any opinions? = Aucitypops (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections then? I think "List of cities proper by population" will be best. - Aucitypops (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

moved. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai population

The World Gazetteer population for Shanghai in 2008, 15,584,627, seems to be a much more accurate figure than the current one of 10,030,788. The current figure is from 2003 and is from Statistics Finland, which I don't see why that source has any authority at all. According to World Gazetteer the official census population of Shanghai in 2000 was 12,693,027, so that is already more than the 2003 Statistics Finland figure. And these are strictly for Shanghai city proper, not for the municipality. World Gazetteer has population figures for the whole municipality as well, 16,407,734 at the 2000 census and 18,398,009 for a 2008 estimate. Most of Shanghai's population is centered in a small area. Puxi is the central nine districts of Shanghai and is only 289.44 km². The Wikipedia article on Puxi says approximately 90% of Shanghai's population is located in Puxi. I don't know how accurate that is but that would be a population of 16,558,208 using the 18,398,009 figure, so the population of 15,584,627 seems very reasonable. I'm not sure what the area should be though so I am going to delete that figure. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

World Gazetteer figure is incorrect for Shanghai. The "agglomeration" figure is for the municipality while the "city" figure is for the total of all urban districts. In both cases, the figures include floating population. Also, the growth rate being used (+2.60%) is inconsistent with recent trends (Shanghai-shi has a -0.12% growth rate of permanent population for the past decade). Please check other sources to see if anyone else corroborates the World Gazetteer figures. See here for an official by distict population breakdown of permanent residents (the city proper is everything from the top row to Jiading District). The official city proper population is about 10.24 million. If we include the non-resident population, this goes up to 13.46 million. --Polaron | Talk 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

World Gazetteer lists three figures for Shanghai:

• Shanghai "city, town or place" - 15,584,627
• Shanghai "agglomeration" - 16,969,826
• Shanghai "shih" - 18,398,009 I'm assuming that's the same thing as the province-level municipality because the population figure coincides with the figure from this source.

So it doesn't seem like World Gazetteer is mixing up city, agglomeration, and municipality, it is just using a different definition of the city perhaps. Also from what I read it seems like the -0.12% growth rate is just the natural birth rate, but that doesn't indicate what the actual growth rate of the city is because people from other cities are moving to it all the time. Also, perhaps we should include "long-term residents" as well, this source from the "Shanghai Population and Family Planning Commission" seems to include long-term residents as it gives the population of the municipality at 18.45 million. Where did you get the 13.46 population that includes non-permanent residents on that page? I see the 10.24 but not the 13.46. One reason I felt the 10 million figure was so off was because I was comparing it to 18 million in the municipality. But if you compare 10 to 13 and 13 to 18 it makes more sense. I think perhaps we should change the population to 13.46 to include long-term residents as well, I would think most city populations include this, and since many cities' population figures are from World Gazetteer it would be consistent to include long-term for Shanghai too. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Shanghai Statistical Yearbook [1] has estimates of the total population including the floating poopulation as of the end of 2006. --Polaron | Talk 23:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what defines the 'city proper' of Shanghai then? My vote is on the Puxi area. The first version of this publication listed the Puxi area as one single unit, Shanghai Shi, at the 2000 population census. The other statistics from the World Gazetteer is very hard to evaluate, as they don't give more details about their own sources. What I think of using the World Gazetteer as a source can be viewed here, by the way. --Pjred (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To the editors on this page, if you cite a source or reference for this article, such as the World Gazetteer, then you need to correctly use the source's statistics to reflect the article's content. Wikipedia is not for original research and we should not insert statistics that "we" think "actually" reflect the city proper's population! We ought to use the number that is "stated" on the reference and definitely shouldn not play "adding" or "mix and match" statistics (and again, that is original research) a whole bunch of numbers to fix up a statistics. You need to correctly attribute the source's statistics.--Balthazarduju (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

After checking the article's citation and the way it's been attributing them, I've concluded that this has to be one of the worst and most inconsistent articles ever written on Wikipedia. It is ridiculous how inconsistent it really is. For example, for Shanghai, it cites a Finnish source instead of the World Gazetteer (which is the most cited source on this article), and the Finnish source shows a population of 10,030,788 for Shanghai...Okay... Then look another example, Mumbai, whose population according to the same Finnish source is 11,978,450, but on this article, some editor is citating the World Gazetteer's statistic of 13,662,885....Okay... I guess this is what I'm talking about of "mix and match" statistics to satisfy different editor's opinion.--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a big discrepancy between the data provided here and on the Shanghai proper wiki article. Here the population is 13,831,900, while in this article [2] it is 21,884,600, relating to this article [3] accordingly. Whatever the criteria are, I think both should match. I suppose the same problem relates to other population counts. As a person who wanted to check the data out of curiosity, I do not find it as a big problem, but if somebody was looking for the information for a specific reason, it would lead them to a total confusion at best and make wikipedia a poorly reliable source. So if you know specific criteria, please correct it. // User: Random wikipedia user(talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.150.173 (talk)

Istanbul

The population figures for Istanbul are for the province of Istanbul, not the city. Turkey is divided into 81 provinces which share the name of the capital. The capital is usually the largest city (with a couple of exceptions in which another city has passed the original capital in size).

So the number here ~11,3 million, includes places outside urban areas since it counts people who live in the administrative centers of the province (il) as well as people who live in the administrative centers of any district (ilçe - the sub-unit of a province).

Plus the number given in the article is not the same as found on the source website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xemxi (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The population figure for Istanbul in the list is the total population of all the 27 districts within Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi), not the whole province. Nor is the 11,3 million the total population of all the district centers within the province. Read the article for Istanbul for details.

Anyway, here's an overview of some population figures of Istanbul (2007-12-31): 10,757,327 (total population of all 27 district centers within Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality); 11,174,257 (total population of all district centers within Istanbul Province, also the ones outside the metropolitan municipality), 11,372,613 (total population of the 27 districts of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, which is basically the same as the city of Istanbul), 12,573,836 (total population of Istanbul Province).--Pjred (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai Image Caption

Made an edit to the text underneath the mumbai pic at the top of the page. Technically Mumbai does not have A downtown area, so the image is not downtown mumbai, but a nevertheless important locality in mumbai- Cuffe Parade.

Irutavias (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why 47?

Used to be titled: Why 30?

Couldn't we expand this list to, ideally list all cities of over 1,000,000? Also, I think it's a good idea to foot note exactly how we are defining each city. john k 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular reason for there being 30. World Gazetteer lists cities with population of 500,000+. If we go with 1 million+ cities, there would be about 310 entries. If we go with 2 million+ cities, there would be about 120 entries. Currently, entries without footnotes correspond to the concept of "city proper" or "administrative area". Polaron 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's now 47.... If the article's going to go with a flat number, then say so—"List of top ___ cities proper by population"— or just mention it in the opening para. If something else, same deal, be it by cities with 3 million+ or by whatever. The way I wrote that feels condescending...sorry for that.... --Snaxe/fow (talk)

The list is completely wrong. London's population is over 10 million, it was nearing 11 million when I was living there myself some years back (2001-2002). Billy Bollox (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But thats the metropolitan area, where exactly are you're figures from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.30.178 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh City

The population for Ho Chi Minh City is way off. The city is actually a city-province with 2,095 square kilometers and 6,117,251 as of the 2004 Census. But, even if you only include the inner districts it's still 494 sq km with 5,140,412 as of the 2004 Census. Someone needs to correct this. All of the info I provided is on the city's wiki page and is highly detailed. The 4 million number looks like it may simply be an urban agglomeration, and not anything having to do with administrative divisions. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then we have to decide which definition is the 'city proper'. The municipality, or the central urban districts? The obvious choice would perhaps be the municipality, but because the administrative system is similar to the one in China, with a few provincial units classified as municipalities governed (mainly) by the state (Ho Chi Minh City is one of them) it's perhaps not as easy as that. And, the newly expanded boundaries for Hanoi shows that the development perhaps is beginning to follow what's happened in China, with the municipalities expanding far beyond what's a fair definition of its urban core. As in China, Vietnam defines more urbanized districts within the municipalities, so perhaps the best choice is to use that definition after all? Comments?--Pjred (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese city propers

Oh dear... It's almost as I don't dare to start this discussion, but I feel it has to be done. My simple question is: what definition shall we use for city propers in China?

The provincial, subprovincial and prefectural levels are out of the question, as I see it. They are basically not independent enough to be called administrative cities by their owns. The provincial municipalities are mainly governed by the state, and the subprovincial and prefectural municipalities are very much administrated by their provincial governments. Well, they have some local administration, and I think they have something that can be called 'mayors', but I think it's more about taking and proceeding orders from higher authorities and not so much about local administration. And, then of course, they are far too oversized to be usable in a comparision with other worldwide cities.

The main source for Chinese cities in this list is a Finnish database. From what I can see, they have basically summarized the fully urban districts for each city, and excluded any surrounding district that has any level of rural population. The results gives fully urban areas, but the problem is that they are not administrative areas by their own. Instead, they consists of several smaller administrative areas (qu's=districts). However, we have already Lagos and Santiago in this list, each consisting of severeal smaller administrative units.

Another approach is to use the so-called 'shixiaqu' level, which is a collective term for all urban-classified districts within a provincial/subprovincial/prefectural municipality. However, not all of the districts (far from, actually) are fully urban, and I think that in some rare cases even with some distance from the central block of districts, with rural counties separating them, making it not a continuous area. What speaks for the shixiaqu level is that it is classified at county-level, and that the defined 'shixiaqu' districts have an important role in urban planning in China.

Thoughts, anyone?--Pjred (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually argued this one before, and we were unable to come to a concensus, so I just gave up. I'd say the best way is just to list the population of what they consider their own city propers, and thats listed on most of these city's pages, already. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chongqing is considered a city proper, and it's huge (40,000,000 people). If need be we can create a separate list for municipalities, which covers whatever is administratively the city. For this list, using Chinese definitions of city proper looks plain old ridiculous. I think core districts + inner suburbs is a good measurement for this, but it's hard to find recent figures for it (unless you can read Chinese). Speaking of Chinese, I wonder if zh. might have some population figures for districts within cities that can be copied over to this site by translation means.

I've also decided to revert Shanghai back to its former figure. The World Gazetteer just doesn't work there. Someone the Person (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Populations of Tokyo and México City

The population of México City and Tokyo are much larger than stated in this page. México City has a population of around 25 million people and Tokyo about 23 million people. I do not understand why Mumbai has been listed as the largest. It is a well known fact that the populations of Tokyo and México City are abouve 25 million.

Thankyou for taking this into consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspence835 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lima Update

The 43-district Lima Province (which is a special province run like a regional municipality) has a population of 8,445,211 as of 2007. Someone may want to update this. Here is the source courtesy of the INEI, the national statistics agency of Peru. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The 8.4 million figure is for Lima Department. The figure for Lima Province is only 7,605,742 (see Table 4.2 of the pdf file). --Polaron | Talk 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. I see what I did wrong. But, this still means you need to correct the number, here, to match the official Census data. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdated information for Shanghai

I noticed that the data for Shanghai is quite outdated - from 2002. For a city growing as fast as it is, it may have several million more people since then. Is it worthwhile to flag this article with a template? Or if someone has better information, could they please try to search out better numbers for Shanghai? Thanks. -Legaia (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the World Gazetteer is right, Shanghai is larger than Mumbai, India now. However, I doubt that the World Gazetteer is using the definition of "core districts + inner suburbs." Someone the Person (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is that we are not in agreement on what constitutes a city proper. Looking at the Wiki article for this term, it does not mention anything about "core districts + inner suburbs". There has not been a general consensus that concurs with your criteria. Is it by your command that this page only lists population for core districts + inner suburbs? By78 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very much the truth per the last comment. It's a bit more than odd to see Shanghai, first, but it being the only major city in the top ten without an area or density listed. Unless we can find better info, we need to switch it back to like it was before. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it back; the World Gazetteer gives what appears to me to be a meaningless number (what area does it cover?) and whatever definition we use for Shanghai should be used for all Chinese cities. The way I see it we have two options: 1. Count the entire area of Shanghai and other Chinese cities, including rural areas. I don't like the idea of this, because if we use that definition for city proper, then Chongqing should be at the top of the list by a long shot. 2. Use more strict figures, but figures that apply to a defined area. Core districts + inner suburbs is a defined area. The World Gazetteer doesn't say what area its figures apply to. Someone the Person (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid World Gazetteer if possible. The list uses World Gazetteer as a source only when the definition is clear, i.e. the most recent census figure for the World Gazetteer entity matches the most recent census figure for the municipality exactly, and also when there are no other sources available for a relatively recent population estimate. This is the case for municipalities in India. In China, this is not applicable and I can't be sure what definition it is using. In any case, the list should be reverted to the status quo pending a clarification of how to define Chinese cities proper. --Polaron | Talk 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the number issue back

The list currently ends at Busan, South Korea. This appears to me to be a very random place to stop, neither a round population number nor a round number of cities. There should be a defined limit to the list, say, cities with 3,000,000+ people. This makes it easier to know when to add to or remove from the list.

I don't think it should be a "top x" list, because it's hard to accurately keep track of which x cities to include, and every time one city is added, one will be removed. Someone the Person (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3 million is probably a reasonable cut-off point. --Polaron | Talk 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone the Person (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the list of administrative city definitions that have a recent (>2005) population estimate of over 3 million and are not currently included in the article. The list may not be exhaustive so please feel free to add anything that's missing as long as it fits the "city proper" definition. --Polaron | Talk 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nairobi — 3,038,553 (2008) [4] --Anatoliy (Talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Someone the Person (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Buenos Aires (ADDED)
• Madrid (ADDED)
• Omdurman
• Pyongyang (ADDED)
• Berlin (ADDED)
• Pune (ADDED)
• Cape Town
• Durban (ADDED)
• Sydney
• Melbourne
• Casablanca -- 2,933,509 as of 2004 (is there a more recent estimate?)
• Jeddah 2,860,000 (2005) [5]--Anatoliy (Talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Then it should not be on the list. The article gives a >3,000,000 number but no source. Someone the Person (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Kanpur (ADDED)
• Jaipur (ADDED)
• Lucknow (maybe?)
• Luanda
• Maracaibo

Someone the Person (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sydney and Melbourne should definitely be removed as these are urban areas. There was a previous discussion on this somewhere above or in the archives. Maracaibo only has 1.3 million; Luanda has 1.7 million; and Lucknow has 2.7 million. Omdurman is unclear. --Polaron | Talk 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument that Sydney and Melbourne are urban areas -- this would mean that Sydney is counted as having a population of 168,682, and Melboune 71,380. On a list, especially a list of the largest cities in Australia, this looks kind of ridiculous -- Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth would go far at the top. I think the "Greater Sydney" and "Greater Melbourne" definitions are okay, because they still don't include large suburbs like e.g. Wollongong.

This list is supposed to be a list of cities by population, not a list of municipalities. If the goal was to make the definitions strictly administrative, Chongqing would be at the top of the list. This list is supposed to measure all cities with roughly the same standards. If there is a question about the purpose of this list, maybe we should create two separate lists -- one for cities proper (to "look right"), and one for municipalities (strictly administrative definitions). [By the way, Australia has two lists on Wikipedia (one for cities, one for municipalities).] Someone the Person (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way but just be prepared to argue about it as this issue has come up a few times before. --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Omdurman has 3,151,561 according this source.--Anatoliy (Talk) 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's add them. Someone the Person (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be added. Like it or not the 'city propers' of most Australian cities ARE very small, and not comparable at all to the very large municipal entities displayed in this list. - Aucitypops (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[When I said "let's add them," I meant add the other cities.]

I still don't think it makes sense to call the municipalities "city proper." If someone were to ask the question "What is the largest city in Australia," most people would answer "Sydney" or "Melbourne." This list is not a list of municipalities; if it was then Chongqing would be by far the largest. Lagos, which is on the list, is made up of LGAs as well. Someone the Person (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Chongqing "Proper"

Now, we've already come to the concensus that adding Chongqing as a Chinese municipality is not feasible, but even the number listed here for the "core districts" seem to be wrong. According to the List of administrative divisions of Chongqing, Chongqing "proper" or its core districts had a population of 5,780,000 as of the 2006 estimates. Shouldn't this be corrected? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be corrected, and I will change it. Most of the Chinese city numbers are based on Statistics Finland; I think we should not use it when there are more well-defined numbers available. Statistics Finland does not define the extent of its "city proper" definition. The main problem is that Wikipedia is lacking in district population figures for the administrative divisions of all but the very largest cities in China, and many of the sources that could be used are in Chinese. Someone the Person (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

London

Firstly the population listed here is wildly inaccurate and secondly the city of London is 1 mile square and has a population of around 7000 - seeing as this is "cities proper" and all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.97.114 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater London is covered by a common council, so it's treated as a city proper. It's just that simple, my nameless friend. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the guy who wrote that above statement but fully agree with him. The population of the city proper of London is around 7,000 last time I checked. You cannot (even though you have) just interpret something as a proper city that is not. It negates the validity of the entire article. Just because an area has one council doesn't make it a city. This article is flawed and London should not be in it. It's just that simple.--Tubsuk (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the City of London is unique in not having a 'proper' council. The other boroughs of greater London have separate councils, each of them separate from one another. The Greater London Council is a devolved government to greater London. If London is in here then so too should be Scotland.--Tubsuk (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And Scotland is Greater what? Someone the Person (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

London is not the only city in the list that is a special case. For all intents and purposes, Greater London is classified as a city proper. That some services are devolved doesn't change that. There isn't any debate on this. This was decided long ago. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then it's just a wrong article. If London isn't the only exception and there are further inaccuracies, perhaps the article should just be deleted.--Tubsuk (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had this debate here before. What constitutes a 'city proper' has been debated more times than I can remember as the term is subjective, but we've cobbled together a pretty legitimate list. Greater London as a city proper has long since been decided. If that bothers you, too bad. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you've got together and discussed the issue and your best solution you could come up with was to say 'never mind, we'll just have a factually inaccurate article'. You don't get to decide what is and isn't fact, this article is flawed and does provides false information and what a city proper is, is what each individual country governs to be a 'city proper'. In the UK it is the area with city status. Greater London does not have city status. However, the city of London does and with its population of around 7,000 it shouldn't be in the list. --Tubsuk (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[6] There's the proof that you seem to overlook.--Tubsuk (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being a dick. I know what is an isn't a city in the United Kingdom. That has little bearing on our calculation of the subjective term we use ("city proper"). Go argue with someone else. I'm done. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tusbuk: You are confining your definition of "city" to mean a single municipality granted a certain legal status by a higher authority. The list uses the more general notion of city as an urban locality that is generally known by one name. This is not strictly a list of single-tier local authorities. A well-defined statistical grouping of munipalities that are known by one name and is primarily urban would also qualify as a city proper. It may be that the term "city proper" is not the best to use for what are essentially administrative city limits but do you agree that when one generally uses "London" without any qualifications, they mean the entity known as Greater London and possibly its environs? --Polaron | Talk 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that Greater London was a ceremonial county, as opposed to a city. Despite there being one overall governing body there is also borough wide local council etc just as there is in every other borough of England. The City of London (the area with a population of 7000) is the official city; everywhere outside of the ancient city walls (the other 8 million or so) are suburbs within the County of Greater London. County is the key word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.234.143 (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid succumbing to the temptation of pedantry when colloquial language is perfectly meaningful and comprehensible. In this case, Greater London is commonly referred to as a city both within and without the UK, and the vast majority of people understand it as such. The kind of person who would quibble about the fact that "you actually mean the "County of London" as the City of London is only one square mile" (tuts, gives a smug look, taps their pipe) is the kind of pub quiz expert that infuriates everyone else outside of that context, and we really shouldn't be catering exclusively for that audience. 222.70.34.41 (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that London has 7,000 people is ridiculous, and if that area with 7,000 people is what you call London, then you can hardly say it's the biggest city in the UK. Someone the Person (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make an extension

"A well-defined statistical grouping of munipalities that are known by one name and is primarily urban would also qualify as a city proper" -- This also applies to Australian cities, doesn't it? That's why I want Sydney and Melbourne on the list. Someone the Person (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually would, and it's why I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, either. I support Greater London as a 'city proper' on the list, because it has a regional government. London has two tiers of local government. Australian cities don't have regional government. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nor do the LGAs of Metropolitan Lagos. Someone the Person (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I did extensive online research about Lagos, and it really shouldn't be on the list, either. Regardless, London should stand; there is no longer any real debate about that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't a list of municipalities. This is a list of cities. If a person answers the question "what is the largest city in Australia" with "Sydney," is that ridiculous because Brisbane is actually six times larger than Sydney? Why does Australia have Sydney as the largest city in the infobox? It doesn't say "largest metropolitan area." The reason is that there is a difference between a city proper and a municipality. This is a list of cities proper. Someone the Person (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Randstad region in The Netherlands would also count as a "well-defined statistical grouping of municipalities that are known by one name and is primarily urban", even though it comprises a.o. the proper cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht, and stretches over four provinces. On the other hand, it is relatively compact, especially when considered against e.g. Chongqing, and it does have 41% of the 16 million Dutch living there, so in size it would qualify. The definition is available at the Dutch Statistics Bureau's site http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/methoden/toelichtingen/alfabet/r/randstad-region.htm , with some statistics at http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/macro-economie/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-2443-wm.htm?Languageswitch=on . 131.174.142.233 (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are known by one name, but so what? Who would call the Randstad region a city? For that matter, Long Island is a group of municipalities known by one name and is primarily urban. Someone the Person (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiev, Ukraine

What about Kiev? This list ends at #62 Colombo at 2,235,000 while Kiev has 2,819,566 and is one of the largest cities in Europe according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoverYellow (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The list doesn't have Colombo... Someone the Person (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent with the reference

Seems like this list is outdated. The reference mentioned [1] shows Shanghai to be the biggest city. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to edit the entire list, may be some one can help? Cribananda (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

World Gazetteer is generally not a reliable source. It is only being used for the cities of India for two reasons: (1) its figures for the 1991 and 2001 censuses match those of Census India, so we can be sure its definition matches the official one; and (2) there are no recent population estimates for cities by Census India. Otherwise, the definitions used by World Gazetteer in general are unclear or do not match those used by the national census authorities. --Polaron | Talk 12:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may not be a reliable source, but then the entire list otherwise seems to be based on the World Gazetteer. So not using it for just one city, citing another source doesn't make any sense. Moreover, this makes it inconsistent with the article on Mumbai. Cribananda (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous exaggeration. A great deal of the cities, especially the top 20, or so, have their own official sources, most, their nation's official statistics agency. To make it sound as if the World Gazetter is the only source being used is ridiciulous. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Canvas: should non-Census sources be allowed on individual cite articles?

Because there's a discussion about it here you may want to contribute to if you have feelings about it.--Loodog (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Delhi Area

For the zillionth time, the 431.09 for Delhi is for the f'ckin' URBAN AREA not for the municipal boundaries of the Municipal Corporation. We're not going to keep going over this, and I'm going to get this page locked if people keep fucking with it. Hell, the source given, itself, specifies again and again and again that the land area given is for the urban agglomoration. How many times do we have to keep going back over this? This is a page for defined local government districts, either in combination of along, not for census tracts and other statistical divisions.

I'm convinced someone changed my link. Here is another linke giving the area of the three municipal corporations within the national capital territory of Delhi.

There are three local bodies viz., Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Cantonment Board whose respective area is 1397.3 sq.km., 42.7 sq.km., and 43 kms.

--Criticalthinker (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one changed your link to support the 1397 km2. You can even check at history page. With regards to the land area, 431.09 km2 (Urban India)/ 431 km2 (UN) are both extremely similar. So it seems consistent that two reliable sources state this. Urban India makes a reference that the 431.09 km2 is in fact the municipal corporation despite it being the urban area. You can check it here. Delhi Municipal Corp. In the first table it references, Delhi M. corporation as being 431.09 km2. I don't know why there is such a big difference though. Elockid (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the link you provided also had history of a Municipal Act (powers of the government), it is entirely possible that the "bodies" being referenced is the body a government which covers that amount of area and not the city itself. Elockid (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (which covers a great deal of the area of the Delhi urban area, and most certainly the most central portions of it) covers and area of 1397.3 sq.km. There simply isn't any question about that. The 431 number is just for the urban agglomeration. The municipal boundaries of Delhi are much greater than that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be somewhat of a neverending debate about the area of Delhi, as different authoritative sources say different things. I have come to the conclusion that the situation must be like this: The National Capital Territory of Delhi has an area of 1,484 sq.km. Within this area, there are just three incorporated places: Delhi Municipal Corporation (431 sq.km), New Delhi Municipal Council (43 sq.km) and Delhi Cantonment Board (administrated by the army). However, there are several so-called "Census Towns" in the NCT of Delhi that aren't incorporated, and there are also some rural area on top of that. These areas are not part of any of the three incorporated places. But, they are probably administrated from the Delhi MC, similar to a census designated place in the U.S. which is administrated from the seat of the county. So, even as they are administrated from a city, they are not a part of the same. The 1,397 sq.km must be the total area that's administrated from the Delhi MC (including census towns and rural areas) but only 431 sq.km is the Delhi MC itself. Sounds logical? Anyway, for anyone who's interested, Criticalthinker and I had an earlier discussion about Delhi here.--Pjred (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What your saying makes sense. Also from the source that Criticalthinker, it stated that there are "209 villages in Delhi, of which 199 are inhabited villages and the remaining 10 are deserted". It wouldn't make sense that only three bodies (city limits/municipal corporations) exist when the source referenced multiple villages. Elockid (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. The 431 km is only for the urban agglomeration. That is a given in all of this. A municipality can't administer areas that aren't also included as part of the municipality. DMC covers and area of 1,397 sq km of which 431 sq km is the central urban core. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A village is not necessarily incorporated. Someone the Person (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course a city or municipality can administrate areas outside its boundaries. Just look at census designated places in the U.S. And, some Russian cities have additional units under their administration, that's not parts of the cities themselves. I am sure there are more examples from around the world, but can't remember them right now. Anyway, in the Statistical Handbook 2008 of the NCT of Delhi, the area 1,397.29 sq.km is listed for "Delhi Municipal Corporation Urban, Rural & Census Towns". Not Delhi MC alone, but bunched together with rural areas and Census Towns. Just another piece of the puzzle.--Pjred (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? CDP (Census Designated Places) are unincorporated areas usually overseen by a county; they aren't apart of any municipality. Further more, you're arbitrarily splitting "Rural & Census Towns" from the rest of the title. Why is it so hard to see that Delhi MC administers an area that includes urban and rural lands? It's really rather clear. Census Towns are simple statistical divisions; they are not municipal divisions. Delhi MC has no municipal divisions if even India's Census statistically divides it for statistical purposes. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cdp's were not a good example, I admit. However, are you seriously meaning that the official name of the municipality is Delhi Municipal Corporation Urban, Rural & Census Towns?? Allow me to at least smile at this... Anyway, I tried some time ago to get in touch with the Delimination Board in India for an answer, but they didn't reply. And, now their webpage is down for some unknown reason. Instead, I have now send a mail to an office in the NCT of Delhi who might be able to help. If I get an answer, whatever it is, I will update here.--Pjred (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

More proof the current area listed for Delhi is just the urban area, and not the municipal area:

The MCD, which caters to nearly 96 percent of the land area in the city, is run by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and is currently under the central government.

This was dated just back in September. There is not another source on the entire internet to coroborate the 484 sq km number because that's not the area of the municipality of Delhi. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, looking at all the pieces of the puzzle, there's something that's not right with this. Why would Census India split the 2001 Census results into one entity named "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" and then also identify other separate urban units ("census towns") with immediate border to this unit (as seen on a map of the agglomeration in this file)? If they were trying to identify a urban part of the municipal corporation, why not count at least all continuous urban units as one entity, if it's within the same administrative unit anyway? This indicates that there has to be some kind of administrative difference between the area listed for the Census results and the surrounding urban units (and rural units for that matter, NCT of Delhi has many rural villages too). Anyway, whatever the "truth" is, the World Gazetteer 2009 population estimate is most likely calculated from the 2001 Census results. And the 2001 Census result, as presented by Census India, is for the 431 sq.km area (excluding New Delhi, Delhi Cantonment, all Census towns and all villages within the NCT of Delhi). If we consider the municipal corporation to be the wider suggestion (just excluding New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment within the NCT of Delhi, but including all census towns and rural villages) we also have to use correct population figures correlating to this area. It would probably be doable for the 2001 Census, but I don't think we can get later official data than that.--Pjred (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at the map you keep referring to, the title only says its of the urban agglomeration, which they probably piece together by cities instead of physically built up areas, though, it'd not much matter either way. This is important, because looking at the map it clear it doesn't show the borders of the Union Territory. The census towns it shows are actually in other states (outside the boundaries of the Union Territory). --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, all the census towns are within the NCT of Delhi. Here is a document with the definition of the urban agglomeration, with all the components listed. I even think that the Census India have some kind of rule that says that the definition of an "Urban agglomeration" aren't allowed to cross a boundary of a state or a union territory. That's why obvious candidates like Ghaziabad, Faridabad and Noida aren't included in the official urban agglomeration. In reality, the Delhi area is competing with the Mumbai area to be the most populous agglomeration in India; the official population is however somewhat lower.--Pjred (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, go look at the map you posted, and then go find a map of the union territory (state-equivalent unit). They are not the same. And, please read here what a "census town" is:

"a cluster of fifty or more occupied dwellings, not having a legally defined boundary, in which within a distance of 800 metres there is a nucleus of either thirty occupied houses on both sides of the road or twenty occupied houses on one side of the road."

Take Pooth Kalan as an example. It's a census town, but still very much as an associated municipal government that governs it: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The MCD encompasses and administers the government, again, for the vast majority of the territory in the union territory. In other words, these census towns and villages and such are statistical entities, not legal ones. This is essentially a measurement of urban areas, no municipal boundaries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the map of the urban agglomeration and a map of the NCT isn't the same. What's your point?

I am well aware that a census town is a statistical unit, and that the main administrative functions are run by a higher administrative body. It's how census towns all around India are organized - and we don't consider them to be parts of other municipalities, do we? By the way: villages in India are legal bodies (Gram panchayats) and not only statistical units.--Pjred (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The point should be obvious. The 431 sq km number is not the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, which is the legal city entity that should be listed on this page as the city proper. Delhi, New Delhi and the cantonnment cover the entire area within the territory, and of that, Delhi's associated government covers over over 95% of the area. Delhi City (municipal corporation), which covers 1,387.3 square kilometers, had a population of 13,423,227 according to the 2001 Census, which are the only reliable numbers for the municipal city. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find a copy of the Delhi Municpal Corporation Act to see exactly what it says. I wasn't successfull. However, I did actually find something useful, and it supports the 1,387.3 sq.km definition for the Municipal Corporation. This recent story tells about a legal procedure about taxes where it was claimed that villages in the NCT were beyond the control of the Municipal Corporation, as they were rural units and not part of the urban area. The court however established that villages in NCT are parts of the Municipal Corporation, based on the DMC Act. So, I'm on board on this. If anyone want to change the smaller definition to this one, I won't oppose it.

However, there's the question on what the most common definition of the "city proper" of the city of Delhi is. I would say that the 13,4 million population figure for the Delhi city proper is practically never used in lists on population of cities. The UN Demographic Yearbook, citypopulation.de, World Gazetteer calculations, various yearbooks and encyclopedias... well, practically every source use the Census India definitions and data. So, I still think it's probably the most useful definition of the "city proper". But, I leave this up to others to debate.--Pjred (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I think this is what's going on. The Delhi that Criticalthinker is talking about refers to the National Capital Territory of Delhi which is a state or provincial jurisdiction, not the city itself. Within the jurisdiction of the NCT called Delhi NCT, there are municipalities such as New Delhi, towns and villages that Pjred has said and Delhi (urban) which refers to the municipal corporation of Delhi. Delhi is the name of both the municipal corporation and the NCT. The municipal corporation of Delhi lies in the NCT of Delhi which seems to be area that Criticalthinker is talking about. Probably another good example of this problem is looking back at the older revisions of the article. Looking upon the older revisions, I happened to see Manila on the list with about 10 million people. However, Manila is not on the list. This is because we don't use the National Capital Region of Manila as the city itself. Some lists mistake this such as World Gazetteer and use the NCR definition as the actual city definition. I think this is what Criticalthinker is doing, is mixing up the NCT with the municipal corporation. However, within the NCR of Manila, there is a city that's called Manila with it's own boundaries. So I'm thinking that Delhi mirrors this situation. There's an actual city called Delhi which is what the urban definition is or the municipal corporation within a territory that's called Delhi. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm talking about the municipal corporation as it existing within the union territory just like everyone else. The union territory is only further subdivided into three other municipalities. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)