Jump to content

Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Merger proposal

I formally propose that List of cities proper by population be merged into List of largest cities. The content of this page is completely copied in a much better page with many more editors and views. The definition of what makes a city is complex, and the page should reflect that. The World's largest cities page uses 3 different definitions (city proper, urban area, and metropolitan area) allowing you to better compare cities from around the world. Otherwise cities in China and Australia appear to be larger and smaller than they are. Nothing is lost with this merger since everything is copied anyway. Would anyone oppose? Mattximus (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What? The proposal passes if no one responds? --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually yes. I read the wikipedia merger procedure and if nobody responds it is assumed to be uncontroversial and the move goes ahead. However I had several people respond spread out over the several pages that were merged and I had 100% support for the merger. It is simply a copy of the data so it's not terribly controversial, since no data is lost. I'm happy to discuss still if you are interested! It can always be reverted if you have strong opposition. Mattximus (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely true that "no data is lost" - the columns with definitions, areas and densities were lost. Also WP:MERGE wasn't followed properly: "Please use the discuss parameter to direct to the same talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place". Batternut (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
In this case Don't merge - I think the page is worthwhile, and so long as it's not hurting anyone or another wiki aritlce, there is no compelling reason to get rid of all of the hard work that's been put into this article. It can be improved. While there will always be arguments about it, and though there are many exceptions, the the page generally works by the rules. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the "lost data": columns with definitions, areas and densities are very useful. Most of them are entered by users on an ad hoc basis with no reliable source. Overall, I believe the merger is a good idea, to put different definitions of cities side by side for readers to compare. -Zanhe (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Poor quality is WP:SURMOUNTABLE, not a reason for content deletion. Batternut (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure why you replied to me with this. We're specifically having a merge-don't merge discussion. Debates over changes to the existing page can be had after that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Criticalthinker: I wasn't replying to you, but to the message above yours by Batternut. Sorry about the confusion. -Zanhe (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, specifically: the boundaries of the area column are often not the same as the boundary that is considered for the population column, rendering the density column useless. The comparison of cities using different definitions side by side is very useful. Otherwise the list will either exclude many large Chinese cities, or exclude cities like Sydney depending on the definition. And this has led to very long and repetitious arguments over the years. This single list should solve that problem. Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't merge. List of largest cities doesn't do the job that this page does, and confuses cities with metro areas, which can be very different. Batternut (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't merge. List of largest cities discusses the different ways that “largest cities” can be reckoned (city proper, urban area, metro area); while this article lists cities proper specifically, compare List of United States cities by population, which is about city proper, the traditional use of the term “city” in the U.S. I largely agree with Batternut; this article should not be merged with List of largest cities; the two articles are somewhat different in scope.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Karachi

Why is it ranked #4 but has a higher population than 1-3? --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha; someone had changed it to a non-source. However, they have a point - Wikipedia marks it as 27 million on its article, and this discrepancy must be resolved. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has any clue what the population is. Anyone putting it at 27 million as the article suggests is due to some kind of "pride" in making it the largest city by population in the world. To be serious, 9,802,134 was the population at the last official census in 1998 (!). Forbes places it around 20 million. There is a census going on now though that should solve this question. Mattximus (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan

For information on Pakistani cities, see [1] “TABLE - 1: PROVISIONAL PROVINCE WISE POPULATION BY SEX AND RURAL/URBAN”; Pakistan just released the results of its 2017 census. Karachi Division (which I think should be called the “city proper”), Sindh is listed as having 16,051,521 people. Lahore District (again, I suppose we can consider it to be the “city proper”), Lahore Division, Punjab, has 11,126,285 people. Faisalabad District, Faisalabad Division, Punjab, has 7,873,910 people; but I am not sure the entire district, with an area of 5,936.76 km2[1], should be considered a “city proper”; is it dense enuf? Peshawar District, Peshawar Division, Khyber, has 4,269,079 people (on 1,517.5 km2[2]); I'd count that as a city proper.

This article needs alot of cleaning up; fixing the situation regarding Pakistani cities is just a start.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

One more thing. [2] “TABLE - 1: PROVISIONAL PROVINCE WISE POPULATION BY SEX AND RURAL/URBAN”, lists, on the last page, “FAISALABAD M.CORP.” [Metropolitan Corporation] as having 3,203,846 people, tho' it doesn't specify the surface area.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "PAKISTAN: Administrative Division". www.citypopulation.de. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  2. ^ "PAKISTAN: Administrative Division". www.citypopulation.de. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  • It's pretty clear that [3] is the source for city proper populations. The link you give is not for city proper, but for districts which perhaps equivalent to metropolitan region or urban area? Both of those are different lists. Also, please do not use citypopulation.de when actual census numbers are available from the census bureau of Pakistan. Mattximus (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that you said "is it dense enough" to be considered city proper. However the definition of city proper is administrative borders, regardless of the population density. You may be thinking of the "urban area" definition for city. Mattximus (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, some of the district figure would have to be considered city propers by the definition of this page, particularly if we're going to count all of China's cities the way we do. I mean, Karachi is fairly similar to many Chinese cities in that its borders include swatchs of uninhabited or very rural land. The only way we'd not include urbanized districts as city propers is if the metropolitan/municipal corporations are below the district level. In the case of Karachi, this isn't the case, the city is governed from the district level and would thus be the city proper. However, in the case of Faisalabad, it sounds like there is Faisalabad local government below the district level, in which case that would be the city proper. It seems, however, that we don't have an area figure for the Faisalabad Metropolitan Corporation. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, do you have a source for that? I'm not familiar with how Karachi is organized. It seems strange the census bureau would release a "city population of Karachi" number and it not be correct. It appears to be close to the district population, where is the difference? And no unfortunately we only treat some cities in China this way, Beijing yes, but not Harbin for example. It's an inconsistency that's rather annoying. Mattximus (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, slight mistake on my part, it seems that Karachi Metropolitan Corporation actually governs at the division level - the level right below province - as opposed to the district level. Karachi is then divided into 6 entities at the district level, which was further divided into 18 towns, which are finally divided into 178 unions councisl. This is all information available of Karachi's and Karachi Division's wiki page. In any case, the prime/supreme level of local government is at the division level, which would have to be the city proper. Any "wrong" population you may be seeing might be an urban area measurement (irrespective of political boundaries), maybe? I have no idea. All I know is that the local Karachi Metropolitan Corporation governs the 3,780 sq km Karachi Division. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation governs the 3,780 sq km Karachi Division? Again it seems strange that the census bureau releases a document on city population, but it's not using city boundaries. Mattximus (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I've already done so much, why don't you go do a tiny bit of research? I'm a bit offended by this line of questioning, particularly when it's something that on the city's wiki page and something you could easily go look up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are you offended? I'm genuinely curious where you got that information from, that the district is conterminous with the municipality. We can't use wikipedia itself to source wikipedia! I really don't think you should change the city population (from the actual census) until there is proof that it is not the correct population. Especially when it's in the same list as another city you agree is the correct population. Mattximus (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I had not changed, nor was I about to change, the population figure for Karachi. So, you can stop accusing me of things and take that up with the person who originally posted this issue with Karachi's figures. And, again, if you doubt that the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation is the local government for Karachi Division, that's for you to research if you care enough to. I was laying out the local government structure of the division, nothing more and nothing less. YOU seem to be the one really mixed up in about how it's shown on the page, here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of cities proper by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of cities proper by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please use official census results whenever possible

I noticed many refs use random websites like citypopulations.de when there are official census data that would be a better source. Most of the time they are very close, but it's always best to use official sources rather than second or third hand websites. Mattximus (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities proper by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Chongqing

For the population of Chongqing, shouldn't this list be using the municipality's population of 30,165,500 as city proper instead of only the urban population? This list uses municipality population for the rest of China's municipalities (Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin), so why not Chongqing? ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, municipal boundaries would be city proper definition. Sometimes people confuse city proper and urban population, so this problem arises fairly often. The issue is largely resolved when you place both numbers side by side, see List of largest cities, where there is no problem with the figures. Mattximus (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. This has been extensively discussed before (see archives). Chongqing is a special case, a province masquerading as a "city", and its population figure cannot be taken at face value. See this article and this paper by Prof. Kam Wing Chan. -Zanhe (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I agree with Mattximus's proposal to place the different numbers side by side in a single table. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How would we order such a table? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It already exists List of largest cities. This list should be deleted since it's an exact replica of part of the other list. Mattximus (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Not "an exact replica". No, "List of largest cities" does not list area and density, which this list does. This has previously been pointed out. Batternut (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Is having the area and density worth all the confusion of Chongqing or Sydney? Couldn't we just add that column to the other list. Or we will have posts like this for Australian cities and Chinese cities over and over and over again. Mattximus (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I would not object to adding area and density to "List of largest cities", indeed as the term "largest" is ambiguous, being able to sort by area would be a benefit. Batternut (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Chongqing is the same thing as Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin. They're all municipalities and therefore the entire population living within it, urban or rural, still counts when adding up the total population. Saying that it's masquerading itself as a city is a matter of opinion and can't be backed by facts. If you were to treat it differently, then you should do the same with Tokyo and only count it's population as 8,967,665 instead of 13,617,445, as they are similar cases. Therefore, I believe that Chongqing's population should be stated as 30,165,500. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It should because that is the definition of this page, but in practical terms that would be misleading. The solution is to list both the city proper number AND the urban population to give readers a better sense. This is done in List of largest cities so I really think this page should be deleted (area and density can be migrated over). Mattximus (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Kano and Ibadan

The cities of Kano and Ibadan both had their last official censuses in 2006 where they were under the 3,000,000 population required to be on this list. However, both cities are now estimated (2011 estimates) to have over 3,000,000 people. I suggest adding them to the list. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is RS with those figure then yes, should be added. Batternut (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Durban

The population listed for Durban is that of its metropolitan area. The population in the actual city is only 595,061 so it doesn't actually belong on the list ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the old city of Durban is now administered together with the rest of eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, in which case changing the name might be right. Batternut (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If you have questions about particular cities, you don't need to start a new section for each of them. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Abidjan

The population of Abidjan currently being used is that of the autonomous district, not the city. The district includes some areas that aren't actually in Abidjan's boundaries. I suggest we change the population to being that of the city and not the district. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a level of government responsible for just Abidjan city, and not the rest of the district? If so, then you would be right. Batternut (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
See, you haven't been reading the discussion here closely. Our definition of "city proper" isn't a spatial measure of a settlement, but must include some kind of administrative area. Some "city propers" are metropolitan in their governance. Others have much tighter administrative boundaries formed just around the core settlement. Abidjan's "city proper" is its district. Again, you do not need to keep asking about every single entry on this chart you have a question about. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Delhi

When did Dehli get changed and who changed it? It's been explained before, but the "city proper" - the local government that covers most of the NCT but not all of it - is the noew trifercated Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/49-delhi.html

They give the population for the (now-trifercated) municipal corporation as 11,034,555. I'm confused, is this "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" as measured by the Census in 2011 not cover the whole area of the actual boundaries of the trifercated Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Is it some kind of statistical "settlement" measurement that isn't the whole former municipal corporation? I guess this could easily be found out by finding a Census map, but I'm nto sure where to find those. The Census measures a few different versions of the area: the entire Delhi NCT, and an urban/rural split of the territory/state, a "big cities" settlement/statistical measurement within the state, and lastly "Metropolitan Delhi" but it appears only that part of it that is in the NCT. So then I guess the "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" is actually measuring a statistical/settlement division and not the former Municipal Corporation, correct? I'm deducing this from the act that this is in the "big cities" category, which shows it with statistical "census towns," and it's not possible for over 6 million inhabitants to live outside the old Municipal Corporation given that it covered almost all of the NCT. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, what was the city proper did not cover the whole NCT. NCT population is ~16 million, the old Municipal Corporation had ~ 11 million. The row in this article gives the definition as "Union territory", ie NCT. Maybe by analogy with City of London (an extreme case), actually the bigger unit is more representative of the city. Since the 2012 trifurcation the old "city proper" no longer exists as it was. The scope of the Delhi article seem to be the NCT rather than the old boundaries of the Municipal Corporation. Perhaps the NCT is the city now? Rake through the file history to see who left it like this, if important.
The article currently uses an odd figure though, the urban agglomeration. So that is wrong, although similar. The NCT population is 16,787,941 according to http://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/delhi.html. (Beware Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#onefivenine.com_-_broad_consensus_sought this RSN discussion which after under 4 days decided that census2011.co.in was not RS!). Batternut (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding. While the old Municipal Corporation of Delhi exists, it was simply split into three different municipal corporations, so the former city proper can still be measured by finding the sum of the population and area of those three municipal corporations. What I'm trying to specifically figure out is what the 2011 Census measures as the "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" as it still would have been in existence at the Census. I've been under the impression that it measured the actual Municipal Corporation of Delhi, but looking back at it, it couldn't as there is no way that 5 million people existed outside the boundaires of the local government area which covered nearly the entire NCT...so it must have been a statistical measure irrespective of the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. My gut feeling is that it was a statistical "settlement" area that much have only include the most developed and contiguous parts of the urban area, and probably included the local government areas of the Delhi Cantonment and New Delhi. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, it's hard to argue for the NCT being the "city proper" when the civic administration of the city is actually carried out by incorporated cities within it. I think one of the few things we've been able to come to consensus on is that the local body that best represents a concept for a "city proper" is the one that carries out the civic/local administration. The trifurcation may end up being a factor to argue that Delhi should be taken off the list, but the state/territorial government of Delhi does not carry out the local government of the large part of the metropolis. Those bodies that carry out local government in the NCT (now) include North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (the old Municipal Corporation of Delhi), and Delhi Cantt and New Dehli Municipal Council. As I said, I'd be willing to make a special case - since we've made special cases for others - that the "city proper" is the old city proper (the now-trifurcated Municipal Corporation of Delhi), though we'd have to first find if there is even a population and area figure for that former body. But it's hard to make an arguement for Delhi National Capital Territory (NTC) being the "city proper." --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The UN Habitat defined "city proper" as "the single political jurisdiction which contains the historical city centre". Delhi's historical centre is Old Delhi, which falls under North Delhi Municipal Corporation. So that's the city proper now, at least under the current, rather simplistic definition that we use. If subsequent to the next census we end up having to add the populations and areas together for the three (or more) municipal corporation that we consider the true city proper of Delhi we can be accused of WP:OR. I would however tend towards a more flexible, editor consensus approach, despite its pitfalls. It doesn't really make sense for Delhi city proper to shrink to 1/3 of its previous size and population. Batternut (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Who changed Delhi's population? Even if we're going to go with the statistical "city" number - which includes areas in all of the municipalities within the NCT - that number was 11,034,555 at the 2011 Census, not the 11.6 million currently listed. I'm not sure where that number is even coming from. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Now someone messed with the densities for the cities. Someone needs to lock this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I removed the "Refimprove" tag because there are 157 references on the article and concerns should be specific as to allow improvements. If someone has a specific concern, by all means, reinsert the tag but please let's discuss the specifics. Otr500 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sydney

Why is Sydney (pop 4.4 million) not included?2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:B98B:34DD:8A6C:B1A0 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The City of Sydney has only 208,000 people [1] Mattximus (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
London is included, but the City of London has only 7000 people. The Sydney LGAs just like London boroughs are supposed to make up a single municipality.108.196.40.52 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not how it works. There is no comprehensive local government above the LGAs that is "Sydney," only a statistical desgination. "Sydney" doesn't have an over-arching local government; London does. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
But London is structured much like Sydney. Until 2000, London had no over-arching government eitherBjoh249 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
As you say, now London does, but Sydney does not. That's about it. Batternut (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

London is Greater London, a County-level administrative entity that was created in the 1960s that now counts 8.6m inhabitants. In China Chongqung is a province that's still mostly rural, but administratively, the whole place is run by the city government. Its municipal semantics, doesn't necessarily affect the urban reality, but it is what it is. If anything Tokyo is wrong, as the Tokyo prefecture and city government are now the same afaik, the 9m figure is the for special wards, each of which are 'cities' in the reformed government structure. So this list isn't especially useful, unless you want to know which local municipal governments are responsible for the most inhabitants. Its is indeed interesting how some countries created large administrative areas for their cities, while others resisted and/or did the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.212.156 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics (27 June 2017). "Sydney (C)". 2016 Census QuickStats. Retrieved 30 June 2017.

Errors

I think this article is full of population errors and outdated estimates, as well as inconsistencies with each individual city's wikipedia page. For example, the population of Beijing is always listed as 21.7M, but here it's listed as 20.7M and the reference for that fact is a broken link. I think someone should go through with real sources and update the population stats, as well as confirm that they are consistent with each city's individual page. (Especially Lagos and Kinshasa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sradgowski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a complete mess. I tried to merge this article into List of largest cities but didn't get the support it needed. We have too many similar lists to have eyes keeping track of all of them. I still think there should just be 1 list for population of cities, instead of the 5 we have now. Mattximus (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be re-named, list of municipal governments by population, and corrected where necessary, with a clear explanation what the entity being listed is. Tokyo is, I'm sure wrong, it should be the whole prefecture (13m). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.212.156 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article is presenting the populations of predominantly rural provinces in China as city populations, most notoriously perhaps is Chongqing. To represent Chongqing as a city of 30 million people is a gross distortion of the truth. Repeating it at List of largest cities doesn't alter that, even when juxtaposed with its urban area population of 8 million. Swapping "cities proper" to "municipalities" in the page title would only be a marginal improvement since municipal essentially means of the city, but some folks may prefer it. Batternut (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is just the UN definition of city proper, municipal boundaries. Some have large rural lands, some are only a part of a city. That's why there are other definitions of a city (urban area, metropolitan area). No one definition can fit every "city" on earth, there is too much variability. My vote is to delete this list altogether and just have one list which includes all 3 UN definitions of a city, which should avoid any confusion like we have with Sydney, or Chongqing. Mattximus (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
With some good will, I think the problems here can be WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The List of largest cities does not show area or density, so that information will be lost without this list. Batternut (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lagos

Let's talk about this instead of edit warring. @Criticalthinker: The 10,552,000 figure isn't given at citypopulation.de. @Jamie Tubers: Your source just gets s 404 error when I try it. Batternut (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't originally change it. It should be at the 7.9 million found in the last Census, however much the Lagos State government didn't agree with it. Someone else changed it to 10 million. It shouldn't have been listed at 10.5 million, but I'm not the one who made the edit to boost it even further. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think whenever possible we should use official census data instead of third parties like citypopulation.de. Mattximus (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, the figures I reverted to, has been the longstanding version on the article before User:Geografi, a user with few edits, changed it to a fabricated figure here, claiming it to be from Citypopulation.de. The figure I reverted back to is in fact the most recent figure from Lagos State Government. If the official link isn't opening in your browser, try the archive link here: https://archive.is/NgP64. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That archive.is works for me. It still doesn't contain the figure you are putting in the article (16,060,303). It can evidently derived though from those figures (eg 9115041+8437901−380420−323634−99540−689045, state total less Badagry, Epe, Ibeju-Lekki and Ikorodu). Derivation usually falls foul of Wikipedia:No original research, however I think there is an allowance described somewhere that permits very simple sums. Batternut (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Lagos is metropolis but Lagos consists of many LGAs. Sydney and Melbourne also the same status: metropolis (supported by sources, with the official population) and also consists of LGAs. If Lagos is to be on the list, also Sydney and Melbourne should be added to the list. The same applies to several other cities on the list, for example London (London with population of 8,825,001 does not have city rights), just like 1/4 to 1/2 of cities in the list.
What is "List of cities proper by population"? Article includes:
  • cities with a city rights for the entire area (in the list city with population of 7 mln and area 3000 km2 must to have city rights to entire area with population of 7 mln and area 3000 km2, not less. For example: London with population of 8,825,001 does not have city rights, only part of metropolis - City of London have city rights. There are many cities with similar data on the list like Hanoi, Baghdad, Xi'an etc.
OR
  • all metropolises with the official population by government sources
So, what decision? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There is already a List of metropolitan areas, whereas this is strictly the city proper definition provided by the UN, which is administrative boundaries. London has a single government for the entire city (even with local councils), but Sydney does not. So, London has a mayor, but Sydney does not. Xi'an is the same thing, there is a single mayor for the entire city proper. I do not know about Lagos however. Mattximus (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Lagos has always been a problem, one that folks have been reluctant to address for whatever reason. It is in fact very similar to a Australian example. There is not "city" of Lagos; like Sydney, it's simply a conurbation of smaller local government areas with a statsitical desgination. Actually, I'm not even sure if there is a hard-and-fast statistical designation. In Lagos, all you have like in Australia is the state/province (Lagos State) and below that Local Government Areas. 16 of the 20 local government areas are considered the metropolitan area of Lagos, "Metropolitan Lagos." There is not even a regional government. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
If this is true, then it is an easy fix, just delete Lagos. The Lagos page does have a source for your claim so I will take the initiative and delete it from this list, but keep it on the List of largest cities since the metropolitan population is still very large. Mattximus (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Delhi issues

This is one that has bedeviled us for some time, and the population figure given is still not consistent with the definition we're using for "city proper." The 11 million population figure is actually not for the whole (former) Delhi Municipal Corporation, the former "city proper" of Delhi. While the figure does well in not including the two enclaved municipalities of New Dehli and Dehli Cantonnment, it's actually a statistical "settlement" measurement, as it leaves off statistical "towns" and villages and rural areas that are within the boundaries of the former Delhi Municipal Corporation boundaries, but are either not contiguous with the central "Dehli" settlement and/or not generally considered to be part of "Delhi" settlement. I guess the way you've find the "city proper" population and land of Delhi consistent with the definition on this page, then, would be to take the population of the National Capital Territory (NCT) in the 2011 Census and subtract from that the population and area of the enclaved municipalities of New Delhi and Delhi Cantonnment, since the Delhi Municipal Corporation covered/controlled every part of the NCT that was not within the two enclaved municipalities. Hope this helps. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Surat has two entries on this list

This Indian city appears at #46 as well as at #61. An editor interested in either Surat or populous cities should try to resolve this. I have too much going on. Thanks in advance.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone doing something about it or not Virat goswami (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you make the edit yourself? Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just make sure you provide reliable sources. Or if you don't know how ask here for help.Robynthehode (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Figures for India

There are a lot of dodgy websites for India that try to scrape the official figures and often are geared towards obtaining clicks for Google adsense purposes. This has been discussed at WP:RSN. The official information is available here and at similar pages on that domain. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then, add that site as the citation instead of leaving the figures open as if there is no source for the data. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Feel free. I am sorting out 24,000 articles with similar problems and while I am revising the source in a lot of them, I am not going to catch everything. The burden was never on me to provide the source in the first place and that you thought it was the official website speaks volumes. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This list might help, although it may also be outdated. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Those appear to be urban areas and not city proper numbers. These may be useful for the list of urban areas by population... Mattximus (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Rome

A "metropolitan city" is another name (the new one) for a province. But it is not a city. The city of Rome reaches 2,8 million. --Paolotacchi (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good Paolotacchi, you can make the change. Do you have the source? Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
ISTAT. --Paolotacchi (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Dhaka

I continue not to understand how this one is listed. The "city proper" for Dhaka - since 2011 - has been two municipal corporation: Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) and Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC). The 13-14 million figure given is for those two municipal corporations and the entire urbanized area. In this case, at the present time the best thing to do would be to list its 2011 Census population before the bifurcation unless they are doing estimates of DNCC and DSCC seperately. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with both possibilities. Even if split both municipalities are large enough to make it on to this list. Mattximus (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Dhaka city proper should be defined as Dhaka District (in Bangladesh, 1st-order national political subdivisions ar called 'divisions', 2nd order ar 'districts' [zila], and 3rd order ar 'subdistricts' [upazila]). As of 2016, the population of is thought to be about 13,142,000 over 1,464 km2, giving a density of 8,977/km2[1]; dense enuf to be considered a city (compare Shanghai, a direct-controlled municipality; or London [Greater London]). Said citation lists the 'city' of Dhaka as having 6,970,105 people, but that seems like a rather arbitrary definition, given that said population corresponds to no zila or upazila; see [2]. Therefore the less-arbitrary definition of Dhaka District as 'city proper' seems preferable. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. When we actually have local/municipal governments present, which are the city proper, there is no good excuse to use administrative subdivisions like districts and subdistricts unless they match up with municipal boundaries. Also, the very article for Dkaha District makes clear that the old municipality (that's been bifurcated) only makes up a fifth of the area of the district. The District definition would include way too much land that is not associated with a real city proper. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
What i was trying to say, is that there is no single administrativ division that corresponds to aforementioned 'city' of ~7M people, even if that was the old municipality of Dhaka. Do you mean we ought to use a 'core' districts definition like for many Chinese cities and likely also Ankara, Turkey? I don't favor the 'core districts' definition in the case of Dhaka; given that of the upazilas of Dhaka District, only Dhamrai has under 3500 people/km2 (that doesn't count the very small district of Biman Bandar, which is apparently an airport). Even in crowded Bangladesh, 3500/km2 is much more than the national average. Dhamrai covers less than 1/4 the surface area of the zila, so i disagree with the notion that "The District definition would include way too much land that is not associated with a real city proper." Also, since the 'old municipality' no longer exists as an adminstrativ division, it probably should not be used as a 'city proper'.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "BANGLADESH: Districts and Cities". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  2. ^ "BANGLADESH: Administrative Division: Districts and Subdistricts". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

Cities that should be added:

(with population)

I think www.citypopulation.de is generally a reliable source. Better yet, they show administrativ division, so you can tell what area each population figure corresponds to.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It is quite possible you are correct, however I will avoid citypopulation.de whenever possible since it is 3rd hand information (!). The best source (whenever possible) is the official local nation's census or demographic equivalent website. Almost every nation should have their demographics published on official websites, which is better than a third party such as citypopulation.de Mattximus (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "JORDAN: Greater Amman Municipality". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  2. ^ "UAE: Division of Dubai". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  3. ^ "NIGERIA: Metro Kano". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  4. ^ "IRAN: Razavi Khorasan". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  5. ^ "PAKISTAN: Administrative Division". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  6. ^ "GAUTENG: Province in South Africa". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  7. ^ "SOUTH AFRICA: City of Tshwane / Pretoria". citypopulation.de. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

Semiprotect

This article should be semi-protected because of repeated bad editing. People keep adding Chinese 'cities' with massiv populations and surface areas, but with such low population density that they do not fit a typical person's idea of 'city'. These ar usually 'sub-provincial cities' or 'prefecture-level cities', which ar 2nd order national political subdivisions; 1st-order subdivisions ar (usually) provinces. (What you call any of said subdivisions is partly dependent on your translation of the original Chinese, so the term 'city' should be taken with a grain of salt.) In the U.S., 2nd-order administrativ divisions ar usually 'counties', so a sub-provincial or prefecture-level 'city' is really equivalent to a county more than a city. Such a 'city' (including direct-control municipalities, for that matter) should only be called a 'city proper' if it has a reasonably high population density (over, say 1500/km2), else only the dense core districts should be considered a city (said central, dense 'city' will almost always go by the same name as the sub-provincial/prefecture-level/direct-control 'city' as a whole).

Also, it appears that in many cases, the area and population listed do not correspond to the same definition of the 'city'.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the areas you may have a point if they are inaccurate, however your definition is arbitrary, and it is best to use the United Nation definition of city proper (in absence of a more authoritative reference), which states municipal (or local equivalent) government defined borders constitutes a city proper. Indeed, many Chinese local governments do contain large rural areas around urban cores, and many Australian municipalities suffer from the opposite problem having no city level administration. There is another list called List of largest cities which makes this distinction clear. This list is specifically for the United Nations definition of city proper. Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Paris

If London is included on the list, shouldn’t Grand Paris also be included?? The Grand Paris is supposed to operate in a similar manner as Greater London. Otherwise, London shouldn’t be included on the list either, as the actual City of London is far less populated than the city of Paris Bjoh249 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Grand Paris is nowhere near are municipally integrated as Greater London. Grand Paris is a intercommunality where each component is still an equal municipality and not a fully integrated administrative department or region, whereas Greater London is an actual administrative region of the UK. The boroughs of London are not nearly as independent or granted the same level of powers, and Greater London is much more consolidated than Grand Paris. This is apples to oranges; that you included the City of London actually works against your argument, if anything. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The Tokyo population includes the towns and cities to the west of the special wards. Before 2000 there was no overarching government in London.2600:387:1:803:0:0:0:5C (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sydney and Melbourne

Both Sydney and Melbourne have populations bigger than Johannesburg, 5 230 330 and 4 963 349 respectively, yet they are not listed anywhere on this page. Sydney should be 54th and Melbourne should be 56th. See [1]Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Those are the populations of Greater Sydney and Greater Melbourne, not of Sydney and Melbourne proper. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0

"Population" envy, and inferiority complex passing as truth/information

Of course none of these urban figures are to be relied on, due to the "massaging" of statistics that countries with "population" envy produced. For example, if you believe that Cairo has half the population of Istanbul, and that Istanbul has more people than Tokyo and Bombay, and far more than New York and Calcutta (in fact "more than" 4 times the population of Calcutta!!), then you also believe in tooth fairies. To achieve this, the countries involved in this statistical smokes and mirrors game, include the population of an entire metropolitan area--suburbs, towns and villages nearby, into their "city" population and then compare it with the city populations in the more statistically rational places. So, New York City counts only its five boroughs population for a total of 8 million people, not the rest of 15 million that lives in NYC metropolitan area.

To boost their "big cities" to the top, countries with inferiority complex include all the populations around a city into it to boost the numbers. So, Istanbul is expanded to overlap two continents, include every hill and village with a population, to move it to the top of the list. A more realistic and administrative more rational countries like Egypt or Iran, the subdivide their urban centers for better city services and administration. So, both Cairo and Teheran--being much more populous than Istanbul, shrink to half as much or less. By the way, Istanbul now also has a telephone area code of 212 --the same as New York City and Manhattan! Meanwhile, the city officials also reported to The Economist magazine that their city has more skyscrapers than New York City.....

But the same is true of all countries with that inferiority complex, wishing to look bigger and more important through smokes and mirrors. So, do NOT trust these figures without knowing what they include in the fantasy counting. By the way, Istanbul has now about 4.8 million people, living in the city itself not in orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:A1C7:223:12FF:FE20:7BC7 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at List of largest cities you can see there are 3 ways to define a city: city proper, urban area, and metropolitan area. The latter two are indeed arbitrary and can be biased by any statistical agency. However city proper, this list you are commenting on right now, is not arbitrary. It has legal boundaries where people are counted only if they live within them. It's the only boundary condition that is objective. New York City only administers the 5 Burroughs, that's what the mayor has power over, and that is the population we report. I see no actionable suggestions from your comment for this page. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What countries are the cities located?

The table is not very well-organized. Some cities have their countries and their flags listed (e.g., Jakarta), while other cities only have the country flags (e.g., Chongqing). Can anyone fix the table so that the table be more organized? Thank you. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C 00:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of adding flags at all... what does it add? Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Identity. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The country and city flags are set at {{country data}}. I've added a few ({{country data Rio de Janeiro (city)}}, {{country data São Paulo (city)}}, etc). You're welcome to do the same for some of the ones missing, BeywheelzLetItRip. WP:Be bold. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
BTW, why in the world have the source links be shifted to the left side of the figures on the table, and didn't the "country" column used to be filled in, or am I not remembering correctly? Someone butchered the table. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
T'was here. Guarapiranga (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Lagos Congo?

Lagos (a Nigerian city) is shown to be in DR Congo. Not sure how to fix it but thought I should bring attention to this.

181.62.35.149 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_proper_by_population/Archive_9&oldid=944708801"