Talk:World's largest municipalities by population

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge or redirect.

Untitled

It's in the nature of the beast . -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly a POV fork of List of cities proper by population, especially since you keep talking about cities proper in this article. john k (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the existence of this article, and the list in it. I think that if some readers prefer to look at this list, it is useful to have. However, you have paragraphs and paragraphs of your own point of view preceding the list, which is not maintaining a neutral point of view. Also, the list isn't by population, as the title claims. I am going to sort the list by population right now, but I'll leave it to others to decide what should be done about the rest of the article. Someone the Person (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sorting necessary. It says "This list is in no particular order. It can be sorted using the sort button in the column headers." The sort will break as counts are changed. And some view ranking as WP:OR --BsBsBs (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then why does the title say "by population"? Someone the Person (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set theory. Largest municipalities by area would have the really vast ones. Largest municipalities by GDP the rich ones. Largest municipalities by people over 6 feet ... you get the idea. It doesn't say "ranked by." It strives to be a list of the world's most populous municipalities -- BsBsBs (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Metopolis as a city ?

I've never heard to call the Tokyo Metropolis "a prefecture-level city". It can be called a municipality, a prefecture, a metropolis, or most of the cities in Japan can be also called municipalities, but the Tokyo Metropolis have never been called a city. Ogasawara can be called a part of Tokyo Proper, but never a part of the "city proper" of Tokyo.

If there is the universal definition of city proper as the minimum administrative unit with an elected administrator, then Tokyo Metropolis can be considered as a city proper, but I have never heard such kind of definitions.Aurichalcum (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Beijing a city or municipality is OK, because Beijing is a shi in Chinese and is officially a city as well as a municipality. But the Metropolis of Tokyo has never been officially called nor translated as a city. Tokyo was called a city before WWII and that is the former City of TOkyo corresponding to the present 23 special wards. If you want to call Tokyo a city, then such sentenses as "Tokyo can be regarded (classified, called) as a city" should be used.Aurichalcum (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, would best be deleted if it cannot be sourced

This list, like so many similar lists, seems to be based on original research through and through. As usual in these lists, the area that is compared is highly ambiguous. I note that the creator has chosen to use the population of Greater London, but not Greater Paris and that is just one example. My question is very simple: where is the source for this list. Cherry-picking data from different sources just isn't good enough, it is then up to the (often subjective) mind of the user who edits the list to decide which area to compare and I highly doubt that many Wikipedia editors have the expertise in geography and knowledge about cities throughout the world to decide which population figure to use. Unless we base the list on a consistent source, this is just one of the far too many OR-lists that lack any justification. On a side-note, what is the different between this list and "List of cities proper by population"?

There seem to be some curious exclusions as well. Wikipedia currently has three differing figures for the population of Sydney (a low of 4.1M to a high of 4.57M), but regardless, even the lowest given figure earns it a spot on this list. Where did this list actually come from? 203.9.151.254 (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sentence above the list. It says. "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. Please observe the definition of the list when adding or editing entries." If cities are missing, find their 2010 census count, reference it, and enter it. Voila, done. As far as Sydney goes, it also helps to read the text. It says. "A similar situation exists in Australia, where large cities are divided into much smaller Local Government Areas. This removes populous cities such as Sydney or Melbourne from this list." BsBsBs (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly introduction

I've made preliminary edits to the introduction, probably the worst ones I've ever made as they make very little sense. Having said that, I still hold them to be an improvement as the introduction previously stated that the list does not include population figures of metropolitan areas, while even a brief look at the table will make it very clear that that is precisely what it does. For some cities, we use city proper, for others not. That is hardly surprising, and only goes to show why a consistent source is needed instead of individual editors cherry-picking whatever source they think will suit their personal point of view. I hope we can improve the article in a way that would make my recent edits unnecessary.Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you make edits that, by your own admission, make little sense, then better don't make them. The numbers given are for the population within the city limits. That's what "city proper" means. If the legal, administrative city limits encompass a "metropolitan area", then its population must be counted. If it doesn't, it may not. Each entry has its own source, hence no synthesis or original research. Properly sourced updates are always welcome. BsBsBs (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my edits are not ideal, but they are better than blatant falsification, which unfortunately is exactly what you are doing. Why do claim official censuses as the source, when the source is a newspaper or a municipality homepage? And saying that "each entry has its own source" is just uninformed. That IS original research, whether you are aware of it or not. As I already wrote, it makes it possible for individual editors to cherry-pick sources. The original research lies in the interpretation, we have no way of knowing which areas the sources refer to. You say that "If the legal, administrative city limits encompass a "metropolitan area", then its population must be counted. If it doesn't, it may not." That, however, is your definition of how the list should look and how we should understand "city proper", and by that you are already making yourself guilty of original research.Jeppiz (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that this article is your personal pet, with you being pretty much the creator of the whole thing, so I can understand that you defend it. Unfortunately, and please forgive my frankness, you are making a mess of it, for the reasons I already stated above.Jeppiz (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read up on WP:OR and WP:reliable Sources. Both City proper and Municipality are amply referenced. I can't see what's dubious there. Tags removed. Your frankness is forgiven. BsBsBs (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use and abuse of tags

The purpose of in-line tags is to notify the reader that there is a discussion. No discussion, no tags.

If you question the factual accuracy of an entry, don't just enter a {{disputed-section}} tag and walk away. Dispute the section! Even better, dispute individual entries. Best, find updated and more recent data, and edit the entries. Without opening a discussion, nobody will be able to know what you dispute, and the tag will be removed.

The same applies even more for {{vague}} tags . If you think something is vague, open a discussion, and say what you think is vague. Make your case. Without a discussion, nobody will be able to clarify what you think is vague, and the tag will be removed. What appears to be crystal clear to some can be totally vague to others. Now if someone puts a {{vague}} next to a wikilink to an article that explains the term in great detail, then the editor just shows that he or she is too lazy to click on the link. That {{vague}} discussion is better taken to the tagged term itself.

This is a dynamic list. It is the nature of demographics that people are born, that they die, that they move. Population changes, and we should strive to keep up with the changes to the best of our abilities. It's drudge-work, but someone has to do it.

A drive-by shooting of a volley of {{vague}} , or {{disputed-section}} without an attendant discussion doesn't help anybody and is simply antagonistic. Thank you . BsBsBs (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nomination

I am relieved to hear that the recent AFD nomination was closed with the recommendation to merge or redirect, and that "how much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page." If the nominator would have studied the talk pages, he would have noticed that editors had come to this conclusion month ago, and that it was pure slosh that kept the decision from being implemented. If he would have opened a discussion, he would have been told. Editors should take the time to familiarize themselves with the topic before they ask for the death sentence. Discuss first, shoot later. BsBsBs (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you cannot discuss without feeling the need to attack me. Could we perhaps focus on the matter at hand instead? What in this list do you think should be kept before redirecting to List of cities proper and why?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who applies for the most radical sanction on Wikipedia, namely the deletion of an article, should expect that a robust defense will be mounted. That includes questioning the motivations of the accuser. Asking for the execution of an article is the gravest attack one can mount on Wikipedia. Thin skinned editors, especially those who don't have their facts together, better refrain from AFD requests. Even the vaguest knowledge of jurisprudence will tell you that the accuser always opens himself up to sometimes uncomfortable questioning. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I am at a serious loss about what to think about a person who mounts one of the most aggressive, albeit unprepared, attacks, and when running into opposition, he complains about being attacked and makes thinly veiled ANI threats. If you can't stand up for yourself, don't attack other people and then run to Mami. Regarding what will be kept and why - that will be discussed with the stakeholders of List_of_cities_proper_by_population. I have little motivation to discuss this with an uninvolved, antagonizing editor who wants this article to die, and who doesn't think too highly of the other either. If you don't mind me saying it, this sometimes complicated and counter-intuitive subject-matter seems to be beyond your horizon of understanding. BsBsBs (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse for sending personal attacks at someone. Repeatedly putting down another user just because he nominated your article for deletion is not acceptable. And it is not really your article either. All Wikipedia articles are public property, just like a road is. Ownership of an article is not acceptable. Of course, then again, it is your article in the way that it is your copycat article of List of cities proper by population. We can't have duplicate articles. Only one is allowed. And I think we should merge only the list in this article into List of cities proper by population. The rest of the info in this article is unnecessary.

So please stop attacking Jeppiz, or you are asking to be listed at WP:ANI. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not enter discussions with people who repeatedly threaten ANI proceedings with unspecified charges, or worse, to complain "and see what the jury there finds you guilty of." I also will not talk to people who's every second sentence appears to be "rotting, stinking hot garbage." If anyone wants to go ahead and merge the two lists - please. How to do it is described in detail at Talk:List of cities proper by population. BsBsBs (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to continue the discussion about the article at Talk:List of cities proper by population and the discussion about BsBsBs behavior in the ANI discussion that all involved editors have been notified about.Jeppiz (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbai(r).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mumbai(r).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mumbai(r).jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please rewrite / merge this article?

This article was written by a user who contested the definition of "city proper" that we (I and other users) were basing List of cities proper by population on, and contains a lot of said user's opinion on what the definition should be. As a result, the article is overly long and opinionated, and its inconsistency with List of cities proper by population makes it confusing to readers. Something needs to be done about this article, whether it's a rewrite, merge, or deletion (deletion was voted against, so I suppose it'll be one of the other two). Someone the Person (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's about time the AFD decision (merge or redirect) be implemented. -Zanhe (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Unfortunately List of cities proper by population is also in a rather poor state and would not satisfy WP:RS. Would anyone know of a good source that could be used?Jeppiz (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most city lists on Wikipedia are in a bad shape and I think several of them should not exist. List of cities proper by population is actually the best among them, with decent sources for most entries, although it's far from perfect. -Zanhe (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 Shenyang in the list

There are 2 Shenyang, China in the list. one of Sub-provincial city [74], and the other one of Prefecture-level city [93]. As a matter of fact, there is only one city in China named Shenyang. I am from China and I very sure about this. So some deleting work should be done about this. As I am not very sure how do it, I let you guys know this error.

Question about the number of different world city lists

See post at [1]. If you have any comments please post there. Eldumpo (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect this article

I propose to start redirecting this article to List of cities proper by population as per previous AfD. See also recent discussion at WP:Cities Eldumpo (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - long overdue. -Zanhe (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against - This list was started in order to reflect the exact official population within city limits. This list would be superfluous if List of cities proper by population would reflect the exact official population within city limits, as its intro claims, and as defined by City proper. However, the List of cities proper by population does not always do that. It often counts sometimes arbitrary core districts, or other subdivisions of populated places, to adjust for cities that have - in the eyes of some editors - boundaries that are too wide. Some examples for the arbitrary counting of core districts are Shanghai, Beijing, or Guangzhou, while the much larger (in area) neighboring Shenzhen is reflected by total population within city limits. Many attempts to correct this un-encyclopedic approach were denied. World's largest municipalities by population was created after a long discussion, and after editors of List of cities proper by population claimed that municipalities are different than cities (municipalities are not always cities, but cities are always municipalities) and to create a separate list for municipalities. This was done. I have always been for merging (one column for the sometimes arbitrary core districts, one column for the exact official population within city limits)). However, this was not accepted. I still am for a merge as defined above, but I am strongly opposed to a redirect. This list has received more than 200 edits by approx 100 editors, who will not be enthusiastic to see their work deleted, which a redirect would mean. BsBsBs (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the point you make about editors not wanting to be consistent at cities proper, and that article should be doing what it's description says, and if reliable sources are including these 'outliers' in lists then they should be included. Just to be clear, I am talking about moving sourced content from this article to Cities Proper (if not already there), and not just deleting sourced facts. The redirect would then just occur at the end of the process, once all cited facts have been moved. Are you in agreement with that? Eldumpo (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My first choice of course would be that a List of cities proper by population does what it says, and that it doesn't fudge so that Chinese cities do not "rank disproportionately high on the list." As it even admits. This is unprofessional at best, and First World hypocrisy at worst. I had voiced this opinion (without the strong words) many times at List of cities proper by population. My second choice would be two columns. One with the official census data for the population within the official city limits, and one column with whatever the other editors decide. I also had voiced this opinion at List of cities proper by population after the AfD had denied a deletion of World's largest municipalities by population. However, this compromise was also not accepted. It is all in the archives of the talk pages. But yes, I would still support either one of the two options. I am not in love with this page. I am in love with correct facts. As for the reliable sources, the most reliable source should be an official census. 2010 was a census year, so the data should be up-to-date consistently around the world. There are many lists with city populations, sometimes with dubious data - what's wrong with a list of cities with their official census data? However, in order to stop this senseless war of the city lists, I would support a deletion of both articles for the sake of peace. BsBsBs (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the previous AfD and support of some others it makes sense to move facts to Cities Proper. Whilst the official census is a good source what we really need is a reliable site that lists Cities Proper/Met Areas, otherwise who is to say it is encyclopedic to create such a list? Eldumpo (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looking at the existing refs/e links at the article, the only one that appears to list city populations of world cities in order is citymayors.com. Should we use this as the basis of the combined article and make it clear that citymayors is the source? I note it includes a Metro column for the same table, so maybe we should include City/Metro within one combined table? If we feel there are major discrepancies with some of their specific figures we can add notes. Eldumpo (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you notice this article had been vandalized beyond all recognition before you started that initiative? Did you know this was done by an editor of List of cities proper by population ? Do you expect a lot of sincere cooperation from this camp?BsBsBs (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I noticed you re-inserted a large amount of material, much of which appeared to be sourced, although I did not go through it in detail to determine its relevance to the article. Hopefully any past disputes can be put aside. Do you have any views on my suggested use of citymayors? Eldumpo (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I like the suggested name somewhat better than the name of this article. On the other hand, I like Bs3s suggestion that city population be confined to the actual political entity and not include metropolitan areas. I don't agree that "municipalities" NE "cities." That seems to be selective parsing of phraseology. On one hand it would be nice to delete list, per policy, but it wouldn't be enforceable. Someone outside the current group of editors would have a new list/article (with their definition) up within a week. Eldumpo is requesting a reliability assessment of citymayor.com. Not sure about .com sites, but once we step outside the comfort of the First World censuses, where can we go? Student7 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very long comment. A lot of what is brought up here already has been answered in the article. I am sorry that the article is long, convoluted, and pedantic, but it has to deal with often wrong views and incessant wikilawyering. Lawyering makes for wall of words. I recommend to read the article, and then this reply, and I apologize that both are long.

This list: This list provides a valuable service. It lists the official, preferably census-backed populations of the world’s largest cities. It also tells researchers where to find the data - it often isn't easy. I fail to see what can be wrong with that. It does not claim to be the one and only list, and it goes to great pains to explain that other lists can be just as valuable. As everything at WP, the list is only as good as the work of its editors. If data are wrong, edit them! This list is unsorted for a reason. It does not try to establish what is the most populous city. It leaves that to the user and the sort function.

Many lists: This is an old phenomenon. Develop an interest in city populations, and the first thing you will notice, to your great frustration, is that there are many often contradicting lists. After a while, the shock wears off, and one gets used to the panoply of lists. They are different, because they use different methodologies, they use often outdated, sometimes wrong data, and, very dangerously, they sometimes try to adjust data to fit a certain view. I see Eldumpo has detected Greene/ Forstall/ Pick: “Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly.” The paper became somewhat of a hit in the counting community. In 2003, it found many lists, and they all differed. Then, the authors made a mess of it, created yet another list, which became the source for a Wikipedia template. It was a list of big metro areas, based on the daily commutes of workers. One of the metros was “Hong Kong-Shenzhen.” It escaped the authors that there is no mass daily commuting between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, that the cities are separated by a serious border, with passport and customs control, where Chinese visitors must show a hard to get visa. Also, for a Chinese, a U.S. green card is probably easier to get than a HK work permit. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are as much one metro as Tijuana and San Diego, so close and yet so far.

Single sourced lists: There have been many suggestions to use a single source for these lists on WP. At List of cities proper by population, all these suggestions were shot down. I really don’t want to get into this discussion again. In my view, the United Nations list of census results would probably be most authoritative. I suggest to bring it up at List of cities proper by population, and see what comes of it. Hint: List of cities proper by population, mentions http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/index.asp?panel=2, but does not use it consistently. Ask there why. Once there is an updated UN list reflecting the 2010/2011 census, it probably should be used here.

Citymayors: I have not looked at the list in a long time. In the past, it had been unreliable. The data on the list often differed from the data of their own statistical depts.

Other lists: Geohive, Citypopulation etc. often are unreliable. They look good, but often are not better in quality than WP lists. Recently, there has been considerable feedback from WP. Geohive dfor instance uses the same “core districts” for Guangzhou as List of cities proper by population. I smell circular reference. I have been in contact with the owner of Geohive, and he is just as opinionated as the rest of us: “Yes, a sore point you are laying your fingers on. It would be so easy when China would have municipalities with normal sizes, but Chongqing with 82000 sq.km., being bigger than Hainan and Ningxia, well that is a difficult one. Especially when this municipality is again divided into districts and counties! The same goes for Beijing and Shanghai, but much less so. These Chinese municipalities are more agglomerations with the label of municipality… Question is then whether the LABEL is good enough, or am I more looking for municipalities that conform more to my idea of them, which doesn’t mean a municipality cannot be so big (I can imagine one easily in Siberia), but Chongqing has major cities next to the core city within its boundaries and that with its size .... something rubs me the wrong way.“ The Chinese cities don’t conform with the “idea of a city” on the part of Geohive, which is fine. Changing the data to make the cities conform is not fine at all. I have lived in some of these Chinese cities, and I can cheerily confirm that they don’t conform with our ideas in many respects.

Cities/Municipalities: Of course “cities” is better. “Municipalities” is fallout from nitpicking Wikilawyers. As it says in the story, I use “Municipality” in its strict generic sense. There is considerable debate of what is a city and what not. In some countries, “city” status is granted to the populated place, in others, it has no special meaning. It gets more complicated through translation. A prime example is Municipality. It has many entries of what a municipality is in certain countries. This of course is totally bogus, because “municipality” is the generic word for any urban administrative division having corporate status. It is the motorvehicle of geography, if you will. The world “municipality” does not even exist in most of those countries in the article, but editors insist on explaining what it means in their country. After a while, I gave up.

Re-inserted: I did not “re-insert a large amount of material,” I restored the article after it had been vandalized for the second time by a very vocal editor of List of cities proper by population. I left a note at ANI, and I was told that was the right thing to do. Each malicious defacement of the article will be reported to ANI. I also cannot help to note that the defacement preceded the call for Merge/Redirect by only 10 days. I also cannot help to note that only minutes after it was published, the call for Merge/Redirect received support from another very vocal editor of List of cities proper by population (who has an interest in “his” Shanghai not losing its alleged rank as the most populous city proper, and who uses List of cities proper by population and Geohive to bolster his argument). I cannot help to note that the editor went AWOL after it became apparent that the steamrolling is not as easy as it looked when the defacement went unopposed for a while.

The AFD: This list had been nominated for deletion by an editor who initially did not like List of cities proper by population and satirized it, and who then satirized World's largest municipalities by population. He subsequently fell in love with List of cities proper by population and proceeded to ask for deletion of World's largest municipalities by population. The request was denied. It has become somewhat of a rallying cry at List of cities proper by population that World's largest municipalities by population had been nominated for deletion (by one of their own), and that the decision was “to merge or redirect.” It takes only a few minutes to nominate an article for deletion, anyone can do it, if I would want to look like an idiot, I would nominate List of cities proper by population, and if I would want to look like a complete moron, I would go on and mention the AfD again and again after it was denied. Most of all, what is being ignored is the fact that the result of the AfD also was: “Clearly no consensus to delete. How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page.” This discussion took place. I was ready to merge, in the two column format as recently suggested again, and as suggested and discussed before the AfD. However the editors of List of cities proper by population quickly lost their enthusiasm for a merge, and it was not done. The result of the discussion was to do nothing. AfD closed. It is a bit disingenuous to claim that something is “long overdue” when it had been discussed and denied, twice, as this archive proves. You will also find “long overdue Zanhe” there, and you are excused if you call him “short memory Zanhe” after reading.

Past disputes: I am ready to put them aside. I have not edited this article in a long time. I rather edit articles where people are friendly, cooperative, and interested in making a positive contribution. I have, however, the impression, that the editors of List of cities proper by population hold old grudges, and I use the defacement and the attacks of Alzheimer as an indicator. I recommend to bring up the points above at List of cities proper by population, and to see what the editors say there.BsBsBs (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment.

This list would not be needed and would be immediately deleted if List of cities proper by population would be a List of cities proper by population. Sadly, it is not. All you have to do is read its introduction. It admits that List of cities proper by population is in total violation of Wikipedia's core principles. To wit:

“This is an attempt to list the most populous cities in the world defined according to a concept of city proper. A city proper is a locality defined according to legal or political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government. A city proper may not include suburbs.”

The reader assumes to get a list of populations within the boundaries of cities.

"World Urbanization Prospects", a United Nations publication, defines the population of a city proper as "the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city." The book continues to say that "city proper as defined by administrative boundaries may not include suburban areas where an important proportion of the population working or studying in the city lives."

The reader again assumes to get a list of populations within the boundaries of cities. Should the reader proceed (most have long skipped the intro and headed to the list), the reader will find a surprise.

“However, several cities on this list do not follow this definition because it is potentially misleading."

The authors admit that they mislead the reader. Why compile a list, if its list definition is misleading?

For example, many cities in China govern a territory that extends well beyond the traditional "city proper" into suburban and rural areas, and sometimes even include other smaller places that are also called "cities." "

Definition of “traditional city proper?" Do "World Urbanization Prospects." or the many given sources for “city proper” say it is not allowed to contain suburban and rural areas? No, they don’t. The “traditional city proper” is a (misguided) POV of the authors.

“Going strictly by the administrative definition of a city, the cities of China would rank disproportionately high on the list.”

So that’s the reason. We fudge the inclusion criteria to discredit cities of a certain country.

“For the purposes of this list, the definition of a city as a primarily urban locality is used. The goal is to provide a set of population figures that can be compared reasonably and informatively to one another.”

This list contradicts its stated goal. By using different criteria, a reasonable comparison is no longer possible.

“This list enumerates the populations of some of the world's largest cities, the boundaries of which may or may not correspond to those of municipalities. The populations listed are not necessarily for the administratively defined city and may be for the urban area, the metropolitan area, or one of countless variations of municipalities as indicated in the Definition column.”

And finally, complete nonsense. The boundaries of cities always are those of municipalities, because a city, a village, a hamlet, or a whole city state all are municipalities. It is accepted among geographers and demographers that “city proper”, “urban agglomeration”, and “metropolitan area” are the three basic concepts used to define urban areas and their populations, and that they may not be confused.

List of cities proper by population confuses the basic concepts and the reader. It uses highly questionable Original Research to push an admitted POV. Its claims are not verifiable. The list fails all three of Wikipedia’s core content policies. BsBsBs (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break

As you admit, that's a long comment above, but a few thoughts in response.

It still seems there are some ownership issues by you/potentially others regarding the two pages, which hopefully can be overcome.

To me it is key that we use some kind of independent list that collates population data by a particular method, else otherwise there is the argument of OR. The BBC link raises the issue of the Chinese city boundaries being large/anomalous; are there reliable sources that do order these cities counting this wider population?

What is the (sourced) difference between "city proper" and "metropolitan area".

I have added a "why" tag to part of the other article. Eldumpo (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Don’t you find it a bit rude asking many questions for which people write long books to answer, and if the answer is a page, it is not being read? Instead, there are even more questions? I recommend reading the article. It's a complex subject that does not lend itself to soundbites.

(Sourced) difference between "city proper" and "metropolitan area"? I respectfully direct you to the second sentence in the article, which has a reference. It’s all there.

If that’s not enough, a little googling will produce more. The UN definitions are always helpful:

“City proper: The population living within the administrative boundaries of a city, e.g., Washington, D.C.”

“Metropolitan area/region: A formal local government area comprising the urban area as a whole and its primary commuter areas, typically formed around a city with a large concentration of people (i.e., a population of at least 100,000).”

“Urban agglomeration: The population of a built-up or densely populated area containing the city proper, suburbs and continuously settled commuter areas or adjoining territory inhabited at urban levels of residential density.”

All three may not be used interchangeably. They will produce vastly different numbers.

Or maybe this:

“When one speaks of the size of a city, agreement must first be reached as to the definition of its perimeter. At present, a distinction is drawn between three main concepts used to define cities: the “city proper,” the “urban agglomeration,” and the “metropolitan area.”

Or, for total information overload, this. Happy reading.

As mentioned again and again, it is common knowledge that there are overbounded cities as there are underbounded cities. We are free to have the opinion that this is wrong. We are not free to change the facts so that they agree with our opinion. This is reckless and irresponsible. Wikipedia is used around the world as a reference. It is incumbent on us to reflect true, unmanipulated facts.

And now, you will excuse me if I bow out. I recommend to take the discussion to List of cities proper by population . It appears as if they are ignoring you. Your coy “why?” has not registered. To get their attention, why don’t you propose to redirect theirs to here, and to merge their material into this list. The recommendation was to “merge or redirect.” Who to or with whom was left open. BsBsBs (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

For the second time, large parts of the article have been wiped out by the same editor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=next&oldid=519968694

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=591079896&oldid=590922969

One cannot justify blanking large parts of an article with "Taking out the trash" or "finally decided to wipe the POV away." Replacing carefully sourced text with nonsensical content is not helpful. BsBsBs (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

It is customary at Wikipedia that the issue is raised with a tag or in talk if another editor sees the need for a reference. This is called a “challenge.” The more polite and constructive version is to look for the reference and to add it. If all unreferenced sentences would be deleted immediately, WP would be a shadow of itself.

Some could think that it is obvious that Washington, D.C. is a federally administered municipality of the U.S. For those who doubt it, a reference was added.

The exclusion or inclusion parameters of a WP list do not need a source. A “list of green apples” does not need a source that proves that apples are green. It should, however, not list oranges. The sentence “This list does not recognize commuters from outside of the city proper” would be redundant among demographers, yet, it was seen necessary because there still appears to be considerable confusion about the differences between city proper, metropolitan area, and urban agglomeration. A reference was added. If the reference was considered missing: See preceding paragraph.BsBsBs (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the list

In "which" order are the cities listed in this article: Alphabetical, population, density, none? I could not understand. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect.

Since it seems that there is only one editor who is against the previously "merge or redirect" decision, I am going to follow through with it unless someone else objects. Someone the Person (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Please, not again. This has been shot down many times. There is no consensus to do so. Also, editors who have,in the past, repeatedly vandalized this article, should exercise restraint. BsBsBs (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone the Person said at 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC) " I am going to follow through with it unless someone else objects." Three minutes later, he wiped the whole page. This is a very strange way of seeking consensus.[reply]

This is his third act of vandalism after this one and and this. BsBsBs (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very strange way of denying consensus, reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest municipalities by population, and several discussions afterward. Anyone interested in merging useful stuff from here has had plenty of time to do it. It's time to redirect. -Zanhe (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen:

Please refrain from future attempts to blank or deface this page. I will have to consider other avenues if these unprovoked attacks continue.

This article is a list municipalities/cities and their populations. It is the product of the work of many editors who researched and sourced every entry. These population numbers are sourced on official, publicly available data, as required by Wikipedia.

This list has become necessary because other tables, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, use occasionally unorthodox methods. Some lists arrive at a population number by calculation, and by recognizing only subsets of official city data. This practice has been declared clear Original Research on the NOR Noticeboard . Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, these lists may live in peace, and so should this list.

As for the nearly four year old AFD nomination, the non-admin closure said “The result was merge or redirect. Clearly no consensus to delete. How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page.”

There is “clearly no consensus to delete.” This part of the AFD was contemptuously ignored at least four times since, by what can't be called uninvolved editors:

[2]on 24 November 2012 by Someone the Person
[3] on 17 January 2014 by Someone the Person
[4] on 10 June 2014 by Someone the Person
[5] 12 June 2014 by Zanhe

As for “How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page,” there have been many discussions on both this talk page and that of List of cities proper by population. They always ended inconclusive. Valiant attempts to merge the data of both lists failed, before the AFD and and after. Subsequent calls to merge fell on deaf ears. A recent attempt to drum-up support for a merge was denied.

As for the redirection, it is clearly done without consensus. The four year old AFD decision recommended “merge or redirect” after discussion. There was no conclusive discussion about a redirect. Also the AFD never specified which article to redirect where. I would find it utterly rude to blank the whole article at List of cities proper by population and to redirect here, and I think the same courtesy should be extended in return.

It is highly disingenuous to claim a consensus that was never reached, and it was not for a lack of trying. If there ever was a consensus, then to do nothing, and to leave both lists alone. Please honor the will of the community, and do not insult the intelligence of other editors by perverting facts.

The concerted and unprovoked serial vandalizing of this peaceful and well-referenced article needs to stop. When Someone the Person had defaced this page two times, I was told at ANI that the correct course of action is a revert. I was forced to revert twice within a few days. I will not go into an edit war over this. BsBsBs (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically, I guess if one person shoots something down over and over, you could say it has been "shot down many times." But in every discussion I've seen on the subject, you are the only one arguing your side. Consensus is not unanimity, so if everybody else but you wants to follow through on this, it's still consensus. What I see here is you maintaining this article's

Also, if what I and Zanhe are doing is really "vandalism" as you say, why do you feel like you were "forced" to revert it? Wouldn't another editor notice and revert it, if it were that blatantly against policy? What I see here is you preventing any major changes from occurring to this page, because the longer the decision is delayed, the longer the life of your advocated definition of "city proper" for the site. This is obstructionism at its worst; forgive me for wanting to bring it to a swift end. Someone the Person (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for admitting that you do not like the definition. However, there is nothing I can do about it. Both “city proper” and “municipality” are clearly defined, and amply referenced. Their definition is not a POV, they are a fact, as any better encyclopedia will tell you. Facts don’t change by wiping a Wiki page for the umpteenth time. It would be much better for our mutual blood pressure if the matter is set aside. BsBsBs (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of "fact" seems somewhat skewed; one person calling something a "fact" does not make it so, and people have been refuting you for years. Don't you think that another editor would have taken your side by now if what you were saying really were an undeniable truth? Someone the Person (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I am slightly sympathetic to your point of view, the way you've gone about defending it and advocating for it blatantly violates many of Wikipedia's principles. For this reason, I have made an incident report regarding your behavior. Someone the Person (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward

"The result was merge or redirect. Clearly no consensus to delete. How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page."

I did not read the giant amount of text above, but clearly there is no consensus to do anything specific. What I did read is the above quote from the 2010 AfD. That's pretty clear that a redirect or merge of some kind must take place, but not before sorting things out at the article talk first. Nothing has been sorted out.

The 00:25, 10 June 2014‎ Someone the Person edit which redirected the entire page was bold, and represents the "bold" in WP:BRD. It was reverted eventually by BsBsBs, and that is the "revert". Now comes the "discuss".

So, now to figure out what to do? I'd say compromise is a good plan. There seems to be valuable content at both articles. Also, let's get folks from the other article involved. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought is to try to throw the whole kitchen sink into one article, perhaps with a new name. I'm talking about the prose, and maybe even both tables. Then, the problem may be simpler. The discussion would be centralized, and there's less shock of a whole article vanishing. We'd be talking about eliminating or merging sections. I'm just brainstorming here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, you seem to be unfamiliar with the history of this list, as there have been discussion ad nauseum at the other list. You may wish to start by reading this discussion, as well as numerous other threads in Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 3 and Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 5. The whole reason that this list exists is that BsBsBs couldn't get his way at the other list, and he's been heaping abuse on everyone who dares to challenge him. See ANI complaints here and here. -Zanhe (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. :) I just encountered this page via something else and didn't read the huge amount of background, nor the AN/I. So, is there any salvageable content at this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the history, it seemed to be classic BRD. But now, reading more and more, I can see that you must be very frustrated with this whole thing and really just want to see it resolved. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the presence of an indiscriminate list of municipalities on Wikipedia. In my opinion, the problem is not that the article exists at all, but that it is written the way it is. The problems with this article as it is written now are as follows:

It claims that it is written according to the concept of "city proper," and defines "city proper" in a different way than List of cities proper by population, which is a very intentional undermining of the purpose and intent of the other article.
It begins with an absurdly long (and after reading diffs for hours, severely misquoted from its sources?) defense of this definition of "city proper," which is unnecessary because "municipality" is well-defined, and dishonest for reasons that have been discussed extensively years ago.
It is not in population order.
It contains instructions in the form of <! -- > comments, telling other users what figures they may edit and what they may not.
It contains disclaimers about the sources it uses that are not encyclopedic in tone (i.e. the Tehran entry): "There is doubt whether this number is for the agglomeration or for the city proper. The UN source contradicts itself"
Since BsBsBs has been the only one maintaining this article, I'd like to see some extensive fact checking of sources. I'm particularly alarmed by the use of a 2001 figure for Ahmedabad and the further quotation of a source saying the population was then EXPECTED to double by 2011 -- it's 2014, and we should know if it did or didn't.

I'd like to advocate for something like this old version, which I rewrote from BsBsBs's version, as a model of how this article (except for the list) might look after some major changes to get rid of the POV sections. Thoughts, comments? Someone the Person (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've also started a discussion in Talk:City proper about whether City proper is NPOV. Feel free to partake in that as well. Someone the Person (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone the Person, with all due respect, I disagree with your statement that "I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the presence of an indiscriminate list of municipalities". According to WP:LISTN, stand-alone lists are notable when the list topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". However, the definition of "municipality" varies widely across different countries, and I haven't seen any RS comparing them on a worldwide basis. For example, China's four municipalities are sometimes province-sized, whereas Mexico's municipalities are mostly small towns (see Municipalities of Chiapas and others). We already have quite a few lists ranking cities by all imaginable criteria, and don't need another indiscriminate list. When Eldumpo proposed reducing the number of lists (see this thread), everyone supported eliminating this list, except, as expected, BsBsBs.

The main difference between this list and List of cities proper by population, and the main reason BsBsBs created this content fork in the first place, is the inclusion of the many Chinese cities whose populations include large rural hinterlands. However, China's official definition of municipality only includes Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing (see Chinatoday article and Direct-controlled municipalities of China). Take away the other Chinese cities from the list, and it's basically no different from List of cities proper by population (I suspect the reason why BsBsBs refused to arrange the list in population order is to conceal the fact that it is merely a duplication of the other list). See also the comment by DangerousPanda, the admin who blocked BsBsBs, in response to Anna Frodesiak's question. In short, I believe your redirect should be reinstated. -Zanhe (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the above thread that I was proposing moving/cutting appropriate sourced facts from this page to the Cities Proper page, if not already sourced there, eventually leaving this page empty/a redirect. That's not to say that Cities Proper does not also then need work, but BsBsBs has shown clear ownership issues with this page. Any consensus for my above suggestion? Eldumpo (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm happy with whatever you do. You all know the long history better than anybody. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you see anything that's worth salvaging from this page, feel free to merge it into the Cities Proper list and turn this page into a redirect. That is basically the outcome of the AfD discussion. Just be careful with the populations of the Chinese cities, as they usually govern many counties and county-level cities which should not be included in the city proper calculation. -Zanhe (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this (it's significantly better than as is). One thing to keep in mind, though: city proper and municipality are fundamentally different concepts. One is demographic; the other is administrative. In most of the world, they usually line up. But it is true that they don't always. I understand that the reason why BsBsBs did what he did was mostly COI/POV motivated, but the fundamental truth that makes "city proper" so hard to define is that they don't always line up with municipalities. Now, it wouldn't be right to suggest that people in the outermost rural areas of Chongqing consider themselves to be city-dwellers, or to make the comparison misleading by referring to the municipalities AS "cities" or "cities proper," but might it not be a bit enlightening for readers to see that local governments in different parts of the world control differently-sized areas? I understand if you think it wouldn't (most of the entries would be the exact same), but it would highlight that there IS a difference between "municipality" and "city proper," and show the results of an entirely local-government-based list. Someone the Person (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your notability point is a good one. Someone the Person (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Items being removed

I have started removing entries from this page, after checking what is at the Cities Proper page, but could do with some help. Probably makes sense to do this fairly quickly, so as users don't try and add back in entries. Should it have a 'major work' tag added? - Someone the Person Zanhe. Eldumpo (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seeing as we're not sure we even want to salvage anything, I think we should figure that out first.~~ Clearly I should have read more carefully above. But yes, if any entry here is BETTER, carry it over, and I support the action you outlined above. Someone the Person (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]