Talk:List of most populous metropolitan areas in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The photographs of each city do not give a true picture of the city to an unknown reader. For e.g., look at Kolkata which is one of India's dirtiest cities. Most of the photos only show buildings or some random flyovers. No point. - Prashanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


I agree with prashanth, please give us an opportunity to edit the photos of the cities which reflect its respective flavour.

X mark.svg Not done please read WP:IMAGE. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Technical Correction[edit]

The list is agglomerations, not cities. Each of these agglomerations has multiple cities.

This has since been corrected. Urban ugglomerations have been moved to another article. AreJay 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Previous Unlabeled Comment[edit]

I couldn't relocate the exact .jpg I used, but the info's all over the net, so I've cited a reliable source at the bottom of the page that can be referred to. The numbers are the same. Thanks for the hard work 'text'ing it all, and I apologize for my sloppiness with citation! --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:38, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bangalore third largest?![edit]

This article mentions Kolkata city's population as being less than Bangalore's. It even cites a source - World Gazetter. I am not sure if it is reliable. In no government document, or other private study which might be privy to such statistics, is there any mention of Bangalore being more populous than Kolkata. Honestly, it just goes against 'common sense'. Perhaps someone could verfity the figures with some 'official' statistics. Priyatu 08:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The municipal corporation of Bangalore is estimated for 2005 to be just slightly larger than the municipal corporation of Kolkata. The agglomerations (which the current list is based on) are a different matter. Polaron 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Bangalore is the 4th largest city and I am not sure why Hosur is part of Bangalore. Hosur belongs to a different state and can never be considered to be part of bangalore. In Fact Bangalore has two parts, Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural. Please check your facts before you write and also appreciate if you could make this editable, These are supposed to be public Articles. Please refer to the Census data for clarity on the figures. [1]King2droid (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)king2Droid ~~king2droid~~

Bangalore is the third largest city and fifth largest urban agglomeration in India as per the 2011 census reports. The two parts—Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural that you were referring is the entire Bangalore district. Hosur is considered to be a part of the Bangalore metropolitan area because there is a continuous chain of urban settlement in the Bangalore–Hosur corridor. Commander (Ping me) 09:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Where are the figures from? The current figures are not consistent with the cited World Gazetteer link. Also, are there official definitions for these areas? We should provide a link to the area definitions as well. We should also add surface area figures which would make this list more useful. Polaron 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would add that Bhubaneshwar / Bhubaneswar, Orissa, appears twice on this list We really need a source (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to updated from source given in References section. Thanks. GDibyendu (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


The region of the Mumbai Suburbs includes the farther suburbs of Kalyan, Dombivali, Ambernath, Ulhasnagar alongwith Thane, Navi Mumbai, Vasai-Virar, Bhiwandi and Badlapur. Combining individual census population of all these suburbs leads to gain of more than 5.5 million people to the existing 18.41 million people in Greater Mumbai, making it much larger than Delhi NCR. Anyone wanting to challenge this edit must first refer all the individual reference pages to these suburbs and consider adding their population to the main city. Amey Ambade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amey ambade (talkcontribs) 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Why has it been left out of the list? According to the 2001 India census the city alone had a population of 696,760 while the Salem Urban Agglomeration had a population of 751,438. Given that the 100th most populous metropolitan area on the existing list only has a population of 396,515 it seems odd why Salem has been left off the list. On a similar note, Erode which is said to be only the 7th largest settlement in Tamil Nadu (Salem is the 5th) is on the list of 100 most populous metropolitan area even though both the city and metropolitan areas are much smaller both in terms of size and population to Salem city and Salem's metropolitan area. I wonder how many other such places are missing in the existing list. Mcgillianaire (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the linked World Gazetter source, it appears that for some reason, Salem has indeed been left out. The city figure shows up [1] but the agglomeration figure is empty [2]. This in an error on the part of the source. Do you know of alternative recent estimate for the Salem UA? --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


2010 World Gazetteer figures are out. Adding the update tag if anyone wants to update the article before I get the chance to. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Update finished. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


The pages main reference is highly questionable. It is questionable source and it is better to shift to refernce like CITY POPULATION.DE It article clearly violates the wikipedias another article List of million-plus agglomerations in India which has a much greater importance.Hence i kindly want to discuss the possibility of merging this item with List of million-plus agglomerations in India or updating its source.-- devx101 [TALK] 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

YesY Agree - A metropolitan area requires at least of 4 million (40 lakh) population. Refer this :[3] Rahulpattuvam talk 16:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Chintansareen, 24 February 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Chintansareen (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bharathy1989, 14 September 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} please include "salem", tamil nadu in this list as it has over 8.5 lakh population and it is bigger than few of the cities mentioned there.

Bharathy1989 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So, please tell us what these sources actually are, thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done

Edit request from Drritesh, 24 September 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I wanted to tell respected editors... Ahmedabad should be on seventh place followed by Pune on eighth. It has been recently reported by many sources.

So, what are these sources?  Chzz  ►  04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

Figures mentioned in the labels of the photos show both Bangalore and Hyderabad at position 5 AMEY 27-10-2011 7:27 PM (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask5332 (talkcontribs) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Commander (Ping Me) 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


There is a difference between "Urban agglomerations" and "Metropolitan areas". In India, a city is called a Metropolitan area, if it has a population of over 4 million. Going by that logic, we will have only nine cities according to the 2011 census. Listing 100 cities which includes several small areas would make no meaning, when there is a separate article for List of million-plus agglomerations in India. The Government gives the Metropolitan definition only for cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Nagpur. See this link for more clarifications. --Commander (Ping Me) 19:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We could do a comparative list for the metropolitan areas for a bigger list. For example, the same idea as List of cities by GDP. One column be the official numbers and then we can add data from other reliable sources into separate columns. This was we can have official data and people can an idea of how many people are living a metropolitan area where data is missing. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

abt mumbai ; this article depicts delhi is largest metropolitan region which is in contrast with wht mentioned in article List of million-plus agglomerations in India.... also official census data (ref provides information tht mumbai is largest UA and also largest city followed by delhi n then kolkata. i think this article should merged with article List of million-plus agglomerations in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramol2011 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Both are different. An Urban agglomeration is a continuous urban stretch where as a Metropolitan area covers even the nearby UAs. Commander (Ping me) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
See this link published by the Press Information Bureau, Mumbai. Commander (Ping me) 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is only about Urban Agglomerations with more than one million population. I agree with @devx101 and @commander. This should be contain only those with more than 4 million population. We already have well maintained articles about List of million-plus agglomerations in India and List of metropolitan areas in Asia - Rahulpattuvam talk 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011[edit] (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please be more specific about the request. Commander (Ping me) 11:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


The Coverage column for Delhi says that it includes Ghaziabad. Then why should Ghaziabad be listed seperately?

Anbu121 (talk me) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You got a point there. This list was designed based on the information published by Press Information Bureau, Government of India Commander (Ping me) 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the list and updated accordingly. Many thanks for pointing out! Commander (Ping me) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Chennai Metropolitan area has nothing do do with Kanchipuram. It covers only the Tambaram taluk in Kanchipuram district and Ambattur taluk of tiruvallur district.

Anbu121 (talk me) 11:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said? Check the sources! If Hosur is a part of Bangalore Metropolitan area, Kanchipuram can very well be a part of Chennai MA. Commander (Ping me) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Coverage[edit]

Cities like Bangalore, have excessive coverage and the areas included are integral parts of Bangalore e.g. Hebbal, Yehelanka, etc! Search for Bangalore in Google Maps, the correct region of the city is given! Other places must be removed then or else, for every city we can add tens of localities!
ChitranshGaurav 13:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ya there is no point in including places which are close to the heart of the city. As the name of the column suggests add only the extremes and areas close to that. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Languages Column[edit]

The 'Languages Spoken' column does not convey much information related to the title of the page. Having this column is only going to attract vandalism and edit warring. I suggest to remove the column. -Anbu121 (talk me) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you consider places in different states where different languages are spoken as part of a single metropolitan area then you ought to have a "Languages spoken" section. Bangalore and in Hosur are in two different states under different administrations and where different languages are spoken. Hosur does not come under BBMP. It also also separated by six kilometres of rural agricultural land from the nearest urban centre of Attibele. Every article in Wikipedia is prone to POV-pushing or vandalism - that's not reason enough to shy away from it altogether.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are keen about reducing vandalism you might also have to remove the "Extent" column. Removing them altogether isn't a good idea. Take the case of Delhi, where the metropolitan area is spread over three other states. "Languages spoken" becomes very important here. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
But the metros got most of the Indian language speakers, how are we suppose to add all those. I don’t know if there

are any official languages for metros :)? If again based on no. limit, it will also going to make confusion -Rahulpattuvam talk 06:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of the language column. It does not serve a useful purpose. If the area is spread over multiple states then mention those states. People who are interested in finding more about those states can find out what languages are spoken there. If take Mumbai, then in the language column one will have to add not only each and every language spoken but also dialects such as Malvani or Goan Konkani ! Jonathansammy (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ten reverts in the last 15 days. Isn't it time to rethink about removing the languages column? --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As Ravi already said every article is prone to POV pushing and vandalism, we cannot do away with them. Some anons are constantly removing the Telugu language from Chennai column which I've been reverting. I'm pretty sure that the IPs are one and the same. We shouldn't think further when such anons don't even provide a proper reason for their revert. If you want we'll get the article semi-protected or even block them for constant edit warring. Vensatry (Ping me) 18:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A column displaying the area of the metropolitan regions would be more informative and fitting than the languages column. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd support and give more weightage to area. But unfortunately, there is no clear set of data available for Indian metros. There are multiple sources showing various figures for some cities; Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad to name a few. Vensatry (Ping me) 19:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If you say that area is not included for lack of proper sources, then I expect you to source all the information in the languages column properly or to remove it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not very keen to retain the languages column. Removing the column altogether just because of those anon POV pushers won't be a good idea. Again if we go for sourcing the area column do you think the article will be free from edit wars. Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, leave IP edits and revert wars apart. What is the point in having unsourced and controversial information, which doesn't add any important information to the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess your question was already answered by Ravi. Vensatry (Ping me) 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is still not answered on why we should have unsourced controversial information. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If "vandalism" is the reason why languages should not be added, then you might observe that the demographics section in Chennai article lists a few languages that are "widely used" in Chennai. On what criteria, has such a list been created. Why not add the number of people in Chennai who speak Punjabi or Bengali along with Telugu or Kannada or Malayalam? I'm sure sources are available. Vandalism or lack of sources in the article (which does not imply that sources are altogether absent) is not reason enough to remove the particular column from the list. You might very well regulate the criteria upon which languages are added (For eg. you might change it to an "Official languages" section where the official languages of the city corporation are listed).-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
On what basis do you say that adding "languages" is controversial. We have that for each and every city in their infoboxes. Some even have a separate attribute for "Other languages". Vensatry (Ping me) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The controversial element here is how do you determine which languages should be included in the column and which languages should not be included. The heading of the column says "Languages spoken". For example, there is a small amount of population in Chennai who speak malayalam. Why not include it? How do you determine that only these languages listed are major languages? What percentage of people needs to speak the language for it to be considered a major language spoken? All these questions are of course controversial. If the languages column is not sourced, it is indeed a violation of WP:Verifiability and liable to be removed. Even if you source it, these questions which I mentioned above needs to addressed. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate this point. The term "Languages spoken" is vague and Indian metropolitan cities can have a number of different language speakers. Even if we restrict the column to "major languages" some users will keep adding their languages with the help of some newspaper sources which claims the presence of minority communities. One thing what we can do is, go for Official languages. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Changing it to Official Language sounds logical. But still, we will have some problems for Bangalore and Delhi, which is spread across multiple states. Only states have official languages. Does a metropolitan area automatically inherit the official language of all the states which it is spread across?? --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles on metro areas of cosmopolitan cities like New York and London do not have anything on languages spoken. On the hand, when bidding for the Olympics, mayors of the two cities have mentioned of hundreds of languages spoken in their respective cities. User Vensatry should think of the havoc that would ensue if he introduced language columns for these two cities ! And yes, I will reiterate my request to get language column removed from the list. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion is only about Indian cities and not on cities in America, Antarctica, etc., we should speak from India(n) perspective. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we'll have a problem for cities other than Delhi. Bangalore Metropolitan Area covers only Karnataka. Only few places surrounding Hosur, are a part of it. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The best thing would be to leave the readers to know the official language from the individual articles. The other two lists: most populous cities and million-plus UA does not have language column. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan city[edit]

What is the minimum population limit defined for a Metropolitan city. There are sources that say, 1 million and others mentioning it to be 4 million. As far as sources are concerned, there are many contradicting ones. If 1 million is the limit, this list clearly overlaps with List of million-plus agglomerations in India. Vensatry (Ping me) 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is one million. AS per this definition, [as far as my knowledge goes] only 6 cities qualify to be called a metro, viz Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There are 53 cities with a population of 1 million or more as of now. Vensatry (Ping me) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
AS the official sources found by this user [4] says its 10 million Lakhs, we should now put our speculations to rest. Its not the authority of wiki editors to grant Metro status to Indian cities. :P --DBigXray 11:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
10 million is not equal to 10 lakhs :P. The data is a very old data and they have defined the figures based on the 1991 census. There is no point in having this article if the 10 lakhs is the limit. Vensatry (Ping me) 11:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops, just noticed that. My mistake. However as per this link that I used as a ref in 2009 in the Metropolitan area article, it says 1Million is the limit. Which, is a problem. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the hindu article says "qualifying mark of four millions to be recognised as a mega city.", It does not claim that 4 millions is for Metropolitan city, I am not sure what definition of Mega City is, But we must not assume that Mega city = Metropolitan City, per WP:SYNTHESIS . Either we follow the source at hand or else look for the recent sources, but we should never give our personal opinions on what must be the limit, without proper sources. . --DBigXray 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources to Prove Metropolitan City status = > 1 Million Population
  1. Indian Government source saying 1 million
  2. Check this source it gives the number of metro cities and says that MEtro and Mega cities are different [5] and [6] from Viswambhar Nath; Surinder K. Aggarwal (1 January 2007). Urbanization, Urban Development, and Metropolitan Cities in India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 89–. ISBN 978-81-8069-412-7. Retrieved 2 August 2012. 
  3. Metropolitan area means area having >10 Lakh population J. C. Johari (2007). The Constitution of India a Politico-legal Study. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-81-207-2654-3. Retrieved 2 August 2012. 
  4. Check Q 23, 24 [7]--DBigXray 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess most other countries have two lists: One for Cities(Corporation limits) and another for urban agglomerations. I am not sure is there is any concrete definition that distinguishes between metropolitan area and urban agglomeration. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Mega city concept is entirely new. There should be some difference between cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and cities like Madurai, Lucknow, etc., Vensatry (Ping me) 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, officially, there are only four cities being considered as Metros, namely Madras, Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta. I'm saying this on the basis of the fact that these cities have a separate Telecom circle and are the terminal points of the Golden Quadrilateral. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, the word metropolitan is used to denote the cities which inhabits people from different areas and culture. I think, its not possible to zero in onto a definition for Metropolitan or a population limit criteria. We should stick to two lists: one for city limits, one for urban agglomeration. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that would mean that this article would require a move. How about List of most populous urban agglomerations in India ??? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Disagree I have given my comments and showed the sources supporting my claim, can Rsri provide sources for his claims ? please beware of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, our edits must not be on your beliefs or opinion but based on the Core content policies of WP:V --DBigXray 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
My "claims" were based on a ten year old fact. At that time, there were only 4 metros. I'm not claiming any. Those are still being considered as official metros today. As for the article renaming, it was based on User:Anbu121's response. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I am yet to see any source for this so called ten year old fact, Again, please check this source which you seem to have ignored above, This Book is very clear about the number of Metropolitan Cities that we are debating above.--DBigXray 12:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should lookup Highbeam or Jstor. I'm on a limited access internet connection so it's a bit difficult to get sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I never gave a personal opinion on what should be the limit. I still am not. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have looked for the sources and this is what I came up with, you can take your time we are not in a hurry, It will be best if we can have some good sources to back up claim. Claim/belief/opinion, whatever you call it is still not backed up with a source and hence of no use so far. --DBigXray 13:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've had a discussion regarding the title of this page before a while User:Elockid. There is a difference between metropolitan areas and UAs. Take the case of Ghaziabad, it has a city population of 0.96 million and UA population of 2.3 million. Ghaziabad by itself is not a metropolitan area. Due to its proximity with NCR, it is listed under Delhi Metropolitan area. We cannot include all cities with one million population and the page title needs to be changed. Vensatry (Ping me) 07:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

- Keep as it is now

-Rahulpattuvam talk 06:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rahul I think has ignored every source that has been placed in this thread and the article as a reference. We already have a Government source saying 1 million. While I am claiming with concrete sources few other contributors are arguing based on their opinion/likeness/preferences without giving any source in support of their claims. I am afraid the cut off limit for the list cannot be decided by personal opinions. --DBigXray 06:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The title of the article read "List of most populous metropolitan areas in India". But we have a list of all such areas satisfying the minimum criteria. We should focus upon trimming down the list. Vensatry (Ping me) 06:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Vensantry what are you referring by But we have a list of all such areas satisfying the minimum criteria ? and on what criteria are you planning to trim the list ? --DBigXray 06:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If we include all metropolitan areas (assuming 1 million to be the min. criteria as provided by some sources published by the govt.) this will be a duplication of List of million-plus agglomerations in India. There is a difference between a metro and UA. A urban agglomeration need not have population of 10 lakhs. Vensatry (Ping me) 07:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
So we will need to either rename the two lists appropriately or to beef up this list in accordance with the sources we have for the Metropolitan city. By the way what is the criteria and the source for the limit of urban agglomeration ?--DBigXray 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
UA is a continuous chain of urban settlements around the core city. Karur which had a population of 76000 had an UA population of 1.5 lakhs in 2001. There is no limit on the minimum population. (I was wrong here)Vensatry (Ping me) 08:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In that Case it will be pure WP:OR if you proceed about Urban Agglomeration claim without sources. The local residents will try adding their own cities, how will you refute their claims if you yourself are standing on slippery grounds ? --DBigXray 09:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how you took my interpretation. Just because I didn't cite the source in the above statement it isn't OR. The figure for Karur was listed in the census website (2001). See the Municiapal website of the town and also simple google search will make you understand things better. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a source that can only be used to support UA status for Karur. Its not useful for deciding the basis for the LIST of UA. I think the discussion was on deciding the basis of UA or whatever name we are going toput up here, not Karur, isn't it ? --DBigXray 10:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here we go, [8]. I guess it's sufficient enough. Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thumbs upThat is a reliable official source and is good enough, now on the basis of this we can rename this list and remove the word metropolitan from the title. I think the list List of million-plus agglomerations in India can have the word Metropolitan in its title per the official sources that i have produced above. what say ? --DBigXray 11:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I think the "List of million-plus agglomerations in India" article is fine. As already said, there is a difference between a metropolitan area and UA. UAs need not be a Metropolitan areas always. We should rename this article so as to include only the top ten metropolitan areas or something like that. Vensatry (Ping me) 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
IMO, I think this article is main issue. List of million-plus agglomerations in India is good for the most part. One of the main issues is that some of the data found on List of million-plus agglomerations in India is the exact same as this page. See Hyderabad and Pune for example. However though, reiterating what Vensatry has stated, there is a difference between an urban agglomeration (mostly based on built-up area) and a metropolitan area (mostly based on commuters to a central city or cities). Based on these definitions, two separate lists if possible would be better. I managed to find Mumbai's metropolitan population some time earlier but I can't access it now since the site appears to be on maintenance. It is possible they might have different figures. I don't know if the Census Bureau had an extended UA for the 2001 Census but the 2001 population for Mumbai UA was 16,434,386 while the population given by MMDA was 17,702,761 for the same time period. Also, is there a reason we removed the link for the extended UA? Elockid (Talk) 15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You got a point here. Your source clearly explains the break-up of area, population and other vital parameters of the MMR. Also Chennai UA had a population of 6.5 million in 2001. The CMDA reports the population of the extended Metropolitan area to be 7.1 million. This clearly shows that a metropolitan area is an extended UA and there are differences between them. I guess it should have a similar pattern for Kolkata and Delhi. This source talks about two different regions for Bangalore. I'm sure this won't be the case for all the 53 areas with a population of 1 million. As for the PIB source I've restored it. (Don't know who removed it). Vensatry (Ping me) 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
DBigXray, as you said the govt has declared 1 mil as limit in 1992. but even state govts.s are not using the term metro for 1 mil + UAs (like this link most of them are still considering them UAs or Extended UAs). if i mil is considered cities, even with no "standard" criteria s [like airport, etc, a general concept for metros(well i have no proof) :) ] will fall under metros, yes i agree people cannot set standard for metros :). But then why different state govt itself hesitate to call most of it's UAs as metro.
  • what i still says is, keep this article as "most populous metros in India".. and mention that govt declared 1 mil limit in 1992 but still the usage of metro for 1 mil + UAs are rare and give link to 1 mil + UA article - Rahulpattuvam talk 11:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change / content of list[edit]

Given that the citation that this ordered list is based on (i.e. the 4th citation - pib Mumbai) refers to Urban Agglomerations, then this should really be in the title of the article. Therefore, logically the article should change to List of most populous urban agglomerations in India. However, given that List of million-plus agglomerations in India exists, perhaps it would be better to add a column to that list for the agglomerations, and then this article could be deleted.Any thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The previous section has some discussion on this issue. An Urban Agglomeration can contain only municipalities (including nagar panchayats: semi-rural, semi-urban), but a Metropolitan Area (as per the 1st reference used in the article) can contain rural panchayat area too. Metro cities or Mega Cities are municipalities (1 only, not UA) with 4 million plus population. (We could have a separate list of mega cities of India also, if it is not there already.) The main data of this article is from 2nd column of the table listed in 4th citation: it is the population of metropolitan area, whereas the data of 1ht 1st column of the table is for UA's. I can access primary ref for UA's in census site, here the UA data is in the 1st column in the table. I would be happier to get a similar data for Metropolitan areas from census site.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing with the fact pointed out in earlier discussion and summarised by GDibyendu, the only problem would be to find out the exact population of the "Metropolitan area" as this is not a valid criteria recognised by the census authority. Either we have to depend on the figures given by the Metropolitan Development Authorities (KMDA, CMDA, etc) which will be mostly the figure of the UA or base it on WP:SYNTHESIS. Another interesting article was left out in earlier the discussion is, Classification of Indian cities. According to this article, only 6 cities are recognised by GOI as Tier - I/X city for allocating House Rent Allowance (HRA) to public servants employed in different cities in the country. Historically, Compensatory City Allowance was the highest for the Tier-I cities. Can this be an indicative? Another, interesting fact which I have encountered, is regarding the population figure of Siliguri, while the city population is around 5 Lakh, and UA is 7 lakh. But, the UA area is a very small part of what is perceived to be Greater Siliguri, the census people have left out areas which in common sense and general notion is considered to be part of Greater Siliguri and should have been within UA. Further, Siliguri has a Development Authority called Siliguri-Jalpaiguri Development Authority which projects the total population of the "Development Area" to be much larger. However this cannot be the true metropolitan area figure of Siliguri, as this includes another town, Jalpaiguri, both the cities are 35-40 kms apart from each other's municipal limits. One must take into account, what should be done in such cases. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the above responses. I watched the page for a few days after my post but have only seen the responses now.

@GD - the data in the new ref you have provided is different to that being used in the article. However I note it also refers to 'Urban Agglomerations' thus perhaps confirming my suggested rename above (although you would have to reconcile the different data).

@Amartya - we should certainly not be undertaking any kind of original research /synthesis. If 'metropolitan area' is not a listed data set then that is more reason to change the list name to reflect the sources. Eldumpo (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014[edit]

Please add the below line as Patna is also a metropolitan region in India. | 10 || Patna Metropolitan Region || Patna Regional Development Authority || Bihar || 1,150 km2 || 3,128,273 || Includes Patna, Patna City, Bihta, Danapur, Naubatpur, Fatuha and Punpun | (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Lists require that the page already exists in order to be added. Patna Metropolitan Region does not exist, and therefor is not yet eligible to be listed. Thank you for your interest in contributing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


What is the difference between these two pages List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India and List of most populous metropolitan areas in India. Both states 10lakhs (1 million) and above are metro areas.--Vin09 (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)