Talk:Mumbai

Second Most Populous City of India?

Hi, I'm just curious about the following: since when did Mumbai become the second most populous? It's always been first, right? Avatarfanx2 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Mumba Devi Temple Image

I'd like to propose removing the Mumba devi temple image. The dilapidated temple building really does not show anything about the city's name. It would be better to remove it. What do you guys think? Nikkul (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Although dilapitated thats where Mumbai gets its name from. Maybe changing the image for a better shot, but I would vote to keep an image of "THE PLACE" the city gets its name from. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mumbai does not get it's name from this temple. It gets the name from the Mumba Goddess which is not shown anywhere in this image. Nikkul (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

demographics of Mumbai Updated with 2011 census Numbers

Found demographics of mumbai having 2001 data which was old as new data has been released in 2011,Made the necessary changes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.108.162 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd largest city

According to the 2011 provisional population results, the population of Mumbai is 12,478,447, where as the population of Delhi is 12,565,901. this makes Delhi the largest city in India. Mumbai is the second largest in terms of population. What say?? --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 10:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if i am wrong, but I think you are comparing Mumbai's 2011 provisional figures to the Delhi's 2010 estimate. Ninadhardikar (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah You're correct. It's 2010 estimate for delhi. But I read somewhere that the provisional population of delhi close to that figure (12.5 million). Can someone provide the correct data. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Delhi's 2011 provisional census figure is inaccessible as yet. We should keep an eye out. These figures should be around the news and on the census site soon enough. Should change it only when we have proper citation. Ninadhardikar (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_India which gives 2010 estimates. Mumbai is paged at 13.5mn compare to Delhi's 12.3mn. Also, Delhi is a state with area of 1430 sq kms whereas mumbai is a city only with 630 sq mts. Also, if we count Thane & New Mumbai (these 2 are very much part of mumbai but not included for census purpose), the poplutation shall increase to untouchable level. It very sad that politicians in Delhi are trying to kill MUMBAI... they favour Delhi in all things..like new airport, F1 track, asian games etc at the cost of Mumbai (remember mumbai still contributes more than 50% of tax revenues)

I undid your edit regarding "city size". I think this has been discussed in the past. It's something to do with the port area and the national park area not falling under the administration of the municipal council. Editors have different opinions about city size, population, what forms part of Mumbai agglomeration etc. so it's better to discuss these. About your views in the above post, I do agree with your message but we should maintain a unbiased page here, without any hype or superiority over other cities in the picture. Ninadhardikar (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The wiki page is just an estimate. The population inside the municipal corporation of all major cities except Delhi and Bangalore have witnessed a very low growth rate. Mumbai's population is 5 lakhs more than what it was 10 years ago. Thane and Navi Mumbai can't be included under Mumbai corporation, since they are seperate corporations themselves. Similarly Chennai and Hyderabad also have registered low growth rates. Regarding Delhi, I agree that it has got a big area(1397 sq. km) than Mumbai(603 sq.km), yet the growth is much higher than Mumbai. In the case of Bangalore also, it has an area of 709 sq.km where as the areas of Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata are a meagre 174, 172 and 185 sq.km Imagine what would be the case if the area is expanded, it will definitely be more than bangalore's. Yet it is being said that Bangalore is India's third largest city, beyond Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the corp. area, I got the source from census website. It states that the area of Mumbai corporation is 603 sq.km (446+157) Mumbai city (157) and Mumbai suburban (446). Data published in govt. sites are more reliable than any others. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You got a point there. It seems that the districts were separated for revenue collection purposes. Now the question is - does Mumbai city comprise of both these districts or only the area which the municipal corporation manages which according to its website is 437 sq km (see mcgm.gov.in top left hand corner). Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the archives. I seem to have suggested on two occasions that the city size should be 603 sq kms. I find it silly that the whole of Mumbai Port and even the national park is not considered part of the city just because the municipal corporation doesn't manage it. Maybe a city's municipal corporation doesn't need to manage the whole area. I approve of the change back to 603 sq kms. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)