Talk:List of cities in Brazil by population

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Cities

I put little thumbnails of one of the major cities in brazil

Mateus Zica 03:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found grammar erros in this page, so I have taken an iniciative and started revising. Since I do not have a lot of time in my hand, my revisions will be quick and not perfect so I would like to receive your help.

Alexandre 17:58, December 17, 2007

Largest metropolitan areas

This section is totally inaccurate. Cities that by themselves have more population than other cities, with their metropolitan area, do not appear in the list. While other cities seem to have grown for wikipedia. Please, let's try to be unbiased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.41.199 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, when I click Recife it says that it is the 4rth largest metro in Brazil however on the the list it is stated as 6th. The one that holds 4rth place on the list is actually 10th largest in Brazil.

Page protection

I've now been forced to protect this page. Rather than constantly reverting each other on the article, and not communicating, use the talk page to discuss your issues and reach a consensus. Thanks. Ged UK 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions

There have been a number of changes/reversions to the article recently, (often without use of edit summaries) and I thought it useful to set out some thoughts here.

The Urban Agglomerations section formerly used this source, which has the benefit of being in the English-language and is reliable (the UN). The current source used for this list refers to 'municipios' so does not seem to be agglomerations but cities although in any case the list does not match the source.

The lower half of the article (Cities) is currently sourced to an article that lists a large number of cities in alphabetical order. It is therefore proposed to use the above IBGE source for the Cities section, and hence reduce the list to 25.

I propose to make the above changes shortly but please post any thoughts here. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to recent changes/edit summaries, I propose to shortly create a new article for urban areas (sourced to an appropriate English-language source) and to delete the current urban areas info in this article, but a link to the new article can be left. Eldumpo (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The article is vandalized. The city "Colômbia dos Americanos" doesn't exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurteb303 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Estimates

Hello there. I just wanted to let you know that I'm willing to update this page with the most recent estimates from IBGE (as of July 1, 2016) but first I had a couple of questions. First of all, why does the chart only go down to #85 (Guarujá)? Was it previously decided that the chart would be limited only to those cities with 300K or more? Secondly, are the 2nd and 3rd columns (rank among capitals and rank among non-capitals) really necessary in this chart? Personally, I think it makes it harder to read and a little more confusing than it needs to be. Let me know what your opinions are! Thanks! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched this page but was the last person to update List of metropolitan areas in Brazil. IMO 300K is an arbitrary place to draw the line, but so are other thresholds. I agree the 2nd and 3rd columns are unnecessary – bolding the state capitals is enough. Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Several years ago, I redid the US Cities list page and put it into table format (since at the time, if my memory serves, it was just a bulleted list of cities with 100,000 with no other information). Later, someone else came in and added in the land area and density columns as well as the latitude-longitude coordinates for each city. Perhaps we could stand to lose those two aforementioned columns in my first posting and replace the columns with something similar. As I understand, with Brazilian municipalities, the areas are pretty much set in stone and don't fluctuate with annexation and stuff like US cities do. I'd be willing to update this table with the above information for all cities of 100K. But the more opinions and discussion, the better! Thanks! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ranking column

Why did you undo my edit, PauloMSimoes? Can you not see the fixed ranking column here? It allows any of the cols on the table to be ranked. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guarapiranga, Your change removed a relevant functionality of the table. In the stable version it is possible to sort, for example, the column "cities" alphabetically, and see their respective ranking positions. This functionality is particularly essential. ~~Similarly, it is possible to classify the population on "2010 census" column, and see the respective positions in that year.~~ (false)--PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PauloMSimoes: Similarly, it is possible to classify the population on "2010 census" column, and see the respective positions in that year.Similarly, it is possible to classify the population on "2010 census" column, and see the respective positions in that year.
How so, if the rank column is fixed to the 2018 numbers? No, it isn't. You can't rank by growth either. That's precisely the reason to use a fixed rank column. Besides:

It is much easier to keep a list in rank order if the numbered rank column (1,2,3) is removed from the table, and then put next to the table in a separate column. (Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order)

Guarapiranga (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see now, my apologies. The option to sort "2010 census" and respective positions in that year is most important. I'll revert my edit.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images for Belo Horizonte, Manaus, and Curitiba seem pretty non distinctive to me, could there be better options? Of course if a city is dominated by same-ish residential towers, it can be shown, but to me these are a bit too same-ish and I am not even sure, a native would be able to recognize their city from any of these, though I might easily be wrong on that. --Sir Stephens stille Stunde (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Estimates from IBGE

IBGE has released 2024 population estimates. I am willing to update this table, but how should the columns be arranged? Should I overwrite the 2010 Census column with the 2022 Census figures, and then put in the 2024 estimates into what is now the 2022 Census column? I feel this is the best approach since the 2010 Census figures now hold no value in determining population growth from the most recent 2022 Census figures. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense. Cobblet (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]