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.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 February 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Like the list of cities having a population more than a million, there is a need to create a list of the cities in India, having population of 500,000 or more but less than a million. ~Ab_18 Amod Bhagwat 15:20(IST), July 04, 2007.
Can we rename the page to List of million-plus agglomerations in India or to List of million-plus agglomerations in India by population per existing universal list at List of agglomerations by population? --Vin09(talk) 03:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Neutral. I have no strong feelings either way about this. But it might be helpful to note that the term "urban agglomeration" is the technical term for what is being discussed in the article. It also is the term used in the source material. So to me, it seems reasonable to say that the instant article is correctly named and that the other article should be re-named to "List of urban agglomerations by population". NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Restoring unexpired RfC archived by MischaBot. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Cities from and million-plus urban agglomerations in India
I came to notice that you removed some cities from aforementioned page just because their UA consists of city/ municipal area only. These cities are not constituent or part of UA of any of the other cities in the list. Their identity is separate unlike those of Thane, Howrah, Navi Mumbai etc. which have population of over 1 million each but still are parts of UAs of Mumbai and Kolkata. You simply followed the weird strategy of this site, ignoring all other sources. Even Census of India has grouped them together as "Million-plus UAs/ Cities" as can be seen here and here. Ministry of Urban Development also mentions 53 million plus UAs/ cities. Check here also. Moreover, your change from "53 million plus UAs in 2011 from 35 in 2001" to "47 in 2011 from 35 in 2001" in addition to contradicting sources, is controversial also because those 35 cities with million plus population in 2001 includes "City Only" UAs like Jaipur, Visakhapatnam, Ludhiana and Faridabad which you excluded from 2011 million plus count. It is never good to disrupt a natural order. You will not find a single source documenting 47 million plus UAs (excluding "City only" UAs) in place of 53 million plus UAs (including "City only" UAs). Those "City only" UAs deserve to be in the list simply because they are discrete/ separate and have population of over one million. It doesn't make any sense to remove them.
If there is a problem in name of article, we can redirect it to "List of million-plus urban agglomerations and cities in India" and create a separate column "Type" in the table specifying "City" or "UA" rather than removing independent discrete cities (not part of UA of any other city) with million (Jaipur with over 3 million) plus population. Of course we are not including cities which are constituent of UA of other cities. This is fair because the article's focus is on "million-plus identity". But I think this "problem" is trivial and we can continue like before. Vibhss (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Visakhapatnam as far as I know do nota have any urban agglomeration, all merged municipalities became a part of GVMC and hence, it is always listed in census 2011 as GVMC (vizag).--Vin09(talk) 08:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vin09: I already used the term "City only UAs" for Jaipur, Visakhapatnam, Ludhiana etc. Basically, these "City only UAs" are discrete and independent (as I said, not a part of UA of any other city) giant urban spreads/ urban areas but are administered by a single municipality unlike those urban spreads which have two or more municipalities. But still, whether Jaipur's "urban area" has one municipality or many will matter only in India but from a global point of view, Jaipur, Vizag etc are as much independent metropolis/ independent urban area as are Surat, Pune, Lucknow, Patna etc. with similar populations. This is not the same for cities which become suburban entities of another city's UA. Thane will just be called a Mumbai suburb and not Thane metro area/ Thane urban area. Thus, the "City only UAs" should in no circumstance be equated (by excluding them from the list) with million plus cities like Thane, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Kalyan-Dombivli, Navi Mumbai, Howrah etc which don't have their own UA but themselves form part of UA of other cities like Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata. This may sound repetitive to you but I just made my argument more precise. I suggested to change the name of the article as you found "City only UAs" conflicting with "Agglomerations". Well, you are rightly apprehensive for the previously suggested name by me but I have two other alternative names for this article:
List of million-plus urban entities in India; as I said earlier, a new column "Type" will be created in the table specifying whether the entity is "City only" or "UA.
List of million-plus urban areas in India; similar new column.
This will not prevent the discrete "City only UAs" from appearing in the list, whatever may be the situation. What do you say ? Vibhss (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, let see other users comments.--Vin09(talk) 16:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment Iam a local of Visakhapatnam and it is third largest city on the East Coast. But, Vizag doesn't have UA, so its not shown on the list. As User:Vibhss said, having a seperate column for type may look good.—IM3847 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@IM3847: Hi. Vizag is a huge and distinct urban spread lying under a single municipality of GVMC and having a population of close to two million. Anyways, thanks for your feedback. So, you agree with renaming of page and creating new column "Type" specifying type of urban entity (City/ UA), right ? Vibhss (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vibhss: Just try a sample on the page and let's see how it goes. I'll leave it to you. If any corrections, we'll get back here again.--Vin09(talk) 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vin09: I didn't get you. Are you saying that I should redirect the page to aforementioned name and make my other suggested changes ? Vibhss (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No, just proceed with what you want to do on this page.--Vin09(talk) 17:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Visakhapatnam's 2011 population is 2035922. Verify the facts. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done because the existing figure for Visakhapatnam city is correct.
I assume you are misunderstanding the figure for Urban population of Visakhapatnam district as given on page 28 of the District Census Handbook here which states:-
Visakhapatnam district stands 2nd in terms of urban area with 632.16 Sq. Kms and ranks 3rd in terms of urban population with 20,35,922 persons"