Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India

Half Million Plus Cities in India
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.

There is a need but many cities have crossed one million mark by this year.. so there is a need to update million plus list and as well as to create a new half million to one million list Sriramsai pallapothu (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments
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 &thinsp; (talk)   03:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * support - it would follow the (approximate) pattern of List of cities proper by population and List of cities in India by population‎. Batternut (talk) 09:56, 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)
 * I can understand what you said, but the renaming is not correct, there is already cities list. I think others may also need give their input. Pinging .-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   08:16, 17 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 &thinsp; (talk)   08:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:

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)
 * 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.
 * Yeah, let see other users comments.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &thinsp; (talk)   17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 &thinsp; (talk)   17:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please follow official source before using undo tag. No of millions plus populous town/UA is 52 and before revision, it was 53. The name of UA was copied from source like Durg - Bhilainagar U.A. not Bhilai. As per official source, besides UA, towns are also counted if not a part of an UA. UA is written after UA only like Delhi U.A., Kolkata U.A. but not after town which is not a part of any UA like Jaipur, Faridabad. As per official source the ranking is of Town/UA not of UA only. 2402:3A80:1CD7:30F7:878:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017
Visakhapatnam's 2011 population is 2035922. Verify the facts. 106.51.217.101 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌ 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"
 * So 2,035,922 is the urban population of the entire district, not the population of Visakhapatnam city itself, as is also shown in the table at Visakhapatnam district - Arjayay (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check List of cities in Andhra Pradesh where city population is there. This page belongs to UA.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   09:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021
In the list of cities, Visakhapatnam has been shown to be the capital of Andhra Pradesh, please change it as Visakhapatnam is not the capital of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi is still the capital of Andhra Pradesh. 117.247.121.92 (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to Wikipedia's article on Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam is one of the three capitals of Andhra Pradesh. If this is not correct, please provide reliable sources showing different information (and corrections should probably be made in the other article first). &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This page lists cities as well not just UAs which is incorrect
This article includes those cities as well in the ranking which are not Urban agglomerations. If the area consists of a single municipal governing body then it can not bot called an urban agglomeration. This needs to be corrected. For instance Kota, is a city not an UA (the website being referenced for population data also lists it as city). Also the website cited is not the official census site of India. Since there is already an official census website available, we should cite that as a reference though other websites may be used as secondary citations. Some cities have their areas expanded post 2011 census year, so in those cases we may cite another reliable reference to show them at correct rank post expansion (after expansion as per government records the reference year still remains 2011 census of the included areas)Rohit klar (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is better to change the heading to incule both town and UA and after that:
 * I also support some editors view about inclusion of both town (being million plus populous, these are also lakh plus, so you can say city instead of town but town is also right as city means town having million plus population) and U.A. combined list and I also support which is Town (Here city as well having 1 lakh plus population) and which is U.A. should be written here. I wrote U.A. after the names of UAs but somebody has edited. The person also edited the name of Durg-Bhilainagar U.A. as Bhilai. The person also deleted that no of million plus populous Town/UA is 52 but I kept both 52 and 53 (As many people dont know it is 53 after revision I kept both - otherwise without knowing other editor may delete 52) - I gave source as well. A -4 TOWNS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION SIZE CLASS IN 2011 WITH VARIATION SINCE 1901 - Class I https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/4287 Poorva12303 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If link is not operned, please try after sometime Poorva12303 (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022
Add Madurai, in Tamil Nadu to the list 71.239.101.89 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Garimellarohitkumar97 figure of Vizag was as per area and population during census 2011 but later area was changed as per htps://www.gvmc.gov.in so population of 2011 of newer area increased but later area is not the topic of the article. So old figure has been returned by editing. I don't know if you took full urban population of the Visakhapatnam district but district and city are different for example Araku is an small urban area/ town outside Vizag city but within the Visakhapatnam district. Poorva12303 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't be confused between Town and U.A.. Article is of census 2011 - don't edit with other data
@Lattha Gang ""Confusion between Town U.A. and wrong edit:"" Vadodara, Kanpur: Being confused between U.A. and Town/City someone wrongly edited area and population of these two UAs. This article is based on U.A. - not on Town/City if the Town/City is a part of an U.A. but Town/City is counted only if the Town/City is not a part of any U.A.

Vadodara, Kanpur towns/cities are part of the respective UAs. So, it is wrong to write Town/City population instead of the respective U.A. in which it is situated but writing Town/City population is right for Jaipur, Faridabad, Kota, Vasai - Virar City as these are not any part of U.A.. Vadodara Town is the major part of Vadodara U.A.. So, Vadodara Town/City is not the whole Vadodara U.A.. Similarly Kanpur Town/City is not the whole Kanpur U.A.

So please don't edit U.A. area and population to write area and population of Town/City. For this reason previous edit has been edited.

""Time of the info and wrong delete"" Area and population are during Census 2011 (Not primary) but population of Vadodara was edited to write population (approx.) of other time which is not related to the article and information source may be Vadodara Municipal Corporation website, https://vmc.gov.in and maybe based on the same source, area was edited also and area of Vadodara U.A. during census 2011 was edited to write area of Vadodara M. Corp. which is Vadodara town but not Vadodara U.A.. it has been edited again to match with the topic of the article.

If you still want to write additional info, you may write it additionally without deleting the original data related to the topic. Poorva12303 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

KMA under KMDA and Kolkata U.A. not exactly same
@Garimellarohitkumar97 Someone may be confused between area and population of Kolkata U.A. as per Census 2011 (Not primary) and area and population of KMA under KMDA. First one is available on census website and 2nd one is available with map on KMDA website TOWNS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION SIZE CLASS IN 2011 WITH VARIATION SINCE 1901 - Class I https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/42876

https://kmda.wb.gov.in/.

But this topic is based on first one and someone has wrongly edited it and so it has been edited again. Poorva12303 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Vadodara
Population of Vadodara UA is incorrect. The source listed for the page itself mentions it to be in the range of 18-19 lakhs and yet it is completely inflated without being backed by any statistics. Nowhere has this figure been mentioned in the census records or in the municipal corporation records. Please recheck the specific column for the city in the sources. As per the census of 2011, population of the city was 1666703 and as per current estimates available on the municipal corporation website it is around 2240522 - https://vmc.gov.in/. In such a scenario the population of the urban agglomeration cannot jump to such a high level. 116.74.79.17 (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Downloaded the Excel and changed it to the value that's stated in there. Ennomien (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your demand is incorrect. You are confused between Urban Agglomeration (U.A.) and Town. Town is single urban unit like one Municipal Corporation, One Municipality, one Census Town (CT), One Cantonment Board (CB) etc. . So Vadodara M. Corp. (during Census 2011) = Vadodara Town =  Vadodara City (As Vadodara town had 100000+ population it  can be called city besides town as per Indian census rule). Vadodara urban region was not identical with Vadodara M. Corp/ Town/ City during census 2011 as Vadodara Urban Agglomeration was not limited within the jurisdiction of Vadodara Town/ M Corp/ City during Census 2011. So, Vadodara U.A. is bigger than Vadodara Town/ City/ M. Corp during Census 2011 in area and population and Vadodara M. Corp/ Town/ City was a part of Vadodara U.A..
 * In this list, town details is given only if the town was not a part of any Urban Agglomeration (U.A.) during Census 2011 like Jaipur and in its Town Status column, M. Corp is written. Vadodara town was a part of an Urban Agglomeration (U.A.) which is Vadodara U.A. . So, figures of Vadodara U.A. is given instead of Vadodara town and Town status column is blank as given figures are of Vadodara U.A. and not of any town.
 * So, your demand is incorrect.
 * Please view previous discussions on talk page about difference between Town and Urban Agglomeration (U.A.). You may view meaning of Urban Agglomeration on official website of Census of India as per their rule and you may search for general rule on Wikipedia.
 * Reference has been given in the article: A -4 TOWNS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION SIZE CLASS IN 2011 WITH VARIATION SINCE 1901 - Class I
 * As per Non- Provisional report of Census 2011, population of Vadodara was 1822221 (provisional may be slightly different) Poorva12303 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Data for old years
The table currently lists data for 4 years, when it should list just one (the most recent). If the table has to be shrunk down to fit on a page, that's a bad sign. Wizmut (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of demographia
The population data for 2001, 1991 and 1981 are from the respective Census data. However, the data for 2023 is from some private agency called demographia.com. How reliable are they? For my hometown, Thiruvananthapuram (row 18), they are claiming a population of 2.85 million. However, the total population of Thiruvananthapuram district is listed as 3.52 million, and this district includes three large towns and several smaller towns and villages. Unless we are sure about this source's quality, I think we should stick with official figures. --Jose Mathew (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC).


 * For any population data concerned with India, it is always better to trust the official census data as a Reliable source and none of the other sources are as reliable on the aspect. As the official census was last taken in 2011, demographia probably is one of the sources which has a listing of cities with a projected population and might have been used here as an alternative. On the reliability of demographia as a source, there have been multiple discussions that has happened at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and other project related boards with no larger consensus. So it must be decided judiciously whether it can be trusted.
 * Regarding your note on the pop. of TVM, is the 3.52 mn number as per 2011 census or projected to 2023? As per 2011 census, the district had a pop. of 3.3 mn of which TVM had 1.7 mn (~50%). Considering decadal growth rate of pop., the UA should probably have not more than 1.8-1.9mn if the boundaries had remained as is. The area considered is also lower (~313 km2 in Demographia vs. ~542 km2 in the census data), which should actually mean a lesser pop. Going by this, the demographia data does seem suspect at least with TVM.
 * When I went through the source, the difference might be due to what and how an urban area is defined. Demographia considers all urban built up areas within the larger metropolitan area for its computations, while the census uses a contiguous urban area for its calculations. So, while the demographia number might include nearby towns, and may or may not be right, it might neither be an apple to apple comparison with census data and nor will it match with the area data. So if there is consensus, the better thing can be to split the table into two, one with census data and other if required with area and pop. according to other sources. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)