Talk:List of cities proper by population

Original research with no value

Despite the title, this is not a list of cities proper, not by any stretch of imagionation. I guess it started out as a proper list, but since people love to use Wikipedia to make nationalistic claims, numerous editors want to inflate the population of their city. At the moment, the list contains the population of the city proper for some cities, for others it contains the whole metropolitan area or even the whole province where the city is located. Neither the title nor the introduction are correct. On the contrary, they give a rather dishonest impression as they make this list out to be something it's not. I changed the introduction to better reflect what the list is about: the old introduction claimed that the list only focuses on cities proper, not on metropolitan areas, which obviously is not true. I must admit that my new introduction sounds rather ridiculous, but that is unfortunately just a reflection of the list's content. I would suggest we find one reliable source and use that source. I don't want to nominate the list for AfD as I think the topic is noteable. That's why it's particularly sad that the list is as bad and unreliable as it is.Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the intro until the issue is debated here at the talk-page. For starters, Can you give us some examples of wrongly defined "cities proper"? Thanks, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To the defense of treesmill and Jeppiz

treesmill rightly asked for a definition of “City proper”. He received silence. Jeppiz was absolutely correct when he edited “This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper for some cities while using other definitions for other cities.” That was called an “unsourced bold statement.” That he is correct stares you right into the eye when you look at that list. Under “definition” it sometimes says “City proper”, too often, it says something else. He rightly wrote that “since people love to use Wikipedia to make nationalistic claims, numerous editors want to inflate the population of their city.” (Let me add that there are just as many people who like to deflate the population of other cities.) He was also correct when he wrote “I must admit that my new introduction sounds rather ridiculous, but that is unfortunately just a reflection of the list's content.” I can only imagine how Jeppiz felt when he was slapped around. According to the list, "city proper" can mean anything from "core districts" (who decides?) to "statistical area" (who picks which one?) “City proper” has become the multifunction tool of Wikipedia: Use it as you see fit. Too many people? Let's just use the inner core as city proper! Not enough people? Let's find a big statistical area! Don't like a number? Hit revert!

So what is a “city proper?”

To anybody who a.) has a working knowledge of the English language, and b.) has his or her head screwed on correctly, „city proper“ can only mean one thing: “The city within its clearly defined proper city boundaries.” Or for the nitpickers: “The municipality within its proper administrative boundaries.” Logic not enough? Need proof?

City proper redirects to City limits. Corporate limits redirects to City limits

City limits says:

“The term city limits (or city boundary) refers to the defined boundary or border of a city. The terms town limits and village limits mean the same as city limits, but apply to towns and villages Similarly, the term corporate limits is a legal name that refers to the boundaries of municipal corporations.”

Via a redirect, Wikipedia defines “City proper” as the area within the borders of the respective municipal unit.

In the intro of this article, it is claimed that the list follows the City limits concept. However, many entries in this list don't. Apparently, a better sourced definition is needed.

• In Yahoo Answers, the question What is the meaning of a "city proper"? receives as a four star rated answer: “It refers to the officially defined legal boundaries of a city, which means there is no ambiguity -- you are either IN the city proper, or not. The complementary phrase is the "greater city." This refers to the city proper PLUS outlying areas; thus you have, for example, "Portland proper," and "Greater Portland," the latter including more or less all the suburbs and outlying unincorporated areas.”

• Merriam-Webster gives as one example for “proper: “6 : strictly limited to a specified thing, place, or idea <the city proper>”

• Sensagent gives as one example for “proper: “4.limited to the thing specified "the city proper" "his claim is connected with the deed proper"

• The Free Dictionary gives as one example for “proper: “5. Being within the strictly limited sense, as of a term designating something: the town proper, excluding the suburbs.”

• Nations Online says: “City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.”

• The San Diego Accountants Guide dedicates a whole page to “city proper” beginning with “The term City limits refers to the defined Boundary or Border of a City. The terms Town limits and Village limits mean the same as city limits, but apply to towns and villages.” As we can see, the San Diego accountants wholeheartedly adopted the Wikipedia definition.

All these sources agree that “city proper” (or town, municipality, village, whatever) is the area strictly limited to the limits of this administrative area, and nothing else.

The usage of “city proper” for “inner core” or “built-up area” is wrong. Using “city proper for anything beyond the city limits would be utterly improper.

Therefore, using “city proper” properly

• “Tokyo proper is the Tokyo Metro including all islands thousands of km away, but not the Tokyo Megalopolis. It is not just the 23 special wards.

• “Chongqing proper” is Chongqing as properly defined and administered by the Chongqing Municipal government. It is not just the core districts.

• "Beijing proper" is Beijing as properly defined and administered by the Beijing Municipal government. It is not just the core districts and inner suburbs (which are misrepresented in this list anyway.)

• "Shanghai proper" is Shanghai as properly defined and administered by the Shanghai Municipal government. It is not just the core districts and inner suburbs

• “London proper” is London as properly defined by the Greater London Authority

The population of a city proper is the number of people who officially live within the boundaries of the respective municipality. This number is usually provided by the relevant agency of that municipality.

Redefining “city proper” to anything else than the proper, clearly defined administrative area is a perversion of the word “proper,” a perversion of “city proper” as commonly understood, and it amounts to a gross example of original research, if not patent nonsense.

List of cities proper by population MUST reflect the official population of the respective city proper, i.e. the population within its proper and clearly defined administrative area.

Spare me the lectures that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that encyclopedias are tertiary sources. I am making these points on a talk page. I will not engage in wikilawyering. I am open to a discussion that uses common sense. In the meantime, I have changed the intro. I have added a properly sourced definition for "city proper", removed the "well-defined statistical groupings of such units" (wrong), and removed the weasel-worded "the meaning and role of the political units taken for the purpose of this list to be the "city proper" are not and cannot be wholly consistent, owing to the differing systems of local government around the world." Unsourced and not true. And it contradicts the rest of the paragraph. All that's left to do is bring the list up to the clear standard. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The proper way to express disagreement with the article as currently constituted is to add a factually disputed tag, not to rewrite the introduction in a ridiculous way. The article is meant to be a list of the populations of "cities proper." If the article doesn't do that accurately, then you should dispute it, and we should try to figure out how to make it as accurate as possible. Jeppiz's change is a WP:POINT violation - he wants to draw attention to his disagreement with the way the article is currently organized by making a ridiculous change in the article's introduction. john k (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think everyone would agree that where an agglomeration or urban area extends beyond the borders of a government-defined municipality, that the "city proper" is, in that case, the government-defined municipality. When the agglomeration is contained within a government-defined municipality, or when you have a situation, as with many British places, where the government unit contains several towns that have long been considered distinct (and which have specific statistical and post office definitions, even if no local government of their own), that is when there may be some question. Is Sandwell a "city proper"? Which is the city proper, Doncaster (i.e., the former county borough) or the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster? I think saying that the Metropolitan Boroughs are the "city" is really problematic, especially since the British government actually designates "city proper" boundaries within the various metropolitan boroughs and such. Basically, my thought is that "city proper" should basically mean "whatever is smallest," with perhaps a few obvious exceptions (it wouldn't do to consider London to be the City of London or the City of Sydney; I'm not sure about Brussels). Lots of local government units call themselves "cities" or "municipalities," even when they are patently not. We can't treat that as the last word, or else every prefecture-level city in China has to be counted as a city, which would be ridiculous. john k (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right back on the slippery slope of “that which must not, cannot be.” The second one starts making up reasons why a city proper (i.e. a clearly defined administrative unit) can’t possibly be a city proper, one creates a mess. To wit: the mess of this list. We better leave that to the people who live in those cities, and who administer them. If you think what they do is ridiculous, please tell them. Enter local politics. But don't rewrite facts. By definition, a city proper starts and ends at the city limits, whatever and wherever those may be. Everything else is WP:OR, as far as Wikipedia goes, and ignorance, as far as the world goes. The sentence “Basically, my thought is that "city proper" should basically mean "whatever is smallest," with perhaps a few obvious exceptions (it wouldn't do to consider London to be the City of London or the City of Sydney; I'm not sure about Brussels)” illustrates the slipperiness of the slope. No, you can’t do that. The minute you start to “think”, the minute you start making decisions, you make mistakes, you perform WP:OR, and you create endless debates. In the end, you create a useless list nobody takes seriously. We have to reflect verifiable facts here, and not our ideas of what the world should be. We are not here to redraw maps, set up new police departments, or create new tax rolls. If we want to contribute to this list, our sole job is to find the latest reliable source for the population of that city proper, reference it, and enter the proper number in the list. If we think that’s not enough, then we must enter politics. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Things have improved slightly in that there is now something that approximates to a definition which can be discussed. However, I must quarrel with the statement that "City proper is commonly defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.". I disagree with the words 'commonly defined'. A Google search for "city proper" throws up no definition that isn't connected to this article. That being the case there cannot be said to be a common definition and in fact the concept seems effectively confined to Wikipedia and is thus original and should not be the subject of an article at all. It should be deleted.

Even if this problem is ignored, the problem simply moves down a step. The statement quoted above effectively says that a city proper is whatever the local authority says it is. Instead of a definition of city proper we have a whole array of definitions created by different people for different reasons with little common ground and mostly if not entirely different. City proper is therefore non-encyclopaedic and the article should be deleted. treesmill (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed "commonly." However, the rest of the statement stays. It remains the only concise quotable definition I could find. You have supplied an even more concise definition: "A city proper is whatever the local authority says it is." That is the heart of the truth. Too bad we can't use that as a reference. As far as the rest goes: We need to live with the fact that people in this world won't agree on everything. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that you are engaging in here, right? john k (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to split hairs over slippery slope. This article claims that the list follows the City limits concept. City proper redirects to city limits. The limits begin and end where the local authorities say they do. One needs such a clear, non-debatable delineation. I assume Sandwell and Doncaster are close to your heart, if not close to where you live. If you already have trouble sorting those out, if you already give up on Brussels, how will you decide what the proper population of Lagos, Wuhan, or Yokohama is? It is hard enough to research and to update the official population counts of clearly defined administrative units. (Kindly follow me to the "Note" part of List of Chinese administrative divisions by population for an example.) Once the limits of "City proper" are up for discussion, confusion reigns. When it comes to paying your taxes, or the jurisdiction of your police and courts, you will hardly find someone who will engage in a discussion about finding a middle ground. You might find yourself in the proper jail instead. This list will not and cannot come up with its own definition of "city proper." The intro should now be clear enough: "This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper (city without its suburbs). City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." As far as cities go, we simply need to open our minds. Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin are both cities and states. Beijing,Chongqing,Shanghai, and Tianjin are direct-controlled municipalities with equal status to a Chinese province. Tokyo has the same status as a Japanese prefecture. Tiny Monaco and even tinier Vatican City are cities (the latter with a population of 800) and sovereign countries. Someone from Chongqing will have a hard time understanding how a rock called San Marino with a population of 30,000 can be a sovereign state (and why it needs to be divided into 9 municipalities). Just like it doesn't want to enter the mind of most people in the rest of the world that a city they never heard about, namely Chongqing, has the temerity of calling itself the world's most populous city. It is what it is. We are not here to rewrite history or geography. We are just humble scribes who document verifiable facts. Did I mention that this alone is hard enough? -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandwell and Doncaster are nowhere near where I live; I'm American. Beyond that, a "city" is not really analogous to a "country" or "state." A state is a purely political concept. Monaco may be tiny, but that is irrelevant to whether it is a state, because states are political designations. A city is not the same at all - a city is a geographical concept as much as a political one. Including vast rural areas as part of a "city," is seriously problematic. And once we do that, I'll ask again about prefecture-level cities, which are local government units that are explicitly called "cities". Why is Chongqing a "city proper" but Mianyang is not? Administrative subdivisions that includes thousands of square miles of countryside are not "cities" in the normally understood meaning of that word, even if they call themselves "cities." john k (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to get out more. People all over the world have different definitions of "cities", and it is not up to us to correct them. If a Chinese city decides to include vast rural areas, then we have to suck it up and accept it. It's their country, it's their city. The "normally understood meaning of the word" changes as you move around in the world. If you want to add prefecture-level cities such as Mianyang, go ahead. They have all right to be on the list. Before you do that, I recommend focusing on the sub-provincial cities of China first: Ningbo, Hangzhou, Xi'an, Changchun, Harbin, Shenyang, Shenzhen, Jinan, Wuhan, Chengdu, Qingdao, Dalian, Xiamen, Nanjing, Guangzhou. Some are on the list, some aren't. We have a clear definition of "City proper" : City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government. If that applies to Mianyang, then it should be on the list. Its population appears to be higher than that of Berlin. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear who you are commenting to, however you are perfectly correct when you say 'People all over the world have different definitions of "cities"' but you follow this with the straw man statement that it is not up to us to correct them. It is not a question of correcting them. The issue is whether 'city proper' can be regarded as a subject appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. The complete absence of any consistent definition, which you clearly accept, answers this question incontrovertibly in the negative. The article is non-encyclopaedic and it should be deleted. treesmill (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting very worried about your eyesight.-- BsBsBs (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you worry about the article instead. You claim above that you found the definition of 'city proper' somewhere. It would be more productive if you were to quote the reference and give some justification for treating it as other than a one-off remark with insufficient validity to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article. treesmill (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting seriously worried about your eyesight now. 4 references in a row not enough? Along with a link to city proper that explains it in excruciating detail? What else do you want? My firstborn? Did you actually read the article? Do you have the abridged version of Wikipedia? The question is not whether city proper is sufficiently defined. The question is whether certain entries in this list adhere to this definition. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm does you no credit. You claim four references which are effectively a single source, three of them being directly UN sources and the fourth a direct quote. This single source provides a qualitative definition only. You have still failed to provide any definition that makes it possible to judge whether any particular population claimed here can be reasonably compared to another or is even valid. As I have pointed out, the absence of any consistent definition, which you have already accepted, makes the whole article worthless, except as a place for the riding of hobby horses. treesmill (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you insist - go ahead and delete the article. There is an RFD going on. Put in your name for the delete option if you think the article is worthless. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

City is an English word with a history going back 1000 years or so. The commonly understood meaning of a word cannot be trumped by administrative definitions by various governments. john k (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Urban renewal

I have started to bring the list in compliance with the definition of “City proper” in the lead: City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government. I have attempted to insert the proper population of some places I am familiar with. This is a good faith best effort, far from being perfect. Being in China, I tackled the Chinese cities first. They are complicated. Some count residents with a hukou only and call that “permanent population”, some add the hukou and non-hukou population and call that “permanent.”

This is what I’ve done:

• I removed “rank”. Adding a rank could be seen as WP:OR . The rank will also change as the list is edited. It is sortable, no rank necessary.
• In population, I entered the population number for city proper, i.e. the count within the administrative boundaries. No more “inner core”, no more “statistical areas”
• I gave the population reference a separate column, adding the ref to the count breaks the sort. I tried using the most up to date official number issued by the statistical bureau of the respective municipality. Please try the same when editing. I do not trust other lists, like World Gazetteer or Citypopulation.
• Definition: I suggest using this column for the definition of the type of municipality, otherwise, enter "City proper"
• Area, Population density: I did not touch them yet. I suggest we remove these columns unless someone wants to go to the trouble of recalculating the density number
• Update: When updating please enter date of last update here- If no date, entry needs review/update. I only reviewed/edited the ones with a date. Please add a date so that we’ll know what needs more work.

Lagos was a test for me. I have no idea of Lagos. Never been there. No idea. After googling, I entered the number for the Lagos state. This could be totally wrong. I just don’t know.

Clearly, many entries need work and research. With a little help from all corners of the world, maybe we’ll get to a list we can be proud of. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming rather self-referential. Before we start changing around the list so that it conforms to the definition in the introduction, oughtn't we determine whether that definition itself is appropriate? john k (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple test: Go down to City Hall and tell them that you want to pay real estate taxes in the next city/county/administrative area. You also want their PD to respond when you call 911. At the next census, you want to be counted there. One of the nicest answers you will hear is: "Sure. No problem. Move there." Most of all, it is not up to us to "determine" what "is appropriate." If you want that, you need to enter politics, or at least journalism. All we are allowed to do is reflect verifiable facts. -- BsBsBs (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite the non sequitur. john k (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My take on "city proper"

There are two approaches I can think of for defining what is a "city proper." One is to say, A city proper is a municipality. Another is to say, A city proper is a well-defined area that can be called a city. I'd like to make a case for the second approach to be used on this list:

So, let's say we made a list of the cities in the world according to their municipal boundaries. We'd have something like this at the beginning:

1	Chongqing, China	40,000,000
2	Beijing, China	22,000,000
3	Shanghai, China	19,210,000
4	Mumbai, India	13,830,884

This list is very correct. All the populations refer to those within city limits, whatever definition those city limits may have. However, the information is not very useful. Chongqing may be at the top of the list, but so what? The definition of its city limits refers to an area the size of Austria, much of which is rural. However, Mumbai's city limits cover a highly developed area less than 1% of that size. Comparing the two cities based on their population by this definition is very misleading.

Now I'm going to take the same method (municipalities only) and apply it to just cities in Australia. In Australia, a local government area is a municipality. Here's what we get, as taken directly from List of cities in Australia by population#25_largest_Local_Government_Areas_by_population:

Rank	Local Government Area	Estimated resident population, 2009
1	Brisbane City Council, Queensland	1,052,458
2	Gold Coast City, Queensland	515,157
3	Moreton Bay Region, Queensland	371,162
4	Sunshine Coast Region, Queensland	323,423
5	City of Blacktown, New South Wales	299,797
6	Logan City, Queensland	277,568
7	City of Casey, Victoria	247,357
8	Sutherland Shire, New South Wales	219,828
9	City of Greater Geelong, Victoria	216,330
10	City of Wollongong, New South Wales	201,438
...
19	City of Sydney, New South Wales	177,920
...
79	City of Melbourne, Victoria	93,105

Again, a list such as this may be misleading. Now, with Sydney down at #19, and Melbourne way down at #79, one may get the impression that they are not very important cities. However, they are very important cities. But based on other definitions such as the ones in the articles Sydney and Melbourne, these two cities would be right at the top of the list. So why not use those definitions instead?

Now, some of you who are reading this are probably going to respond, "This is a list of cities proper. The title of the article is 'List of cities proper by population.' The definition given in the introduction says that a city proper is 'a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.' For Chongqing, that means the entire direct-controlled municipality. Like it or not, that is what the article is supposed to do. That is its purpose."

However, this article's purpose isn't very defined. You can't speak for the original creator of the page, and even the original creator of the page can't be credited with the ability to state exactly what its purpose is -- the consensus may be to do something else. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore its purpose as a whole is to present reliable, helpful information to its readers. A list of municipalities is not very helpful. A list of cities, by varying but clear definitions, that more or less compensates for the differences in municipality sizes in different parts of the world, would be more helpful and would allow readers to compare cities and arrive at more or less reasonable conclusions. If this comes into conflict with the introduction, then the introduction can be rewritten. Even the title can be changed -- there's a "move" button at the top of the page, isn't there? We could call it something different, like "List of cities by population." What's the harm in that? Whatever we do, we should come to a consensus about what it is -- otherwise we'll be editing the article back and forth based on our own ideas of what it should be.

Thoughts? Someone the Person (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all entirely sensible. john k (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it extremely helpful to the reader to finally publish the official population counts within clearly defined administrative limits. I shudder at the thought of "A list of cities, by varying but clear definitions, that more or less compensates for the differences in municipality sizes in different parts of the world." If someone wants to compile a list with that title, please go ahead. It would not be a list of population by city proper. There are so many different lists, one more would do no harm. CGood luck finding verifiable sources. Coming back to this list, we would appreciate it if the list is not edited again to reflect anything else than official population counts within clearly defined administrative limits. We would also appreciate it if edits of the list are done in a way that does not break formatting or sortability. In the meantime, if you want to compensate by municipality size, just hit the "Population Density" sort button. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The point that you seem to be missing here is that this does not have to be a list of cities proper. Also, I'm not suggesting that there be an article called "A list of cities, by varying but clear definitions, that more or less compensates for the differences in municipality sizes in different parts of the world" -- I'm just suggesting that that be what this article IS. That is what this article was anyway. If you want a list of municipalities by population, you can go ahead and make one. However, I think it is completely ridiculous to call an area the size of Austria a "city," or even a "city proper," and for now you seem to be the only one in the discussion who disagrees. Someone the Person (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly untenable to pretend that we are talking about the same category of cities, when the areas vary between 173 Km² and 82,400 Km². Salut, --IANVS (talk |cont) 03:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(A more proper title for the article, as it stands today, would be "List of undivided administrative units by population"). Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 03:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a common fallacy to assume that a municipality is something bigger than a city. West Hampton Dunes, New York, pop. 11, is a municipality. Municipality is generic, it can mean anything from West Hampton Dunes to Chongqing. A list of the population of city proper by definition can include both, but it cannot include Westhampton, New York,pop. 2889, because it is unincorporated. Whether you think that it is completely ridiculous to call an area the size of Austria a "city," or even a "city proper," is irrelevant. You need to take up the matter with the people who made that decision. I bet the people of Chongqing would find it likewise ridiculous that a dune with 11 people can be a municipality with its own mayor, Board of Trustees and police force. Also, last I looked this was a list of cities proper by population. To me, this whole discussion is a proxy for a much bigger conundrum: A city most of the people never heard about can call itself the world's largest city. There is a long list of cities with 4 to 10 million people in China which most people don't know, and can't spell. They dwarf the capitals of many nations. And because of that, we think it's ridiculous, and we do our darnest to define the fact away. -- BsBsBs (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of nationalism, BsBsBs. It's not a problem if the Chinese have got dozens of cities of 4 million people, as long as they can be referred to with the concept "city". If the Chinese, or anyone else, decide to call some administrative division of 82,400Km² a "city" (which I doubt), then we'd have to redefine the concept. But stretching the concept is not a solution. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There goes another fallacious assumption. There is no universal concept of a city. A visit to city can be an eye-opener (and it tells only a small part of the story.) Some countries have rules, some don’t. In some countries, city rights are bestowed, some countries don’t care. In the U.S., the definition of a city varies widely from state to state. It can mean anything from New York City to Circuit City. (My personal favorite is the Urban Dictionary defintion "Can I Touch You?) In Norway, cities have no administrative function. Many of us think a city has to be something big and densely populated, but this is not the case. Ever heard of the City of Meerbusch? I don’t blame you. It didn’t exist until 1970 when some villages near Duesseldorf, Germany, were forced to give up their municipal status and join together into the (official) city of Meerbusch. 70 % of that city is forests or farmland. That land is within the city proper of Meerbusch. A miniature Chongqing. City limits can be in flux. In some places, cities legally absorb towns around them, the city limits grow. In other places, people can hold a referendum, and voila, new city, sorry, I meant municipality. It is a sign of ignorance and intolerance to assume that the world over, things should be what we are used to. The world begs to differ. If someone wants to change the definition of any given city, may I recommend the time tested Wikipedia principle of consensus: Go there and start a referendum. In some places you may succeed, this is how West Hampton Dunes, New York, population 11, became a municipality, as ridiculous as it may be. In other places, you probably will get arrested - good luck with getting out the vote to redefine the concept of calling a certain administrative division of 82,400Km² a "city." (Yes, they do.) The Chinese can get stubborn in matters of sovereignty. In most other places, you will simply be laughed out of town. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't know why you assume that every undivided administrative division is a city by default. That is fallacious. 2) You are spousing a radical nominalist position. But even nominalists would agree in that if someone calls an orange "orange", and yet another one calls an apple, "orange", then we have a new concept -not a rather new green/red species of the same old orange. 3) Just in case: I've got no problem at all with multiple, conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of phenomena. But we have to use a single set of criteria/conceptualization if we want to compare them properly.

If we insist in comparing undivided administrative divisions, then we should change the title of the article. If we want to preserve a list of cities, then we should be a little more specific on the criteria for selection.

On a separate note, I'd like to know (you seem to know very well) what are the definitions the Chinese use for its administrative division, and why we should assume that City is a fine translation for Chongqing denomination (whatever it may be). Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of the arguments. Everything that has been said has been said many times. It's very simple: You want a list of cities that feels right. I want a list of cities that reflect the correct population. We'll never agree. The energy is better used to improve the list. It badly needs it. The definition of the Chinese cities can be found on Wikipedia. I will not spoon-feed you. You won't believe it anyway. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

It would be helpful if we could develop an in-line template that alleviates some of the drudgery. I envision a city_proper_list_entry function/template that takes all necessary info as arguments and then does the heavy lifting. Something like this:

{{city_proper_list_entry|population|population_reference|definition|area|countrycode}}

The population density would calculate itself (population/area).

If possible, the "updated" field would change as the template is edited.

The template would enter the | and |- as needed, preventing messes of the list.

For someone who knows template programming, this could probably be done in minutes. For me, it would mean at least a day of study.

One more thing: Do we need references for the area? WP says yes, yet it is largely ignored here. Apparently for reason: Sometimes, the area is hard to research. I admit that I usually take the area from the respective WP entry, a practice that so far remained unchallenged. If we need a reference for the area, then that reference needs a separate column, so that the sort is not broken.

The template would have to take this into account. Thoughts? Help? -- BsBsBs (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

More housekeeping - templates no working.

I built a macro that calculates the population density and also makes overall editing easier. It also lends itself more for machine-generation from a database. However, I have two problems, a big one and a small one:

Big problem: For some reason, the table shows at the bottom of the page. Can't figure out why. Will need to play in the sandbox for a while.

Small problem: Some entries in the rows are vertical aligned top, some are vertical aligned center. The template does no aligning.

If some who know what they are doing could help, it would be appreciated. The density numbers were all over the place. People don't seem to manually recalculate them. The area rarely changes (unless its wrong , also happened) but the density changes with the population. That was the idea of the template. Please keep the editing at a minimum until this is solved, the data migration is a lot of work. Thanks -- 19:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hooray! The templates work now, and the list stays where it is supposed to be. Please double-check the data, there could haven been migration issues. It probably is a good idea to check the data against the sources also. I did about half and found a bunch of mistakes. -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change

As per previous talk, and considering the lack of consensus over a single coherent definition for the cities listed (in most of this talk-page sections), I propose changing the name of this article to "List of undivided administrative divisions by population", because this is what it is right now. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Alternative names for a change: "List of smallest administrative divisions by population"/"List of Municipalities by populations") --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against - This article does NOT have to provide a definition of "City." The definition of "City" is in City. City explains that "city" can take on many meanings throughout the world. The definition of "Municipality" is in Municipality. The definition of "city proper" is in city proper, and with a reference in the intro. IANVS has not provided any workable alternatives. "Undivided divisions" is patent nonsense. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Municipality of China and City#China have no verifiable reliable sources for the main definitions for the "City" concept. Furthermore, a Municipality is an administrative entity, but not necessarily equals a "City", as you yourself have pointed out in other thread. Finally, there is no definition for city proper in the pertaining article, as it redirects to city limits, which is clearly not the same thing.

Conclusion: I don't see any reasons to consider some municipalities as cities, nor there are WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS to support that the Municipalities of China should be considered cities. I insist on name changing. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems with Municipality of China, then you have to take your gripes there, and not disrupt the work here. Apparently, you have issues witch China. I don't have to do this, but because I'm in a good mood. here we go. (You could have done this yourself ...) Your guide to counties, Cities and provinces in China. (If your computer doesn't do Chinese characters, tough.)

• Municipalities directly under central government (直辖市 zhíxiáshì)= Noun. "Directly governed city region (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing)"
• Prefecture-level municipalities/cities (地级市 dìjíshì)= Noun. "Prefecture-level city"
• There is no definition for city proper in the pertaining article? May I direct your attention to the second sentence in the intro: "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." With a source.

Can I go to bed now? And where do I send the bill? -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment As for your intended verifiable online sources, the first link says "City-region", which I understand is not exactly a City. The second link is blank. The problem is not with the Municipalities of China, but with you conflating Municipalities and Cities. I mean, your work here ought to be a rather new article, on "Municipalities". Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(PS: There is no defintion because there is no article on city proper) --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you do anything alone? Do you need to be spoon-fed everything? If you would paste 地级市 into the translation box, you would see it. Besides, "Prefecture-level municipalities/cities" is in the article. No translation necessary. You want to talk, but you don't want to read. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. For the last time: A city is a municipality. A municipality is not necessarily a city. It can be anything, from a village to a city of 40 million. I am wasting my time with you. Good bye. -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my country, Municipalities (partidos and departamentos) often include several cities. So, not everywhere "a City" is defined as an administrative unit/municipality. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather change this to "List of cities by population" (wasn't the article originally called that?) and change what the list is. But how about this: two separate lists, one of municipalities, one of cities? The municipality list would entirely based on local government, and therefore have Chongqing at the top. The city list would be based on reasonably similar definitions of "city proper," and would have Shanghai or Mumbai at the top. Someone the Person (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing: China's municipalities, such as Chongqing, ARE divided -- into districts and counties. So what we have here is not a list of undivided administrative division. What we have is a list of municipalities. Someone the Person (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If we're doing municipalities, we'd best dump London and Tokyo. john k (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I strongly prefer simply doing cities instead of municipalities. Someone the Person (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Myths and facts about cities, municipalities, and lists thereof

There are several myths that need correcting:

• Myth: A City is a big important place. Everybody knows that. Fact: City is far from a clear concept, it can mean anything from New York City to Circuit City. There is no universal, worldwide definition for “city.” It can take on many meanings, from country to country, from state to state, even from person to person. Just like “commune” can mean anything from a group of hippies sharing a house (and more), to a city.

  This is a straw man. Nobody is arguing that a city has to be "a big important place." However, the only general definition available is along these lines (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): "A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance." The key point here is "center of population." The direct-controlled municipality of Chongqing is not a center of population, and, as such, fails to be a city by the most basic definition. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: The importance of a city is characterized by the number of people living in the city. Fact: There is no relation. From 1994 to 1999, the small city of Bonn (population today 320,000) was the de facto capital of Germany. The capital of Australia is Canberra with a population similar to Bonn. Canberra is lightly populated, 429 people per sqkm. Ever heard of Naypyidaw? It is the capital of Burma, also known as Myanmar. Anybody doubt the importance of Washington, D.C.? Its population is less than 600,000. Does that make DC less important than Berlin? Is Berlin (population 3.4 million) more important than Maoming (population 6.1 million)? Even the Chinese will give the nod to Berlin.

  Firstly, Maoming isn't a city; it's a large administrative unit that the Chinese for some reason decide to call a city. It is itself divided into smaller units, some of which are themselves called cities. Secondly, the fact that a city's importance can't entirely be determined by its size does not mean that there is no correlation between size and importance. You are arguing against a straw man. Indeed, even from your carefully chosen examples, it gets pretty dubious. Yangon is clearly more important than Naypyidaw, and Sydney and Melbourne are clearly more important than Canberra. When it was the capital, Bonn may have been more important than any other city of comparable size, but Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, and Cologne were always more important cities overall. Moreover, every example you have come up with is a capital. Size isn't the only determinant of the importance of a city, but it's certainly one important factor. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: A city with large tracts of rural area and a low population density can’t possibly be a city. Fact: It sure can. Kindly direct your attention to List of cities by surface area. Ever heard of Hulunbuir? It is (as per Wikipedia) the world’s largest city by area. It dwarfs the UK. Think the Chinese cheat again? The city of Altamira, Brazil (population 84,000) is bigger than Greece. The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder (population 32,000) covers more area than Hungary, Portugal, Austria or Ireland. Switzerland is half the size of City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Compared to that, Chongqing is modest.

  Yes, various countries will call something a city when it is clearly not such. The only definition of city which can be used to compare between countries is one that takes account of the idea of a center of population. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: A city is undivided. Fact: Most cities are subdivided into districts, arrondissements, boroughs, wards, sometimes, to the confusion of many, a city can be subdivided into cities. Usually, these subdivisions have an administration, sometimes even a government. Trust me that Berlin is (finally) an undivided city? Well, it is divided into 12 Bezirke (wards, boroughs), each with a mayor and a council. I have an apartment in Tokyo. It is in the ward of Ota, also known as Ota-ku. Because I’m a gaijin (a foreigner), I was provided with a guide in English, titled Guide of Ota City living. It was given to me on the occasion of my marriage in a branch office of Ota City. Any doubts that the wards (or cities, as they call themselves) are part of the city of Tokyo? Confused? The world is full of surprises.

• Myth: A municipality is more than a city, a very large city perhaps. Fact: A municipality is (as per Wikipedia) “an administrative entity composed of a clearly defined territory and its population and commonly denotes a city, town, or village, or a small grouping of them… A municipality is a general-purpose district.” A list of the largest municipalities by population would by default include the largest cities by population. Confusing municipality with metropolis is a common mistake.

  This doesn't mean what you think it means. A municipality is, by definition, a government-defined entity. A city is absolutely not. In many cases, a municipality will correspond with a city. Other times, it will not. Italy, for example, has a pretty clearly defined distinction between the commune, which is the municipality, and the capoluogo or frazione, which are towns within the commune. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: When a city turns into a state, prefecture, or even a country, it is no longer a city. Fact: Washington D.C., Hamburg, Beijing, Tokyo, Monaco, Vatican City and countless others would register their protest.

  Nobody believes this - this is a straw man. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: “City proper” means the built-up area of a city, without the rural areas. Fact: For those who are unsure of the finer nuances of the English language, any dictionary (see talk way above) will assure them that “City proper” means the area within the administrative city limits, and nothing else.

  "City proper" means the area within the administrative boundaries when the urban area extends beyond the administrative boundaries. Its meaning when the administrative boundaries extend beyond the urban area is much less clear. john k (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Myth: You can create a list of the population of “real cities.” Fact: You are doomed. It starts with the definition of “real.” Even if you define an area, you will not get the data for many. Similar attempts have failed again and again. If there would be such a reliable list, we would cite it here.

• Myth: You can draw up a correct list of cities by population, a list that pleases everybody, a list that is beyond doubt. Fact: As this discussion shows, it is an impossible task. Even the people who should know best, the mayors of the world’s greatest cities, fail. This is why there are many lists, one for every taste and worldview. This humble list happens to be just one of the many. It is and will remain a good faith best effort to reflect the up-to-date population of communes, villages, towns, cities, municipalities within clearly defined administrative limits, also known as city proper, based on official data. This list can never be finished, and it will never be exact.

• Myth: People believe what they believe and often disregard facts that conflict with their worldview. National pride, racist or jingoistic notions often cloud their perceptions. Fact: Sadly, this is often true. -- BsBsBs (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to a simple fact: Some want to change and misrepresent facts. This is not allowed in Wikipedia, ergo, it will not happen. If "various countries will call something a city" then we have no other choice than to do the same. If we redefine it according our liking, then we falsify facts. The most reliable source about Hulunbuir is the city of Hulunbuir. Likewise with Altamira, Brazil,Kalgoorlie-Boulder,Chongqing, Beijing, Maoming or countless others we might disagree with. We can disagree, but we may not make up facts. Case closed. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of what various countries call cities, may I point out that the Chinese version of the article makes no attempt to call Chongqing's municipality of 30,000,000 a city proper. So don't say they do. It is a true fact that Chongqing's municipality has a population of 30,000,000, but a matter of opinion whether or not to call it a city. Someone the Person (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even List of administrative divisions of Chongqing shows that the entity known as "Chongqing Proper" is a much smaller subset of Chongqing Municipality. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I would have said that, I would have been lectured that it is not allowed to use other WP entries as a reference, especially those that don't have a single reference. It wouldn't be the first time that "city proper" is being confused with "inner core". That map is a fraud. There is no Chongqing District. I expect that the resident China experts tar and feather the perpetrator. -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even the Chinese Wikipedia has an article for the city proper of Chongqing, which is only a subset of the Municipality.[1] If you're not aware, many urban geography studies use as the definition of city proper for Chinese cities the set of contiguous jiedao of the urban core (sometimes adjusted to the district level for simplicity). This concept is the one used in the version prior to your unilateral change. --Polaron | Talk 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't use different concepts for one list. You also cannot use other WP articles. If you want to get really confused, you can use the United Nations definition for City Proper With Chinese Characteristics: "Cities only refer to the cities proper of those designated by the State Council. In the case of cities with district establishment, the city proper refers to the whole administrative area of the district if its population density is 1 500 people per kilometre or higher; or the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district if the population density is less than 1 500 people per kilometre. In the case of cities without district establishment, the city proper refers to the seat of the city government and other areas of streets under the administration of the city. For the city district with the population density below 1 500 people per kilometre and the city without district establishment, if the urban construction of the district or city government seat has extended to some part of the neighboring designated town(s) or township(s), the city proper does include the whole administrative area of the town(s) or township(s)." If you want to do that, then you have to do two things: Change the intro to "This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper (city without its suburbs), except for China, where city proper is defined as follows: In the case of cities with district establishment, the city proper refers to the whole administrative area of the district if its population density is 1,500 people per kilometre or higher; or the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district if the population density is less than 1 500 people per kilometre. In the case of cities without district establishment, the city proper refers to the seat of the city government and other areas of streets under the administration of the city. For the city district with the population density below 1 500 people per kilometre and the city without district establishment, if the urban construction of the district or city government seat has extended to some part of the neighboring designated town(s) or township(s), the city proper does include the whole administrative area of the town(s) or township(s)." Then you must leave the population for Shanghai at 19,210,000. For the other Chinese cities in my reverted list (all below 1500 per sqkm), you need to find the population for the the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district. Good luck with sorting that out. I trust this will be done immediately and with the same fervor as exhibited in the rest of the discussion. --BsBsBs (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is already what is effectively being done in the older version of the list. All Chinese cities currently in the list have district establishment and includes those districts where the population density is 1500 per sq km or higher. We can add this footnote if you prefer. --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Someone who's usually very anal about correct WP entries suddenly plays fast and loose with the facts. 1.) The intro says "This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper. City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." This is a gross misrepresentation. Is it only me who sees core districts, inner suburbs, and statistical areas instead of city proper? 2.) You say the convoluted Chinese definition of city proper "is already what is effectively being done in the older version of the list." Would you mind showing me? Where is the reference that says that? The intro says something else. 3.) I see Shanghai at 13,831,900 and only the core districts + inner suburbs counted. Not allowed according the convoluted formula. Density over 1500, you must count the whole city. 4.) Would you please enlighten me how to treat Beijing? Density below 1500. How should I count people in "the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district if the population density is less than 1 500 people per kilometre?" It does NOT say only count the people in the districts with the density over 1500. So in Beijing, I count the population of XiCheng District (I know for sure that there is the seat of the government) but then I'm at a very big loss. What "district government?" Which "streets?" Apparently, you have deeper insight. Mind sharing it? I could ask around, but this would be original research. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the list of districts and find the ones which have densities greater than 1500. That set of districts is then what is commonly taken as the city proper for large Chinese cities. This is what the UN utilizes and what is done on this list. A more detailed method but more cumbersome to find recent population figures for would be to add all contiguous subdistricts (streets) (i.e. exclude towns and townships and non-contiguous streets). A variant of this is to use only those streets that are defined by the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics as an urban statistical area. This second method is rarely used since it is more difficult to find recent county-level population data. The key here is that a city proper excludes suburban and exurban areas. Most province-level and prefecture-level cities in China include the entire metropolitan area and more. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not what is done on this list. I keep marveling at your sudden leniency. The Shanghai entry does not adhere to the rule.
• This is also not what the Chinese rule says. Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the rule. Most likely, it was a Chinese translation via Google translate. But it's the law as far as the the UN goes
• If this is how the UN does it, why not simply take the UN list? You know, the one that is cause for great hilarity the world over every other year. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what should be changed is the definition of "city proper" in the intro? john k (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That would work. FYI, it's the United Nations definition. Try this. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The current list does satisfy the UN definition of city proper in China. To first order, find the set of districts that have a density of 1500 per sq km or more. That would be your city proper for the most part. That is what is used on the list. Now, the UN rule does add contiguous streets, as well as towns/townships that are part of the urban area, of districts that have a density lower than 1500 so the definition in the current list is probably a bit conservative. In the case of Beijing, the following 6 districts have a density of 1500 or more: Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chaoyang, Haidian, Fengtai, Shijingshan. These are, for sure, part of the city proper (and is the current definition used in this the list). Mentougou has a density lower than 1500 but has four streets/subdistricts adjacent to Beijing proper so, in principle, the total population of these subdistricts should also be added to the city proper. Daxing is similar to Mentougou having three streets/subdistricts adjacent to Beijing proper. Other districts have density lower than 1500 and do not have contiguous streets and are not part of the city proper. The Chinese Wikipedia also says something about Beijing proper [2]. Note that it uses the same definition this list does. --Polaron | Talk 21:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. You just made that up. Citation, please? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted the UN definitions didn't you? That's what you get when you use those definitions. --Polaron | Talk 06:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure did. However, for the purpose of this list, this rule is not in effect. At least that's what the intro says. If it's in effect, why not cite the number from the UN Yearbook instead? I'm away from my desk, would you have the latest UN Demographic Yearbook handy and see what it says about the city proper of Beijing? Supposedly, it's the same number as in the list. Xie xie . -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "city proper"

There are still some who complain about "the complete absence of any consistent definition." I don't know. There must be different kinds of Wikipedia. Mine contained, in the second sentence of the article, the following definition: "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." It was referenced. I added a few more references for good measure.If that is not enough put the definition in a Google search and voila, there are many more that agree. I surely hope this puts the matter to rest. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back to the old version

Sorry, BsBsBs, but your edits are without the consensus of the group and I have decided to revert to the old version. If you can find anyone else besides you who disagrees with me, feel free to let me know. If you point me back to the definition of city proper, I'll change the title and intro to fit the content. Then, if you like, you can make a list of municipalities by population instead and we will all get something we want. Someone the Person (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You wiped out a whole bunch of definitions of city proper. Maybe because they don't fit your views? After having removed the definitions, you ask for them. Your edits a disruptive and destructive. Did you ask for the "consensus of the group?" -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks for the consensus of the group. People have agreed with me but have not agreed with you. I call that the consensus of whatever small group there is on this talk page. You are being disruptive by going against that consensus. I am not wiping out references, I am replacing them. And what's this about my views? Do you think that the definition of city proper I'm advocating is based on politics? Also, you are not going about your apparently so beneficial editing very well. How about the part of the title where it says "by population?" This list is not in order of population, and that is because of your edits. Also, I'd like to point out that one of your references actually denies your definition of city proper to include Chongqing's municipality by NOT putting it at the top of the list here, so you can't even include it. I see no reason to believe that you should be the one editor who decides where the article goes. Please stop. I have made one last edit in which I changed just the list, and not the intro.

Also, I would like to make one more thing clear: the reasons I am adding "rank" back in and taking "updated" back out. My reason for adding "rank" again is that I do not believe that it is WP:OR, I believe that is simple math based on the SOURCED numbers given. My reason for taking out "updated" is that I don't think it's useful. It's much better to know what year the population figure itself is from, because no matter how often you check an out-of-date source, it'll still be out of date. Someone the Person (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not "just change the references" as the edit comment says/said, you changed the whole list back.

As for the list format:

• Rank: Attaching hardcoded rank to lists is interpreted as original research in some lists (I am not as orthodox, but some are.) It is better to autosort, because ...
• Rank again: Rank changes as numbers change. Editors (as evidenced here) rarely edit rank when numbers change, a mess ensues with hardcoded rank. Autosort does away with it. Also, by attaching NO rank, some of the ideological aspects are removed: People can sort their list according to any available criteria
• As for the list not being in order of population: I did not change the order. I took the order as is. Not attaching a rank and allowing to sort makes the order irrelevant. See rank
• Updated: I can live without that, as people don't seem to bother with it anyway. But let me do it, I'll simply reprogram the template

As for the list technology:

• This list uses a template. The main reason was that editors rarely bothered to recalculate the population density, resulting in messy data. This template calculates the density automatically, based on population and area

As for the list itself:

• As mentioned above, while setting up the list, I checked much (not all) of the list against the sources provided and corrected obvious discrepancies between the list and the source. By reverting to the old list, a whole bunch of bad data is reintroduced. The reverts to the old list have a serious impact on the quality of the data and re-introduce data which is in clear conflict with the sources and the definition of the list

As for in general:

• As long as a "consensus" of 2 or even three decides to make up a list that is the exact opposite of what the introduction says, then I will be bold and will bring the list in accordance with its definition. Otherwise, I would condone outright fraud. To avoid China, the city proper of Tokyo is not just the 23 special wards. The number is wrong. The list re-introduces a "statistical area" for Lagos. Wrong. A statistical area is no city proper. Lagos had been rightly removed by Polaron. Same with Santiago which he removed. These mistakes are all being reintroduced.
• Energy is better used to improve the list (which is hard work) than to throw it back in the stone ages (which is easy.) Those who care for a correct list do the drudge work of comparing item for item with the sources, add more up-to-date sources and data as they become available et al.

As it stands, the list is not in accordance with the introduction or the title. If there is consensus to compile a fraudulent list, then I will not be part of that consensus. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"You did not 'just change the references'" -- you misinterpreted me there. I meant that instead of removing references, which you told me not to do, I changed them. Yes, I also did change the list. I'm not denying that.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

At 07:57, on 20 July 2010, Someone the Person wrote: "okay, this time I'll just replace references." Someone the Person did not replace any references. Someone the Person copied the table from an older version and pasted it in. Someone the Person left the intro with the references untouched. Now, Someone the Person says it's a big misinterpretation, and he repeats that he changed the references. Not true, as anyone with eyes and a brain can ascertain. Someone the Person did not "also" change the list. Someone the Person did change only the list. The following statements should be read with the fact in mind that Someone the Person has a blatant disregard for facts. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"The list is not in accordance with the introduction or the title" -- Okay, if it makes you happier the title and intro can be changed.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not about what makes me or anybody else "happier". This is about citing correct and verifiable data. If the intro says "This is a list of green apples" and what follows is a list of red apples, then the article is substantially wrong. If repeated good faith attempts fail due to the intransigence of red apple interest groups, the list can and should be deleted. Someone the Person pasted in a list of which he or she knows that it is not in accordance with the list definition. Someone the Person did not edit the list definition. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"I took the order as is" -- Well, if you do that, then the list will not be in accordance with the title, as you seem to strongly want it to be. Keep in mind that even if the cities are sorted by population, they can still be sorted by any other means you like using autosort.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. The list Someone the Person pasted in has the same order. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"By reverting to the old list, a whole bunch of bad data is reintroduced" -- You're right. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just too lazy to make little individual changes.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is noted that by his or her own admission, Someone the Person is lazy. Someone the Person can't be bothered to make "little individual changes" that would at least bring list entries in accordance with the quoted sources. By copypasting an outdated list, lazy Someone the Person destroyed the improvements by various editors. Also in the course of the self-admitted laziness, Someone the Person left the instructions for the usage of the macro in the text. The macros were removed by Someone the Person, the instructions were not, thereby adding to the general confusion. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"I am not orthodox, but some are" -- Well, we're not. If one of the orthodox people sees this and decides that rank is a bad idea, then that's fine. I don't like you making edits that I don't agree with.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Someone the Person doesn't like edits he or she does not agree with. If Someone the Person does not agree with the edits, Someone the Person reverts them, facts be damned. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so as for Tokyo, the 23 special wards are the parts of Tokyo Metropolis that are not part of any other city, town, or village. That's why I'm defining the 23 special wards as a city proper. As for Lagos and Santiago, I would like to once again cite my Australia example -- it's the same deal here. I'm doing this to avoid distortion. In fact, I should probably add Sydney and Melbourne to the list, while this definition is being used.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So Someone the Person is "defining the 23 special wards as a city proper." Someone the Person is not allowed to define. Someone the Person is required to cite verifiable facts. When an assertion is challenged, the editor has to cite a reliable source, or the entry may be deleted. I am requesting a reliable source that says "the 23 special wards of Tokyo make up the city proper of Tokyo. The rest of Tokyo does not." Consider the assertion as challenged. Someone the Person should feel free to add the population of the city proper of Sidney, Melbourne, or any other city to that list. As for Lagos or Santiago, Someone the Person should cite sources pertaining to Lagos or Santiago. Australia has no bearing on these cities. Someone the Person re-introduced a "statistical area" for Lagos. The introduction and the definition of "city proper" disallows that. A statistical area is no city proper. Lagos had been removed by Polaron. Polaron had also removed Santiago. I admit no knowledge about Santiago, hence, I bow to Polaron's expertise. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"I will be bold" -- You're using WP:BOLD completely out of context here. I looked at the policy and all it says is that people should make improvements to pages they feel should be made. Good job, you followed that policy when you first edited the page. Afterward, however, it's not called being bold anymore, it's called having an edit war. It's better to follow WP:BRD and discuss it on the talk page, as we are doing now.Someone the Person (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is always a joy to note how some people are quick with citing WP policies, and at the same time, they cannot be bothered by the most basic WP rules. I cannot help but noticing that accusations of "edit warring" come from people who roll out the heavy artillery and indiscriminately copypaste with utter disregard of facts, and who roll their heavy tanks over other editors' painstaking work. It is very hard to have a civilized and productive discussion with people who, by their own admission, are liars and lazy. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Partly truth and partly fiction

It could be so simple: Title and intro say this is a list of cities proper by population. “City proper” is properly defined. Should be easy enough: Look up the population of a city (they are usually readily available), reference it, list it, done. With a little love and care, this could be one of the most solid lists on Wikipedia.

Instead, the list has fallen to the wolves of nationalism and blatant racism. The list is, to say it in the words of Kris Kristofferson, partly truth and partly fiction. True counts of city proper stand alongside of inflated statistical areas and deflated core districts with questionable math.

Some cities (Shanghai, Beijing for instance) have references that are bogus. Kinshasa, Tehran, Riyadh, Yangon, Jeddah have their numbers derived from a database of urban agglomerations, a clear violation. There are gross examples of original research and downright fraud.

To make matter worse, attempts to rectify the situation are being booed down by a vociferous posse that is quick with twisting logic, but is extremely dense when it comes to accepting simple arguments and simple math. Edits that try to correct obvious mistakes are wiped out with old, false data. The talk page has turned into an exercise in hair splitting and the lamest arguments I have ever heard. Logic has long exited the room. Editors who cared for the list have turned their backs on the list and left in exasperation. Downright lies are mercilessly reintroduced. Some editors know no shame, admit to outright lies and that they re-defined the city to their liking, the city fathers be damned. When backed into a corner, the standard answer has become “Let’s just change the definition or the title.”

If people develop an inferiority complex because their capital is eclipsed by a third rate town in China nobody ever heard of, then they should stay away from this list.

This list has two choices
1.) Become what it says it is
2.) Become one of the worst lists on Wikipedia -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Message to Polaron

Polaron: You removed my tags in which I questioned the use of the World Urbanization Database for five cities. The reason for this was that in all cases, it was indicated that the "urban agglomeration" was used.

You removed these tags, saying that "The cites to UN WUP are only those whose definition is listed as "city proper" "

This is not the case. In the preface, the WUP says:

"Urban agglomerations and capital cities
The term “urban agglomeration” refers to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory in-habited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries. It usually incorporates the population in a city or town plus that in the suburban areas lying outside of but being adjacent to the city boundaries. Whenever possible, data classified according to the concept of urban agglomeration are used. However, some countries do not produce data according to the concept of urban agglomeration but use instead that of metropolitan area or city proper. If possible, such data are adjusted to conform to the concept urban agglomeration. When sufficient information is not available to permit such an adjustment, data based on the concept of city proper or metropolitan area are used. The sources listed online indicate whether data were adjusted to conform to the urban agglomeration concept or whether a different concept was used." (Emphasis mine.)

The sources listed for the five cities in question are as follows:

Kinshasa: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)

Tehran: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)

Jiddah: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)

Riyadh: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)

Yangon: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)

In all five cases, numbers are used that refer to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory inhabited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries. This is in complete contradiction to the defined purpose of this list.

It is a gross misrepresentation of verifiable facts when you say that "the cites to UN WUP are only those whose definition is listed as "city proper" Quite the opposite appears to be the case. Please refrain from misrepresentations of facts. Your credibility suffers when you do that. Unless better sources for the city proper of these five cities are found, they should be removed. I tried for all five to find better data and failed. I could find an Iranian database that looked promising, but I am lacking Farsi. Because of this, I had to reintroduce tags. As the source has been checked now, I inserted {{dubious}}. It would save both of us a lot of valuable time if I could rely on your edits without in-depth checking. It would also be beneficial to the reader. Thank you for your understanding and co-operation. -- BsBsBs (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

These are the statistical concepts used [3]. (You have to select the country for each city in question using the "Urban agglomerations and capital cities" option). There is text in the WUP report to the effect that while they try to use the urban agglomeration concept, some cities use the city proper and metropolitan area concepts.

Yangon

Sources of data: Estimate for 2007; UN Estimates for 2005 and 2006.

Statistical concept: City proper.

Ar-Riyadh (Riyadh) (capital), Jiddah, Makkah (Mecca)

Sources of data: Censuses of 1962, 1974, 1992 and 2004; Estimate for 1950.

Statistical concept: City proper.

Ahvaz, Esfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah, Mashhad, Qom, Shiraz, Tabriz, Tehran (capital)

Sources of data: Censuses of 1956, 1966, 1976, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2006.

Statistical concept: City proper.

Kinshasa (capital)

Sources of data: Census of 1984; Estimates for 1990, 1998 and 2004; Register of 1950 and 1958; Sample Survey of 1967.

Statistical concept: City proper.

I'm sorry, the reference in the article produces the following (just one cited for brevity)

<a href="index.asp?panel=8">Copyright</a> ©

United Nations, 2010

	Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision, <a href="http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/index.asp">http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/</a>, Wednesday, July 21, 2010; 9:13:28 PM. Iran (Islamic Republic of) <NoBr>Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009 (thousands)</NoBr> 2010 City 2010 Ahvaz 1 060 Esfahan 1 742 Karaj 1 584 Kermanshah 837 Mashhad 2 652 Qom 1 042 Shiraz 1 299 Tabriz 1 483 Tehran 7 241

	<a href="index.asp?panel=1">Panel 1</a> | <a href="index.asp?panel=2">Panel 2</a> | <a href="index.asp?panel=3">Country profile</a> | <a href="index.asp?panel=5">Definition of regions</a> | <a href="../wup/source/country.aspx">Sources</a> | <a href="index.asp?panel=6">Glossary</a>

This is what people see when they click on the reference. They do not see what you just linked to in talk. --BsBsBs (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And IANVS, warning about WP:3RR, and then doing a revert yourself is the epitome of hypocrisy. --BsBsBs (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew you'd had a nice word for me too. --IANVS (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have another one: You are off base. I would leave these things to the grown-ups. If you would look closely, you would notice that at least I am nowhere near WP:3RR. Different edits with different tags. Also, politely asking for discussion and verification of a conflicting source is no edit war. Rudely removing tags without discussion could be interpreted as such. Anyway, Polaron is a big boy. He can take care of himself.--BsBsBs (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference in the article is to for the population figures. --Polaron | Talk 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and the population figures say they are for the agglomeration. That was the point I was trying to make before hypocritical good Samaritans had to intervene to prevent Edit War III. So how do we solve this? The reader gets the impression that the number is for the agglomeration. The reader doesn't have the other reference. If she would, she would be thoroughly confused. Is it "City proper" (according to an UN definition we don't know and that could be different from the one in the article?) Or is it "agglomeration" as the notes next to the numbers say? The intuitive thing would be to take what is next to the number. Or do we have a case of the UN saying one thing and doing the other? Maybe that source is not very reliable.

By the way, I had put in a detailed reasoning on the talk page before adding the tags, and referred to the talk page in the edit note. As the reverting Samaritan rightly points out, the civilized thing to do is to solve these matters in civilized discussion. This is what the tags and the note are for. Tags, especially accompanied by talk notices, are a polite invitation to engage in a discussion. When tags note a conflict between data and source, the tags should not be removed until the matter is resolved. This matter is still unresolved, and the proper thing to do is to tag the data as such. What's more, there is a large number of otherwise tagged and conflicting data in the list, sometimes many months old. This needs to be resolved to keep the list from falling in disrepair. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if this matter is unresolved. There was no further clarification on whether the data presented in these cases are for "City proper" (according to an UN definition we don't know and that may be different from the one in the article) whether the data are for "agglomeration" as the notes next to the numbers says. I better put the {{vague}} tags back in. I hope they aid clarification and do not trigger another edit war over tags. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. The table header you are referring to is a generic one used for *all* the entries as the list is ultimately meant as an urban agglomeration list. The correct statistical concept is as listed in the sources section. Can you find a table header that doesn't say "urban agglomeration"? --Polaron | Talk 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I cannot. We are only allowed to cite what is in the reference. The references given for these cities say "urban agglomeration." We are not allowed to use a term that contradicts the cited reference. Maybe there should be a "Remark" column that notes problems and discrepancies. BsBsBs (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did add a note to that effect but you still reverted. --Polaron | Talk 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please cease misrepresenting facts? I did not "revert." I corrected your misleading note to [http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/index.asp?panel=2 UN world Urbanization Prospects estimate for 2010] '''lists this as the "population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more." However,''' this city is listed as using the "city proper" statistical concept in the [http://esa.un.org/wup2009/wup/source/country.aspx Sources section of the UN report].{{vague}} If this is wrong, please show me where. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I told you it's a generic header and is not related to the statistical concept used. There is no need for the vague tag as there is no discrepancy as I mentioned. --Polaron | Talk 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you "told" me. There is no need for repeating it. It also is senseless. What counts is what is in the source. The quoted source says "urban agglomeration". The data are listed as "city proper". You can say all day long that this is "a generic header and is not related to the statistical concept used." It doesn't change the fact. "Urban agglomeration" != "City proper". Calling this a "discrepancy" and giving it a {{vague}} tag is a very mild and gentle way of bringing this to attention. Another, totally legal, solution would be to simply remove the entries, because no source for "city proper" for these cities could be found. I had mentioned this before. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let’s stop dancing around this story. The cities that use the WUP data are tough cases. Hard to find any decent data on them. Except maybe for Tehran, but we need a Farsi speaker for that. So instead of just dropping them, the WUP data were used. If the WUP database is so reliable, we could use it here and be done with it. We would have 12,385,000 for Beijing instead of 10,123,000 (both baloney), we would have 16,575,000 for Shanghai instead of 13,831,900 (both wrong), and would have 36,669,000 for Tokyo instead of 8,795,000 (both wildly off the mark.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai and Beijing are both listed as "urban agglomeration" meaning the city proper is by definition smaller (an urban agglomeration includes suburbs connected by continuous urbanization). Tokyo is listed as "metropolitan area", which is an even larger concept (urban agglomeration + exurbs). Because the UN was not able to find nationally-defined urban agglomeration data for some cities, the city proper is used instead in its list, which ideally is all urban agglomerations and which is why the table header is "urban agglomerations". Since it is not, they indicate which ones do not use the urban agglomeration concept. Again, there is no discrepancy here. --Polaron | Talk 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets stop taking the reader for a fool. The WUP is a database of agglomerations. Its data have no place in a list of cities proper. Contradiction in terms. There already is a list for that. BsBsBs (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is pointed out that the particular cities listed use the city proper concept and we reference the data source, it is fine to take UN data. --Polaron | Talk 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As repeatedly noted, the source says these cities use the agglomeration concept. I have tried to solve this in a civilized discussion. Please help by finding reliable sources for these cities. I tried and failed, as noted above. You have now, for the third time in a row today, removed tags that ask for clarification. You removed similar tags before. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly says it uses the statistical concept of city proper for these specific cities in what is nominally a list of urban agglomerations. I have edited the note to clarify and linked to the place where one can find the statistical definitions. There is no discrepancy. --Polaron | Talk 06:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I register my objection to numerous revers of simple tags aimed at the improvement of the list. This discussion has proven fruitless. Reverts are going on while the discussion takes place. This is the end of the line for me. -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

Today's featured article is confirmation bias. Required reading for editors of this list. It describes how people favor information that confirms their preconceptions. As a result, people gather new evidence selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. Please note especially the topics biased search for information, biased interpretation, and persistence of discredited beliefs. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest. john k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiedao

The population of Beijing and Shanghai is defined as that of "Core districts + inner suburbs" with a note that says "Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city." A request for a citation for that assertion remained unanswered. The translation of "street committee) for jiedao is wrong. Jiedao simply translates to "street". See dictionary entry for jiedao or dictionary entry for jiedao. Does this mean that "Core districts + inner suburbs" are simply defined as places with streets? -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is incredibly tendentious for a supposed expert on China. Try Subdistrict (China). john k (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

I have put an {{or}} tag next to the population counts for the supposed cities proper of Shanghai, Beijing and Tokyo. Rationale:

• The figures for Shanghai and Beijing are not directly quoted from a source
• The figures for Shanghai and Beijing appear to be calculated by adding up the population of districts which appear to be arbitrarily chosen. There is no source referenced that these districts make up the city proper of Shanghai and Beijing.
• At least for Beijing, the matter was brought up on 17 December 2009 by LunJiang, and was never resolved

I ask that these tags remain until the matter is resolved, ideally with data of which a reliable source says that it pertains to city proper -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo yet again

I’m sorry to be a pest again. The edit of Tokyo by user:Aurichalcum introduced an updated Tokyo Metropolitan Government population estimate for June 2010. Thank you. But it does nothing to resolve the confusion about the Special Wards (Ku) allegedly being the City proper of Tokyo. Reference 19 points to an Excel sheet that lists the total population, and then breaks it down into Ku, Shi, Gun, and Islands. It says nothing even close to “city proper.” The note 20 next to where it claims that the Special Wards make up the City proper says “Corresponds to the former City of Tokyo merged into the Tokyo Metropolis on July 1, 1943. Although there no longer exists an administrative unit to govern only 23 special ward governments, the whole of 23 wards is still sometimes statistically treated as the city proper of Tokyo (e.g. Statistical Bureau of Japan, The United Nations Statistics Division).” There is no reference to back the latter claim, the Statistical Bureau of Japan has no reference, the UN link just goes to a Wiki entry for the UN Statistics Division. We need a reference that says “The City Proper of Tokyo is defined as the Special Wards.” I had to set an {{or}} tag for the time being. According to the source given, the population for the city proper of Tokyo as defined in the intro to this list (area within the administrative boundaries) is 13,058,392. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no official "City Proper of Tokyo" in Japan. However, the United Nations Statistical Yearbooks have long treated the population of 23 wards as that of the City Proper of Tokyo. For example, the reference 33 of the Table 8 of the Demographic Yearbook 2007 below says:

Data for city proper refer to 23 wards (ku) of the old city. The urban agglomeration figures refer to Tokyo-to (Tokyo Prefecture), comprising the 23 wards plus 14 urban counties (shi), 18 towns (machi) and 8 villages (mura). The 'Tokyo Metropolitan Area' comprises the 23 wards of Tokyo-to plus 21 cities, 20 towns and 2 villages. The 'Keihin Metropolitan Area' (Tokyo-Yokohama Metropolitan Area) plus 9 cities (one of which is Yokohama City) and two towns, with a total population of 20 485 542 on 1 October 1965.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2007/Table08.pdf

On the other hand, the de jure populations of all the prefectures (to, dō, fu, ken), subprefectures (shichō), districts (gun), municipalities (cities: shi, towns: chō or machi, villages: son or mura, wards: ku) in Japan as of Oct 1, 2005 (latest census) are summarized below.

http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000001082772

In case of Tokyo, there is an additional entry of "Tokubetsu Kubu" (lit. special ward area) with an populatino of 8,489,653. Although the political status of a ward in Tokyo equals nearly to that of a city (desiginated cities of Sapporo, Sendai, Saitama, Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Sagamihara, Niigata, Shizuoka, Hamamatsu, Nagoya, Kyoto, Osaka, Sakai, Kobe, Okayama, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, and Kitakyushu have their own wards, but these wards have no mayors and elected representatives), the Statistical Bureau of Japan have long treated "tokubetsu kubu" as an independent entry nearly equals to a city. For example in "2-8 Population, Daytime Population and Ratio of Daytime Population to Nighttime Population of Major Cities (1965--2000)" below, Tokyo (ku-area) has an independent entry as if it is one of the major cities.

http://www.stat.go.jp/data/chouki/zuhyou/02-08.xls

Anyway, probably there is no clear definition of a city proper that can be applicable to all the municipalities in the world. I think following the definitions by the UN Stastical Yearbooks may satisfy loose consensus for cities proper.Aurichalcum (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. As for a clear definition, there is, and there isn't. The intro to this list clearly defines city proper as administrative area. Nevertheless, there are many entries in the list that do not follow that definition. Worldwide, the same definition usually applies. The administrators of an administrative area usually know or want to know how many people are in their area. (Sometimes, they get overwhelmed and give up.) The trouble starts when the UN asks for a population of "city proper" and asks at the same time for a country-specific definition of "city proper". Now you are bound to get many answers. Correspondents sometimes get the impression that city proper must be different than administrative area, and they make up a definition. The statistical yearbook then reflects the count for whatever each country thinks is right for "city proper". However, these definitions are not always the definition used in the context of this list and article, a subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on editors.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2007/Table08.pdf can be enlightening. It asks for City Proper and Agglomeration. The US correspondents answer the "City proper" question only and stick to the city limits. Canada does the opposite, answers "agglomeration" only and delivers no definition, except for Ottawa. It would be faulty to deduce (not that anybody would, but you never know) that the U.S.A. has no agglomerations, and that Canada has no cities proper. They simply reported the data as such, for the purpose of that certain tabulation. The answers and definitions can be different in the context of another questionnaire.

This list has two choices:

• It can leave the intro as is. Then it must adhere to that definition in every entry, i.e. list the population of the administrative area. This appears to be the current intent, but not the current result.
• It can say "for the purpose of this list, "city proper" follows the definitions submitted by each country to the United Nations." Then this list must simply reflect the "City proper" entry of the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants." There already is a List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Confusingly, its entries point to Wikipedia articles, which more often than not do reflect a different population count than in the the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants."

Both solutions are rather simple to implement, the second (correctly using entries in the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants") would be the most expedient and most verifiable solution. But we can't just mix it around and make it up as we go. -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Special Wards" of Tokyo as a whole is an administrative unit without an administrator.

I prefer loose entries by the UN Statistical Yearbook, because the Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture includes three towns and villages of mountainous Nishitama-gun and subprefectures of Ōshima, Miyake, Hachijō and Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands.

Anyway, the Special Wards (Tokubetsu-kubu) of Tokyo can be considered as an admistrative unit without a specific administrator. Yes, the "Special Wards" does not have a unique govenor to administrate 23 wards. But the "Special Wards" as a whole is one of the special local public entities (Tokubetsu Chihō Kōkyō Dantai) constituted by the Local Autonomy Law of Japan (Articles 281 to 284).

For example, Clean Association of Tokyo 23 (see below) is an office for waste management that covers 23 wards. The head of this office is one of the 23 ward mayors to be exchanged every year.

http://www.union.tokyo23-seisou.lg.jp/

Other administrative service run by the Special Wards Unit includes employment and adnimistration of officials and government of horse racing.

Districts (gun) which consist of towns and villages are also considered to be administrative units without administrators in Japan, but they are not special local public entities constituted by the Local Autonomhy Law of Japan. At least, the "23 Special Wards" of Tokyo as a total is more administrative than gun districts.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All true and correct. I have a second home in Otaku. No argument there. We have to decide what this list is supposed to be.

• Option 1: City proper according to one definition (administrative boundary). Or ...
• Option 2: City proper according to UN Yearbook definition. Keeping in mind that these definitions will be different from country to country. Also, many cities would be missing from the list, because their countries only report agglomerations to the Yearbook: UK, Thailand, Qatar, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Suriname, Colombia, Nicaragua, Canada.

We cannot have it both ways. We can't do Option 1 and at the same time use definitions and data from Option 2, when it comes to pass, or "feels right." -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So I deleted "not an administrative unit" in the reference. By the way, the head of the clean association of Tokyo 23 (now Mr. Masami Tada, the ward mayor of Edogawa-ku) may be considered as an administrator of the special wards.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a bit of a stretch to elevate a garbage disposal co-op to an "administrative unit", but even if we would, no harm done. Administrative unit or not has no bearing on the discussion. Many cities have administrative subunits, often with elected officials. The question remains: ASre the 23 Kun equal to City proper of Tokyo? Answer: Option 1: No. Option 2: Yes. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Guiding principles for List of cities proper by population

As we all know, many entries of this list do not follow the definition in the intro. They do that for various reasons. We need to decide what the List of cities proper by population shall be. Currently, there seem to be two favored options. We need a consensus on one:

• Option 1: City proper according to the current definition (administrative boundary) - then we need to adhere to this

• For:

• Against:

• Option 2: City proper according to UN Yearbook definition - then we can simply take the UN Yearbook entries

• For:

-- BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (it will never end otherwise...)

Denzera (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (consistent with WP's City proper page - we can have a separate list with a more conventional definition, if we can agree on one)

• Against:

• Option 3: Strike the list, as this is not a topic that can be encyclopedically compiled, due to differences in the way cities are defined from country to country.

• For:

Powers^T 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against:

Someone the Person (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Denzera (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (this is a useful concept for a list, with both a research and a business purpose - we just gotta iron out the details)

Submitted by: BsBsBs (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps we should just decide that this is not a topic that can be encyclopedically compiled, due to differences in the way cities are defined from country to country. Powers ^T 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the current rule? 112.118.170.146 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a lot easier for sensible people to come up with some way of working this out if BsBsBs weren't spamming the talk page with massive walls of text every six hours or so. john k (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the intro of the article also is known to help. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro you wrote? Someone the Person (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if we're going to be missing countries because we use the UN Yearbook definition, then I am against using only that definition. This list must include the entire world. Someone the Person (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is already pretty much following the UN definition. For the following cities, there is no city proper figure and the urban agglomeration figure is used mainly because the municipality of each of these cities as a whole is classified as an urban agglomeration: Bogota, Istanbul, Bangkok, Dhaka. For London, there is no city proper figure listed and the urban agglomeration figure corresponds to the London urban area. However, there is an obvious adminstrative area to use for London. Sydney is the only one that's missing. The UN lists the statistical division as a city proper although the urban centre concept (no rural territory) is probably more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

UK, Thailand, Qatar, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Suriname, Colombia, Nicaragua, Canada do not report "City proper" data to the UN. Australia plays it fast and loose and says: "For all regions it is not possible to distinguish between 'city proper' and 'urban agglomeration' areas, therefore data has been included under 'city proper'." -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (and no one ever does :) ), using urban agglomeration figures where no "City proper" figures exist is perfectly reasonable if footnoted. To take Bs's example of London, Londoners will never be happy with the listing of London within "City Proper" because the only reasonable definition is that of the City_of_London, which has a nighttime population of about 8,000. This is why a separate table by urban agglomeration is both necessary and desirable. But the purpose of this page definitely should stick to City Proper under the UN definition, as Polaron notes. It certainly will be far from the most useless list on Wikipedia. -- Denzera (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you stick with the definition given in this list, the city proper of London is that of Greater London - if only for the purpose of this list. No agglomeration necessary. According to the definition given here, "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." Greater London has all that. Those who doubt it should ask Boris Johnson-- BsBsBs (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Greater London? Alternately, Inner London. john k (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong

The territory covers not only the city proper, but also about a dozens of new towns or satellite cities that are not geographically contiguous to the city proper, and remote rural townships, villages and island settlements. 112.118.170.146 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

IP vandals

This page appears to be under vandalism attacks by IPs. Looks like yesterday someone from Turkey didn't like the article, today, it's someone from Rapid City, SD. Maybe, the article should be blocked for anonymous edits. -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Misusing policy

I just removed a bunch of "original research", "citation needed", and "dubious" templates that were irrelevant. These templates are for when something is not referenced. The information in the article is taken from the sources, so it is not original research. I would advise User:BsBsBs to not say, "This is original research" when what he actually means is, "I really don't like this content the way it is right now." Someone the Person (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion over the meanings of "citation needed", "original research", and "dubious". There are sections on WP that explain that in great detail, so here just the salient points:

• "Citation needed" means "Please give me a reference for that claim"
• "Original research:" WP:OR says "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." (Emphasis mine)
• For "dubious" see WP:DUBIOUS, especially where it says "If you come across a statement with an accuracy warning, please do the following: Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to verify it properly. Visit the talk page to see what the issues are. Correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to verify it properly. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources."

The intro of this list claims that "this is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of City proper. City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." As long as this definition is used for the list, the entries of that list have to follow that definition.

There have been various attempts to bring the list in accordance with that definition. The last big effort to do so was wiped out on July 20, 2010 by an editor named Someone the Person. When told that "by reverting to the old list, a whole bunch of bad data is reintroduced," the editor answered: "You're right. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just too lazy to make little individual changes." In order to avert an edit war, the bad data was tagged and left alone. I have tried to improve the quality of the list. Maintaining a proper list by definition amounts to many little individual changes. People who are too lazy for the drudgework of many little individual changes should find another topic or hobby. If the good faith attempts by more dedicated editors are being destroyed, one cannot expect that editors will spend much time improving the list, and the list will become an irrelevant embarrassment.

Not that I am required to, but here again are the reasons for the tags:

• When the population of Shanghai proper as defined for this list is not cited from the source, but is derived from adding up the population of the districts of Pudong New Area, Huangpu, Luwan, Xuhui, Changning, Jing'an, Putuo, Zhabei, Hongkou, Yangpu, Baoshan, Minhang, and Jiading, then this is an analysis or synthesis of published material, and thereby WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. (If somebody wants to know where the mistake is in adding up these districts, then I can explain it. It is a bit complicated and will put some to sleep. In the meantime, suffice it to say that this is a perfect example for why OR is not allowed here. Whoever came up with this number made a whole series of mistakes and dangerous assumptions on several levels.)
• When a reference is made up (without citing sources) that says "Core districts + inner suburbs - Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city", then a "citation needed" is in order. Where does it say that? See also discussion about jiedao above.
• When the population of Beijing proper as defined for this list is derived from adding up the population "of the two functional areas of 1) Core Districts of Capital Function and 2) Urban Function Extended Districts, including eight fully urban districts," and if it's done wrong (see discussion above), then this is an analysis or synthesis of published material, and thereby WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry.
• When the population of Tokyo proper as defined for this list is derived from just counting the special wards, while the actual population of Tokyo proper is some 4 million higher, then this is WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry.
• When the number for a statistical area is used, such as for Lagos, then it is in clear contradiction to the definition of this list. "Dubious" is putting it mildly. Lagos should most likely not be on this list. It has been broken up. There is no Lagos proper as defined for this list.
• When the population of Chongqing proper as defined for this list is derived from a statistical area that is different than what is defined for this list, then this should be tagged. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. Asking for a citation and calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the population of Tianjin proper as defined for this list is derived from adding up the population of "Heping, Hedong, Hexi, Nankai, Hebei, Hongqiao, Dongli, Xiqing, Jinnan, and Beichen," excluding "the separate urban area of Binhai" then this should be tagged as WP:OR. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Asking for a citation and calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the number for a province is used, such as for Santiago de Chile, then it is in clear contradiction to the definition of this list. "Dubious" is putting it extremely mildly. There is no Santiago proper as defined for this list.
• When the population of Guangzhou proper as defined for this list is derived from taking the sum of the population of the districts of Yuexiu, Liwan, Haizhu, and Tianhe, then this should be tagged as WP:OR. Using "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the population of Shenyang proper as defined for this list is derived from a Finnish database, and when (supposedly) "Core districts" (unreferenced) are counted, then this is dubious at the very, very least. It also contradicts the definition of this list.
• When the population of Wuhan proper as defined for this list is derived from taking the sum of the population of the districts of Jiang'an, Jianghan, Qiaokou, Hanyang, Wuchang, and Qingshan, then this should be tagged as WP:OR. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• "Dynamic list" has nothing to do with a 3,000,000 limit that has never been set, but that seems to be nonetheless observed by mutual agreement. Dynamic list means that this list can be changed, entries can be added and removed. For instance, this list misses many cities above 3 million, and some should be removed.

I have taken the time and care to explain why these tags are here. Not that I have to, these matters had been referred to in previous discussions and have been left unsolved. These tags had been here unchallenged for quite some while. The tags must be removed when the matters they refer to are resolved. As long as nobody spends the energy to resolve these issues, the tags must stay to notify the reader that certain items should not be taken at face value. Demography is an inexact science at best. We shouldn’t make it more inexact than it already is.

The conclusion that these tags were put in because "I really don't like this content the way it is right now" lacks proof and is an uncivil insinuation. Tags are there to help improve the data and to foster discussion. Wholesale removal of tags is uncivil, rude, against policy, and squelches discussion. Some could view it as vandalism. Instead of just removing tags, editors are asked to help improve the content, or at least join the discussion. All tags were removed without a single attempt to improve the data. The problems remain. As there were no meaningful edits thereafter, the list was rolled back to the last version by L Kensington. The rationale has been exhaustively documented. Be advised that the removal of the tags is seen as a revert. WP:REVERT says: "A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert." The rollback was performed to reinstate the status quo. Further reverting would be edit warring. Furthermore, the items had been tagged for quite some time. If the issues are left unaddressed, then the only solution is to remove the disputed list items. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with new article, "World's largest municipalities by population"

It appears that user BsBsBs has gone and made his own page in parallel to this one, entitled World's largest municipalities by population. In it, he is using the definition of City proper. He has also added some discussions of the terms Municipality and City, which illustrate some of the points which have been debated here. Overall, I find the effort quite helpful, since he's putting his money where his mouth is and contributing in a positive manner. I'm also very sympathetic to his views expressed on this page, since if we use an inconsistent (read: non-UN Yearbook) definition of City proper, we end up with the 6-year history of edits that this page shows now.

That said, it's very unclear in what ways that page deviates from the intent of this page. The proper solution, in my view, is to give BsBsBs license to rewrite this page largely in the format of that page, and then we can all take up individual disputes over particular cities-proper and figures thereof. In my opinion, these two articles are redundant, and between the two, I'm inclined to preserve the one with the 6-year history of edits and discussion, rather than the one-week-old article which exposes BsBsBs, well-intentioned though he may be, to accusations of petulance and undermining. I don't believe that's the case, but we should probably merge these two if we're going to work towards achieving consensus.

-- Denzera (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the other article seems like a fork, but seriously, the proper solution is to let BsBsBS do what he likes here? I guess I'm going to have to once again express my intense disagreement with the idea that a municipality the size of South Carolina can in any sense be described as a "city proper". I'm not completely sure what the best solution to this is, but I'm absolutely convinced that BsBsBs's solution is wrong. The fact that he constantly fills this talk page with screen after screen of rambling doesn't help much either - it's virtually impossible to carry on a reasonable discussion because of the absurd quantity of posting he engages in. john k (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Denzera,thank you for your thoughtful words. I don't think there will be accusations of petulance or undermining in regards to World's largest municipalities by population . Actually, this separate list had been suggested repeatedly by other editors, and I followed their advice. The preceding comment illustrates the problem of this list here. There are various editors who are guided by strong feelings and beliefs, which overpower verifiable facts. They don't have a better solution, but strong convictions. If you state your case, they don't have an answer, but instead complain about ramblings. The key to a successful list is a proper definition of inclusion criteria and scope. Once this is done, it must be followed to the letter. As the meager results of the RFC show, there seems to be little interest in coming to any solution. As it stands, we have a proper definition of inclusion criteria and scope, but this is not being followed. The definition is accepted, the results aren't. There is a word for this: chaos. Sometimes one has to step away from chaos and rebuild elsewhere. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about strong feelings and beliefs. It's about the fact that a city is defined in the English language as a "center of population". Defining "city proper" in a way to include vast rural areas is unacceptable. So, no, I don't accept your definition. Your definition is unacceptably rigid and has results that are absurd. A "city proper" is, pretty much by definition, smaller than an urban agglomeration. The idea that a "city proper" might be larger than the urban agglomeration is nonsensical. That means the definition here is flawed; it is based upon countries like the United States, where the municipality is usually smaller than the urban agglomeration. The UN definition explicitly admits this; its definition of "urban agglomeration" specifically states that an urban agglomeration has to be larger than a city proper - the city proper plus "the suburban fringe or densely settled territory lying outside of, but adjacent to, the city boundaries." It then goes on to talk about your favorite case of the municipality which includes rural territory, but doesn't have a very good sense of what to do with that. Maybe for some countries, the whole exercise is too difficult to really deal with. But in many countries there is a concept of "city proper" which is distinct from that of "municipality." When this is the case, we should take advantage of that. I'll note the examples of Italy, where the communes are explicitly divided into a capoluogo and frazioni with distinct identities and the United Kingdom, where boroughs and districts are normally divided into civil parishes and unparished areas that more closely correspond to what we think of as a "city proper". In cases where the country doesn't do anything so convenient, like China, we should use common sense. When the urban agglomeration is larger than the municipality, the municipality is the city proper. When the municipality is larger than the agglomeration, then the agglomeration is the "city proper." Administrative divisions of China specifically says that prefecture-level cities are not cities, and county-level city says the same thing about its subject, noting that "urban areas" are more closely equivalent to "cities". Obviously it's a complicated situation, but going country-by-country and trying to figure out what statistical designation in that country most closely approximates the commonly understood (not-UN) definition of "city proper" seems like the best way to go about it. john k (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The bulk of the contention appears to be in how to define Chinese cities. As mentioned somewhere above, there is a perfectly reasonable definition being used for Chinese cities based on the National Bureau of Statistics definition of urban, which is the set of districts whose population density is greater than 1500 per sq km. (which is what is currently being used). Many of the research articles about Chinese cities cited in the forked city list article all conclude that the administrative population is too large and all suggest using the population in urban areas only. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that BsBsBs seems to actually have no idea what he's talking about with regard to Chinese administrative divisions. He not only doesn't know what a jiedao is (which is obviously forgiveable; I didn't know what it was until earlier today when reading through old comments here and then looking it up), but he can't be bothered to even look at the wikipedia article linked, which clearly explains the concept, and instead asks whether "'Core districts + inner suburbs' are simply defined as places with streets?" This article has been held hostage by BsBsBs's ignorant verbal diarrhea for way too long. Beyond the obvious content fork he's now in the process of creating, we ought to take a look at city proper, which he has created and filled with confirmation of his POV. john k (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)