The list is not about million plus cities, as the name is. This is about million plus urban agglomerations, in which adjoining towns and villages will be considered. So, I suggest to change the name of the article appropriately. Moreover, the list should be sorted so that it will be more reader friendly.
Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This link on UA population from Census data 2001 gives a different picture: 2001 Census data on Urban Agglomerations in India. For example, population on Allahabad is: 990,298 as per 2001 census data. And that is for UA, population of actual city cannot be more than that of UA. So, how is the article showing Allahabad as a million-plus city(UA)? Can somebody mention the exact link from which present data of this article is gathered? I have prepared the correct table from the census data in the above link. But, I don't want to edit the article without raising this issue and getting others views, as it is part of India wiki project. GDibyendu ( talk) 06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As the link is available as reference now, I accessed the census data online and corrected this list/data. As this list is based on census data 2001, no data should be changed and no cities should be added to this list till 2011 data are available. Isn't it? Thanks. GDibyendu ( talk) 08:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually updating the list when your edit resulted in an edit conflict with mine. Thanks, again! aJCfreak yAk 09:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. It looks clean now. Thanks. GDibyendu ( talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this article is misleading- the title is list of million plus cities in India, and then there is a caveat, the data relates to 2001 census and there is a proposal mentioned here that the list not be changed till 2011, and the data is also of 2001.

In today's world it is misleading to have 7 year old data and use it to freeze an online article that people are going to use for referncin in an encyclopedia, if it has to be frozen the article title should be changed to " List of million plus cities in India in 2001". Haphar ( talk) 09:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate list for current data on MAs, taken from World Gazetteer website: List of most populous metropolitan areas in India This is listed in the 'see also' section. GDibyendu ( talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is titled "list of million plus cities in India but it is not the "current" million plus list of Indian cities, Is there a challenge in accepting current figures based on World Gazetteer ? if it is acceptable on another article as a source, it should be acceptable here too, we should give the current list of million plus cities in this article , or look to appropriately change the title.

Haphar ( talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now WG site is down. Once it comes up, we can discuss on this. But, basically, there is a difference between the two lists: the domain of definition for many UAs are not same. For example, Mumbai UA and Bangalore UA area are bigger than they were in 2001. Delhi UA also got bigger. So, 2001 figures from census data and 2008 data from WG are not exactly comparable. So, it won't make sense to keep data from both sites in the same table. We could have kept two sections in same table. But, I am not sure whether people will agree with that (particularly, because some UA which are now listed in WG, were not having great ranks in census data). Do WG data include area info also (sq. km.)? GDibyendu ( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

==PROPOSAL for MERGER (The Proposal) THERE should really be the population of urban agglomeration and not cities.kolkata has an city pop. of 45 lakh but UA is 1.5 cr approx. we know and identify cities by urban agg. pop. and not city pop. big cities are always divided into smaller sections for proper administration.it does not mean that u would pluck individual parts through it. Hence kindly change this merge this to template of UA in due course ,the name would also be changed from UA to something better.

IT IS CREATING WRONG INFO ABOUT WHICH CITY IS BIGGER AND WHICH IS SMALLER. MANY ER TIMES SMALLER CITIES DON'T GET INTO THE LIST BECAUSE OF LARGER CITIES BEING BIFURCATED INTO A NUMBER OF SMALLER PARTS.

THE UA LIST WOULD BE ENHANCED FOR THIS PURPOSE.-- devx101 [TALK] 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2011 data is out. Will update soon unless someone does it. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Elockid (Alternate) ^{( Talk)} 13:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The official data is out. See this link. The page needs to be updated. -- Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some data seems to be missing. Only the municipal corporation data is present for some cities or are there no urban agglomerations for those cities. Anyways, working on it User:Elockid/List of million-plus agglomerations in India. Any help is welcomed. Elockid (Alternate) ^{( Talk)} 15:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished it on my page. Is there anybody opposed to adding it? Elockid (Alternate) ^{( Talk)} 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job Elockid. Some cities like Hubli don't have UAs. -- Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the page with a few changes. Cities like Faridabad and Hubli don't have specific UA added to them. -- Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now there are 29 states in India rather than 28. Please take note and do necessary changes. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-cabinet-approves-creation-of-telangana-as-29th-state-hyderabad-to-be-common-capital-for-10-years-1897855 Sudhanshu Nimbalkar ( talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Telangana is still under process of creation & we need to wait another 4-6 months to exhibit it as a state. Even, I am eager to update the same in all Indian state related articles. - Ninney ( talk) 14:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The cities which are listed in bold are the capital of the respective state / union territory.

I have updated correctly the statistics according to census of India and reorganised ranks based no population. Ref link used: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/india2/Million_Plus_UAs_Cities_2011.pdf Vin09 ( talk) 08:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people. India consists of twenty-eight states and seven union territories.[1] It is a home t

India has twenty-nine states now after the formation of the state of Telengana on June 2nd, 2014. Gdas24 ( talk) 18:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please add Aligarh in this list as Aligarh now population of 1009000 Devubhai ( talk) 09:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to support your claim. Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle 09:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please find & hyperlink the word mumbai where its mentioned alongwith delhi, kolkata and chennai. Mannubhai11 ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

106.51.88.128 ( talk) 19:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Mods, Guntur is not a million plus agglomeration city .The data is being manipulated by a poster and a recent addition. The real agglomeration population of guntur as per ur links and census bureau is 673952. You can see in the page that kota (Rajasthan) with a UA population of 1001365 is ahead of the so called guntur fake population of 1051382.

I hope MODS take action against the poster and correct the misinformation of the said figure

 Not done Please cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay ( talk) 19:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Guntur's Urban agglomeration population is 673,952 and not a million-plus urban agglomeration "Guntur population". "Guntur UA population". Rajacoolant ( talk) 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Both Raipur and Guntur were false entries and have been removed.
As the article states at the top, "There are 53 urban agglomerations in India with a population of 1 million or more as of 2011" - Arjayay ( talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

please change it as new capital name of andhra pradesh is amaravathi and not Vijayawada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.95.79 ( talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thrivanthupuram wrongly put its only 5 populated city in kerala.

Rank UA Population (2011) Population (2001) District 1 Kochi 2,117,990 1,355,972 Ernakulam 2 Kozhikode 2,030,519 1,015,681 Kozhikode 3 Thrissur 1,854,783 330,122 Thrissur 4 Malappuram 1,698,645 170,409 Malappuram 5 Thiruvananthapuram 1,687,406 1,055,024 Thiruvananthapuram 6 Kannur 1,642,892 498,207 Kannur 7 Kollam 1,110,005 380,091 Kollam 8 Cherthala 455,408 141,558 Alappuzha 9 Kayamkulam 427,091 68,585 Alappuzha 10 Kottayam 357,533 172,878 Kottayam 11 Palakkad 293,566 197,369 Palakkad 12 Alappuzha 241,072 282,675 Alappuzha 13 Ottappalam 238,238 49,242 Palakkad 14 Kanhangad 229,706 129,367 Kasaragod 15 Kasaragod 192,761 75,968 Kasaragod 16 Changanassery 127,971 51,967 Kottayam 17 Chalakkudy 114,901 48,380 Thrissur 18 Kothamangalam 114,574 37,173 Ernakulam[2] 19 Nileshwar 110,573 58,787 Kasaragod 20 payyanur 105,643 57,890 Kannur 21 Thaliparamba 104,564 56,984 Kannur 115.114.5.66 ( talk) 05:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/default.aspx

Update the Population and rank of Indore City

Here is the source : http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/default.aspx Total Population - 3276697 and not 2,170,295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitv ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

54 ALIGARH 10,0789 869000 60.254.70.186 ( talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Mularam2014 has just added a second gallery, featuring a large number of photos, I'd like to discuss whether these galleries are a useful addition to the article. Two sections in the Manual of Style might be relevant here:

• WP:IG, which discusses the appropriateness of gallery sections, and
• WP:PERTINENCE, which discusses the 'pertinence and encyclopedic nature' of the chosen images.

To me they seem rather irrelevant, and add needlessly to the 'page weight' of the article. Who likes them, who doesn't? Batternut ( talk) 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

and a needless expansion of cite-checking and updating work. See Talk:List of most populous cities in India#Requested move 16 August 2015 and kindly comment on why this shouldn't just be merged with the base page on Indian cities. —  LlywelynII 02:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vensatry ( talk) ,

regarding the changes reverted by you and reason comment you provided : 'UA is not metroplitan area' please elaborate on this definition as per 'India'. 

Below is my detailed analysis:

The table depicts UA (Urban Agglomeration) . But in the cited reference file, if you filter by visakhapatnam , you will find 'City' quoted very clearly. Hence they hadn't included UA population in the list for vizag. Even if you consider city population , Post expansion of city limits as per government of andhrapradesh release ; it is 2,035,922 . pfb the reference link https://web.archive.org/web/20160128175528/http://dtcp.ap.gov.in:9090/webdtcp/Municipalities%20List-110.pdf

As per census of india official definition , An urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns. According to you , if metropolitan area is bigger than urban agglomeration then as per normal understanding, for sure UA population will be more than city population. Correct me if i go wrong :) You have easily reverted the changes without discussing and put vizag at 24th position but the fact in your cited reference is : the population quoted was clearly indicating only for 'Vizag City' I will loop senior editor here Vin09  (talk) to provide his inputs and i will abide by it . LovSLif ( talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As clearly stated at the top of the column all the 2011 figures are from this source which gives the figures stated in this article on 19 December 2015. For comparison purposes, all figures must come from one source, to prevent differences in measuring criteria, and be taken at the same time, or they are not compatible. On this, and other population articles, we often have editors hunting around to find some obscure, or much later, survey in order to promote "their" city up the list. Without compatibility, the list is meaningless - we need to wait for the 2021 census results to be published, before updating the list - Arjayay ( talk) 10:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@ LovSLif and Arjayay: See, even in provisional population also, GVMC (Vizag), Tenali, Nizamabad etc were considered cities and they are not UA's then. Ref. So, Vizag population is 20lakhs and it is city. The Metro region population is 53.40 which can be added at List of metropolitan areas in India and not here, because UA is a subset of Metropolitan region.-- Vin09  (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vin09 Thanks for the information. i feel this article doesn't make any sense bcz it indicates the list of 'million plus urban agglomerations' whereas the cited list has both cities and UAs : LovSLif ( talk) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The citation which I provided was provisional and not final. If you need any request, you can start a discussion in new section.-- Vin09  (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Vin09  (talk) No problem. At least i believe can update the city population figure post expansion i.e; 2,035,922 as per https://web.archive.org/web/20160128175528/http://dtcp.ap.gov.in:9090/webdtcp/Municipalities%20List-110.pdf in place of old city population figure LovSLif ( talk) 02:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not here you can't - as explained above "For comparison purposes, all figures must come from one source," - Arjayay ( talk) 08:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@ LovSLif: That is not a UA population, but city population. There's no outgrowths or census towns under UA at present. You can add that in cities in India population page, because it is 2011 census only formed by merger of Anakapalle and Bheemli.-- Vin09  (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Had set map size at 740. Has been reduced to 400 by user:Vin09. size of 400 is too small to view. Should it not be bigger ?

Rhariram ( talk) 14:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is more important, the maps and images were taking too much space. You can make it upto 500 if you want.-- Vin09  (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Its more a list. Not an article. Since this is a list of places, the map is as important as the list. -- Rhariram ( talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to remember people will be seeing this on mobile phones, tablets, PCs and huge LCD displays. We don't want it too big for people with smaller screens.
As WP:IMAGESIZE states "Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays" so 400 wide is fine, and there is no distinction between articles and lists - Arjayay ( talk) 14:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Will leave it at 400. - Rhariram ( talk) 15:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

49.207.185.203 ( talk) 13:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Population of Madurai is 1,561,129

http://www.smartcitieschallenge.in/city/madurai

URBAN MINISTRY WEBSITE

Not done: No consensus yet for a 2016 population column. -- MorbidEntree - _{( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201091131/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/aboutus/Census_Organisation/about.html to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/aboutus/Census_Organisation/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514045222/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/ to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)