User talk:Pjred

Cape Town

Hi, Pjred. Thanks for correcting me about Cape Town. Do you have a reference? Axl (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The reference is the results from the 2007 Community Survey (pdf-file from Statistics South Africa). However, it can be discussed if the municipalities are equivalent of cities in South Africa. But, South Africa is currently lacking a better definition of urban places (I still haven't seen any definitions or results from the 2001 census) so I guess that's what to work with :-/. --Pjred (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Copenhagen

Hello and thank you for your facts and comments about Copenhagen. You wrote that the area of Hovedstadsområdet is unknown. The article [1] says that the area of Hovedstadsområdet area is 455,61 km2. This figure appears here and there and it makes me a bit confused. For instance: Let's make a comperison between the urban areas (tätort/byområde) of Stockholm and Copenhagen:

Stockholm: [2] Population: 1.250.020 Area: 377,3 km² Density: 3318 pr. km²

Copenhagen: [3] Population: 1.153.615 Area: 455,61 km² Density: 2514 pr. km²

Considering Copenhagen as the most densely populated urban area of Scandinavia, it is striking to see that Stockholm urban area would be more densely populated than Copenhagen according to this comparison. I do however suspect that this is not the whole truth. According to [4] and [5] the Hovedstadsområdet formerly included every municipality where at least one part was included in the continously built up area. I think that the figure 455,61 km² corresponds to this area. Could it be so do you think/know? --Nirro (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nirro. I looked at the area figures for municipalities that's listed in Statistics Denmark's database, and from what I can see, the 455.61 sq.km might actually be correct. The 13 completely urban municipalities within Hovedstadsområdet have 363.61 sq.km in total. That would leave approx. 92 sq.km in the 5 municipalities that's having only parts of the Hovedstadområdet within their boundaries, and this don't seem unlikely at all. I have seen it mentioned that Copenhagen is the most densely populated urban area in Scandinavia. However, the statistics says that this not the case, and I can't come to any other conclusion than the urban area of Stockholm actually is more densely populated than Copenhagen, at least when it comes to current, official definitions.

There is the possibility that if Statistics Denmark should work out a more exact definition of the urban area of Copenhagen, using the 200-metres-between-houses-rule in a strict manner - as I don't think they have done in this case - the area might in reality have at least the same density as the Stockholm area.

By the way, the most densely populated urban area in Scandinavia is probably Malmö, having a population density of 3,595.60 inh./sq.km in 2005 within the defined urban area (tätort). --Pjred (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On Mashhad and Dizbād

Dear Pjred, I have never disputed your statements! What I wrote was that Dizbad had no Wikipedia entry of its own. On this you responded by suggesting that I should be writing an entry on the place. That would indeed be a very appropriate thing to do were it not that at present I do not have any time for this undertaking (without that I have already my hands full). I have included those external links concerning Dizbad in the entry concerning Mashhad for two main reasons: firstly, that entry is likely to draw the attention of those who know most about Dizbad and can possibly write about it (I imagine that those who ever have edited the entry on Mashhad, have placed it on their watch list - one reason why you noticed my yesterday's edit); secondly, having the links there will make me to write, at some later point in time, an entry for Dizbad; without saving those references in the entry on Mashhad, I would most likely forget about the links and all the related issues. As it stands, the most prominent location to which Dizbad is closest is Mashhad (also Neyshabur, to whose Wikipedia entry I have also added the same external links). Your suggestion to put the links elsewhere, makes little practical sense, because entries concerning minor places are not visited as frequently as those of major places, such as Mashhad (in this way, no one capable of writing about Dizbad is very likely to see the external links concerning Dizbad and thus be encouraged to write about it).
I trust that you will accept the above reasons and will not create a needless conflict between us for a very minor issue. With kind regards, --BF 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

Your intentions are perhaps worthy, but still, your arguments are very poor. I would strongly recommend that you instead concentrate on writing a separate article about Dizbad, if you now think this place is worth mentioning. I could probably have done it myself, but I don't know the place and the links you provided are only in persian (perhaps the biggest mistake of them all, this is enwp for english language users!). However, I will not argue this anymore, as you said, it's only a minor matter. And, I suspect that your links will be erased or adjusted by other users in the future.--Pjred (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Source for population data

Since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this sort of thing, I wonder if you could help me with something. I'm trying to get relatively good population data for basically the top 1000 cities in the world. (Doesn't need to be perfect, just, you know, plausible.) I was using World Gazetteer as a source, mainly because it's the only one I've seen with a list that comes anywhere close to the number of entries I need. (Only 850-odd, but that's over twice what anybody else has.) It has its flaws of course, some of which you noted, along with others such as duplicate entries (Nigeria in particular seems to have almost every major city listed twice for some reason), and I'm also not crazy about the way they've lumped together nearby cities, especially when they cross international lines. (Detroit/Windsor, Kinshasa/Brazzaville, etc.) Do you know of any consolidated source for this sort of data? I tried all the ones you listed on your sources pages. I like citypopulation.de, but their list is less than half of what I need. Others seem to have the data, but I'd have to go through city by city one page at a time to get it all, which would take forever. Just wondering if you've got any recommendations. Lurlock (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lurlock. I would really like to help you, but to be honest, there is probably not one single source that's good enough. And, what is a 'city'? It's a simple question, and you would think it would be easy to answer - but it's definitly not. However, Demographica has made an effort to list the biggest urban areas (continuous built-up area) around the world, and you can find the results here (pdf-file). I don't agree with some of their figures (much are their own calculations and definitions) but it's still acceptable. Their population figures are mostly somewhat accurate (but not always), but their area figures are probably wrong in many cases. And, they have only complete listings for 500,000+ areas (about 700 entries). But, it's probably the best source I can come up with, considering your needs. Otherwise, you have to do it the hard way, taking it city by city. If you need help with figures for a specific city/area, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck!--Pjred (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this should help with at least the top 3/4 of the list. I've been combining multiple sources anyhow, because my goal is actually to put together a list of the most important cities, which is of course somewhat subjective, and not necessarily solely deteremined by population. (For example, most people would consider Brussels and Geneva to be fairly important cities, but their populations are actually quite low. Likewise, by numbers alone, Milan and Naples are much bigger than Rome, but it would seem like a mistake not to include Rome near the top in any list of important cities. I've isolated a group of about 70 cities that are going at the top regardless of actual population figures, and the rest I'm just going by the numbers - the only hard part is which numbers...) Anyhow, thanks for another source. I'll just have to leg it for the last chunk I guess. (Incidentally, another strike against World Gazetteer - it lists Geneva and Basel as being in France instead of Switzerland - I guess I'm too used to wikis, because I tried to correct it...) Lurlock (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your project! The information, and the references, in the article Global city may be of some help.--Pjred (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Already found that one, it's one of my sources. Incidentally, it just occurred to me that the Demographia list actually includes 1352 cities, they just stop numbering them after 740. So this will definitely suit my needs. Thanks again for the link. Lurlock (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how complete Demographia's list is after the 500,000. For instance, I found that Århus in Denmark (pop. 238,000 in the urban area) is missing.--Pjred (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hit my 1000 goal around 250,000, so that would be out of my range for this list anyhow. (I'm actually generating 3 lists, for North America, Europe, and the whole world - Århus made the European list, but not the World list.) I did notice a surprising concentration of Australian cities at the bottom end of that list, which is kind of odd because you'd think there'd be plenty of other cities of similar population elsewhere. I'm guessing they just found a really good source for Australian cities, and haven't found as good information in other countries. Fortunately, most of that stuff falls well below my criteria. Also, I have been compiling data from various sources, so hopefully that should cover up any eggregious lapses. This list does feel better, however. There were many points in the World Gazetteer list where it felt like some cities that should've been rated higher up were missing, while others that didn't feel like they belonged as high as they were got top ratings. WG also managed to list numerous cities more than once, not just in obvious ways but under different spellings, different groupings, etc. (For example, Copenhagen is listed twice, once by itself and once as Copenhagen-Malmo - another cross-country grouping I wasn't crazy about. (I mean, there is a bridge, but it's one of the longest in the world and all. I'm guessing since you seem to be Swedish that you'd know better than I would if anyone living there would consider them to be a single urban area. I know Detroit-Windsor has a bridge, a tunnel, and a ferry, all across a much narrower gap, but still nobody considers them to be one city.) Anyhow, I'm on total-revision #4 of this list already, I'm sure there'll be more changes later on, but this should keep me going for now. Lurlock (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am actually involved in a looong discussion on the Copenhagen-Malmö issue here, where you can read my points of view on this matter.--Pjred (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhaka

I appreciate you updating some population numbers, but following your source for the new Dhaka population number takes you to a page that shows the population of the city corporation being 5.3 million, not the +6 million you list. What's up with that? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you did. If you take a look at the list one more time, you'll discover that there are different sources listed for the population and area figures. The reference for the population is the Statistical Pocket Book Bangladesh 2007, and the reference for the area is another pdf document for the 2001 census. The 2007 population estimate is easily found in the pocket book, but the other document only lists the 2001 census results, which was 5.3 million for the Dhaka City Corporation.--Pjred (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. You can make that correction to the Dhaka page. There, I corrected the area, but also used the 2001 population. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of :-)!--Pjred (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas Belgium

Hello Pjred, where did you get the numbers of the metropolitan areas in Belgium? I can't find them in the PDF file... Greetings, Wikifalcon (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The 2008 population figures aren't found in the pdf-file, only the 2001 definitions of the metropolitan areas (with some 2001, 2003 and 2006 data). The updated numbers are from adding all municipalities within the defined areas, from 2008 municipal populations. I think I've added an additional reference in the articles, which contains the 2008-01-01 populations for municipalities. You'll find a detailed list of the municipalities for all metropolitan areas listed on pages 25 to 27 in the pdf-file. Metropolitan areas in Belgium are defined each tenth year, based on census or registration population. The previous definitions were worked out in 1991, and I would guess that the next round will be in 2011.--Pjred (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Wikifalcon (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

(Message erased, by request of user)--Pjred (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delhi

Source for the 1,300 sq km number, it also gives the area for the New Delhi MC and the Delhi Cantonment.

http://www.niua.org/city_des.asp?title=Delhi

• Three local bodies are entrusted with the civic administration of Delhi state: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1397.29 sq.km), New Delhi Municipal Committee (42.74 sq.km.) and Delhi Cantonment (42.97 sq.km.).

It would appear that the Delhi MC administers the vast majority of land with the National Capital Territory, with only two other cities administering the rest.

The Delhi MC administers parts of all nine districts in the NCT, the New Delhi MC administers all of the land in the New Delhi District, and the Delhi Cantonment administers part of the land in South West Delhi, with Delhi MC administering the remainder.

Lastly, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation says that the Delhi Municipal Corporations administers the area of 96% of the area within the National Capital Territory and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation only 3% (http://www.ndmc.gov.in/AboutNDMC/NAboutus.aspx). Hope that helps.

--Criticalthinker (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the first source is first of all that it lists the area of Delhi MC as 1397 sq.km both in 1991 and 2001. I can assure you that the administrative area of the Municipal Corporation didn't have these area figures in neither 1991 or 2001. The only reason I can think of that they list 1397 sq.km for the MC is that there has been changes in the administrative boundaries after 2001, which of course is possible. However, the problem then accurs, that the population figures don't match the given area. I mean, the NCT had 13.8 million inhabitants within 1,484 sq.km in 2001. To use ´critical thinking', it's unlikely that 9.8 million inhabitants is counted within 1397 sq.km, and then almost 4 million in the remaining 87 sq.km of the NCT. There's a hard clue that there's something wrong with the presented area figure in the source you listed.

The second source you list is very confusing. It describes administrative boundaries from 1994 legal acts, but whatever this source says, the administrative units were definitly far different than this as presented for the 2001 population census.

You'll find all administrative units as they were in 2001, down to village level, in these files (excel-files):

North West District North District North East District East District New Delhi District Central District West District South West District South District

If you have a look at these files, it must be obvious to you that the NCT is so much more than just three administrative units. The 431 sq.km, as listed by UN in their Demographic Yearbook, is the area of MC of Delhi, as of 2001. I hope you understand from the existence of all the surrounding administrative units listed in the files above that this is a very likely figure. 1397 sq.km is not, at least not for the listed population figure. If the 1397 sq.km is a result of later changes in the administrative boundaries, the population figure must also be adjusted - but the given population figures are either 2001 census results, or computations based on that. That's why we need to use 431 sq.km in the list, so the population density can be calculated correctly.--Pjred (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that only your source shows 431 sq km number. No other source shows such a number. Given that the source isn't local, either, at the very least makes it no better than the other numbers, and quite possibly even less credible. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The UN don't measure areas of cities themselves, they just present the data that's been sent to them by main statistical authorities within their areas of expertise. I have no doubt that the 431 sq.km comes from some kind of Indian statistical, or land survey, authority. But, nothing beats a direct reference, so I have now sent a question to the UN Demographic statistics section on which source they have used. I will keep you informed.--Pjred (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should probably send off and email to the actualy Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their statistical department to see what you can find. —Criticalthinker (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now got the anser from the UN Statistics Division, Demographic Yearbook. The source for area statistics is the Central Statistical Organisation in Delhi. Probably an as authoritarian source as one can get. To me, there's no doubt that the 431 sq.km is the area of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, at least as of 2001. Any population figure from 2001, or any population computation for later years but based on the 2001 census results, must be compared to this area figure. However, there's then the question if there's been any changes in the administrative boundaries after 2001, and as I wrote before, it's of course possible. So, as you suggested, it would be a good idea to also contact the MC of Delhi for this. I will do this a.s.a.p. --Pjred (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I went to the department from which they say they got the information, the Department of Economics & Statistics. Using the 2007 Statistical Handbook for Delhi, they say that the area of the Municipal Corporation is 1,397.29 (http://des.delhigovt.nic.in/Publications/HB2007/pop.pdf). It's located on page two of the link. It cooberates with what I've been saying all along. The Delhi Municipal Corporation includes large swaths of urban and rural areas, and also includes Census towns. It really could not be any more clear. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you went wrong. You have misinterpreted the statistical presentation. In this document, they have split the statistical presentation of NCT in three regions, where one is Delhi MC grouped together with the remaining rural and urban areas (apart from the New Delhi MC and the Delhi CB). The line clearly says 'Delhi Municipal Corporation Urban, Rural & Census Towns'. This means of course that the statistics of all these administrative units are counted together, and that the Delhi MC counts for just a part of this.--Pjred (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't been able to find an e-mail address to contact the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. If you have seen a working e-mail address to them listed somewhere, let me know. Instead, I sent an e-mail to the Delimitation Commission of India, hoping that they'll be able to provide some information. Another piece of the puzzle: here is a pdf-document named Cities in Transition: Monitoring growth trends in Delhi Urban Agglomeration, 1991-2001. On page 5 (with page number 199, seems to be a part of a larger document) you'll find a map showing the administrative boundaries for the components of the Delhi Urban Agglomeration. As you can see there, the three statutory towns of Delhi MC, New Delhi MC and Delhi Cantonment are excluding several surrounding administrative units (census towns in this case).--Pjred (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been looking for a map. It's still pretty apparent that the Delhi Corporation is larger than you've mentioned, if even still smaller than I thought. Hopefully, we'll be able to get to the bottom of this. BTW, what was the population of the corporation in 2001? It seems that most population figures given for Delhi either give the population of the agglomeration or the entire union territory. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The population of the municipal corporation was 9,879,172 at the 2001 population census. That's the final result, there's also a provisional result circulating that's slightly lower. Here's a list on the population of all cities and towns with over 20,000 inhabitants in the NCT in 2001. The map gives, as you say, an impression that the Delhi MC is covering a slightly larger area than the 431 sq.km. However, it depends of course on if the map is exactly to scale. I hope to find a good source for area statistics, but India is a bit of a problem when it comes to finding good contacts. Most institutes there only have telephone numbers and postal addresses given, no e-mail addresses. Let's see if the Delimitation Commission can help; as they are involved in the legal processes concerning administrative boundaries, there's a fair chance.--Pjred (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

European metropolitan areas

Hi. I recently overhauled the List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population to a multi-column table with a different source for each column. I would like to add official definitions of either the metropolitan area or the agglomeration but the only country with a true metropolitan area definition (core urban area + labor pool defined by commuting) that I am currently aware of is France. I suppose it's possible to use an appropriate administrative unit as a proxy but then the issue is how one chooses it without getting into original research. Anyway, your input on the European metropolitan area list would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your great work on that article, and fully understand the problems that can, and will, occure. France is definitly not the only country in Europe with official definitions for metropolitan areas. However, some definitions are probably more based on administration and planning than detailed commuter patterns. Let me think about it for a while - I will try to make a list country by country for what I think is the best definitions and sources for metropolitan areas. And, some countries have more than one type of definition (like Germany and Belgium). I've been quite busy at my daytime job the last weeks and not so active on Wikipedia, but I'll try to get back a.s.a.p.--Pjred (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pjred. You have new messages at Htonl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

population of indian citiesi

Hi!! nice to find a user like you, as I myself have a great interest towards Indian Demographics. Looking forward to discuss more on this topic with ppl like you. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thalapathi! Do you have any idea on when the Indian 2011 census results for towns and villages will be released?--Pjred (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard some reports saying that the provisional population totals paper II, containing info on Rural-Urban population break-up, also datum relating to population of cities will be released in May. If that is true, we have only a few more days :) --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great :-)! I am quite impressed on how fast they are processing the material. The Philippines, for instance, haven't released any 2010 Census results yet, over a year after in was conducted.--Pjred (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pjred. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)