This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cities by GDP article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First of all, the list must include two versions of the GDP, one nominal and the other PPP, due to a multitude of factors that people who understand economics know, there are cities whose nominal GDP is very misleading and does not reflect the real situation of this city. as if the GDP PPP would do it, in certain cases the difference between nominal and PPP is very high and the latter reflects a more accurate vision of the true power of that city, both should go, obviously with their respective PERCAPITA tables. Second, the article is very outdated and full of errors, please urgently update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10A6:19:7BDC:A08D:A582:C7D8:A3C0 ( talk) 01:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

WHY DONT YU DO JUST A LIST BY ORDER INSTEAD OF ALPHABETIC?! Where do the per capita figures come from? Just by glancing at the list a lot of obvious mistakes become evident. I propose deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.154.173 ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Second this – the page also misuses the PWC study that's it's main source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.96 ( talk) 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have made the title a bit more significant.-- Unites 13:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is more a List of Cities by GDP than GDP Per Capita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.243.119 ( talk) 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with 62.16.243.119, the page isn't sorted by GDP per Capita, and only lists it in some cases. It's focused on, and sorted by, GDP. Lejman 10:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

What about the list for EUROPE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.9.31 ( talk) 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

What about the list for EUROPE???

This list was taken out of the site City Mayors, and it's not correct. According the IBGE, the responsible Brazilian organization of statistics, the GDP of São Paulo was 315 Billions (PPP) and Rio de Janeiro 170 Billions (PPP).

Wikipedia and its continuing predilection for what irrelevance reveals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.47.11 ( talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Then I'll correct it on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.47.11 ( talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems to be that there are obvious mistakes in GDP per Capita calculations. E.g. for #1 Helsinki it seems that GDP is for whole Helsinki metropolitan region and it is divited by population of city of Helsinki proper. Thus creating far too high GDP per capita estimate. Quickly looking there seems to be similar confusion also for other cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiksa ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This is still an issue - for Germany for example the per capita GDP ranges from 12,000 USD to over 100,000 USD... there is no way this is true! 2603:6011:DF03:54C2:9501:D79:D82B:895E ( talk) 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

St.Petersburg appears twice in the list of the 100's with different figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.15.38 ( talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm going to remove the manilla metro area from the list because it's not a fair comparison to all the other cities on the list, which are cities proper. For example, if I made the Govchicago entry a metro area, it would be number 1. Same with any top ten cities. Sas556 ( talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think we are talking metropolitan/urban areas here and not just core cities. It is pointless to consider only the core. I believe Tokyo and London figures are for the Metro Areas -there can't be 8.2 million people in London city alone (divide it's GDP in billions by it's per capita GDP). That would be awfully dense. It would make more sense to rename these cities by their known metro area names because apparently that's where the GDP figures are based from. Eubravo ( talk) 02:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• • London's population is about 7.3 million (2009) in its urban area and about 15.8 million

including its outer suburbs in what are known as the "Home Counties". In most of the rankings used internationally, our London GDP is far ahead of Chicago or Paris, and usually just below NY and Tokyo. The PPP data used in this survey is poorlt implemented and distorting of true GDP. ( User talk: EricW,LondonGov)

I find the Richest in Western Europe and Richest in Eastern and Northern Europe headings a bit of an odd way to divide the article. Firstly, according to the Northern Europe article, the UK is part of that region, but London is listed under Western Europe here. Secondly, these aren't particularly common classifications. I can perhaps see the rationale for having a section on Western Europe and one on Eastern Europe, but the Eastern/Northern combination seems odd. What do people think? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm going to change the Northern and Eastern Europe heading to Central and Eastern Europe. If anyone objects, please explain why here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Why are Frankfurt, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Ruhr Region and Stuttgart not even on this list. They are high on the list of Germany's top cities in GDP per capita. Eubravo ( talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems the metro regions of above mentioned German cities are not counted, only the cities proper, which is why they don't make the list. This is not consistent, of course. In addition, the figure for Hamburg is extremely far off. It says $58 billion for Hamburg metro, while the Hamburg article says €86 billion (currently well over $100 billion) for the city alone. I also assume the figures for Munich to be too low. It's the richest city in Germany after Hamburg, and certainly way ahead of Berlin in per capita GDP, possibly twice as high. Speaking of Berlin, the total and per capita figures don't add up at all. The city has 3.4 million inhabitants, and the metro around 4 million. They don't quite fit for Hamburg, either, given the city alone has 1.75 million inhabitants. Overall, it appears as though the figures for German cities were randomly made up. That also casts some doubt on the rest, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.160.139 ( talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Similar to the above comments, these simply don't make much sense. Just by way of example:

- London and Birmingham ("Europe, Northern") are in fact further south than Berlin and Hamburg (both "Europe, Western")

- All 5 in the "Europe, Western" section are to the east of all 5 in the "Europe, Northern" section

So, the headings to the sections are misleading. More importantly, dividing things up this way simply ends creates a comparison between cities in the UK and Rep of Ireland, which is not very informative

I propose to combine Europe, Northern and Europe, Western (under the latter heading). That would give us Europes Western, Southern and Eastern, which I think match commonly-used terminology. Let me know here if there is good reason not to do so.

Tim211010 ( talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I presume that the Northern Europe region was using the UN definition, which includes the UK but not Germany (see Northern Europe). Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Quite possibly, but there are any number of ways to skin the cat - see here for example the wikipedia main entry for Western Europe: [ [1]]. More importantly, any split that produces in practice a comparison between English and Irish cities is just not that informative. Happy for you to revert, but I really think it's more helpful this way. By the way, apologies for inserting my initial comment halfway up rather than at the foot Tim211010 ( talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I question this because, because of common knowledge pertaining to the Italian economy and demographics, and I have in front of me an old Nat. Geo. article circa 1990 that indicates that Milan alone accounts for ~25% of Italy's GDP, with Turin second. Milan having a larget GDP than Rome makes sense seeing that it is the country's manufacturing and financial centre. Italy has been slow to change its economic ways of late so I cannot imagine that the relative position of these cities has changed much since the 1990's.

What is the source of the list? Sincerely, Romaioi ( talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Romaioi, the source is as given in the article: [2]. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers for that. I browsed through some of the lists from that site. Some of the stats on Australian cities are well out of date, like populations being out by half a mill. and the GDP's being incorrect too, as another example, but others aren't. Oh well, they have a lot to cover. Cheers Romaioi ( talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

From having a look at the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the GDP per capita have been added by various user based on their own calculations and whatever figure for population they found. Therefore I propose to delete that column altogether. Debresser ( talk) 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In view of the above I have removed all of the {{ fact}} templates and added the {{ Original research}} template. Debresser ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Please let's hear your opinions. Debresser ( talk) 12:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I reckon that we should remove the per capita figures altogether unless a source can be found. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Unsourced "statistics" have no place in an encyclopedia. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Disagree. If the GDP and population data are adequately sourced, a GDP/capita calculation is straightforward and is already implicit in the dataset. That would be like saying we don't know that 10/2=5 because there's no source. If we have sources for 10 and 2, it is acceptable to divide 10 by 2 and arrive at 5 logically. Emphasis, however, should be placed on gathering quality data for GDP and population estimates. BDS2006 ( talk) 22:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Done. This will probably put a stop to people constantly adding and changing figures in this column. 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who do not check previous edits and their summaries: we do not need two pictures of one and the same city. Debresser ( talk) 09:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The following is copied from User talk:AlasdairGreen27 for greater visibility and input.

I see you have been reverting some edits by 76.66.140.26 I have no problem with that, but I wondered why you revert without putting an explanation on the talk page. His edits were not trivial, after all. Debresser ( talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Because IP anons fool around with these figures on a daily basis. If they cannot come to the talk page to point out why they see the need to change information that comes from a specific published list, I see no need to discuss before or after reverting them. The list is the list; it should not be changed in any way until an updated list appears. In addition, in this specific case, the IP is a POV-motivated Taiwanese editor that has done nothing helpful in any of his/her edits so far. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I see. In this case. In general though I see no problem with people adding a city to the list if they provide a reliable source. Debresser ( talk) 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, in this case, in fact, no. This is an unusual article in the sense that it should not be edited. It is a list from a single source. We are reproducing information that does not bear amendment. If you allow amendment or addition, the idea that the data is comparative goes out of the window. The page should be protected against editing. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand your point, but you seem to make a mistake. Wikipedia is not an archive but an encyclopedia. We do not keep lists "as is". We add any relevant information (and take out any irrelevant information). Debresser ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you are not quite correct in this case, my friend. If this list is to have any purpose, it is that the cities should be comparable. That means that the data has to come from the same source at the same time using the same methods. That's why the 2005 data from one source is being used. There are various methods of compiling such statistics; if this list is to have any purpose, it must be single-source based. The alternative is an absolute porridge of incompatible semi-data. I am going to copy this correspondence now to the article talk page, as it seems to be a more appropriate forum. See you there. Respectfully, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I see your point. But would like to make 2 points of myself.

1. There is something to say for additional information even at the cost of comparability. Both are in the interest of the article. Consensus should decide which is the overriding principle in compiling this list.
2. There is actually an alternative. The article could state specifically, that various sources are used in order to incorporate new information as it becomes available, and that this might affect the comparability of the data.
3. If consensus should be that this article should stick to the 2005 list, then the title of the article should be changed accordingly, because this title clearly does not fit this constriction. Debresser ( talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It is interesting that Taipei is left out of the PWC study. I believe it has a $229 billion GDP at PPP, which would rank it 27th if included in the PWC list. They do say on page 31 of their report that they start with a UN list of cities. Since Taiwan is not part of the UN, I assume this is why Taipei has not got picked up. I might go as far to suggest this was unintended by PWC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan88888 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Someone has added Kansas City to the list, even though it isn't in the original source. They have provided a reference suggesting that it should have made the list but, given that the list is supposed to be based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, I think it should be removed. Any thoughts? Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed it. The list is and must be a reproduction of the PWC list. Once we start to deviate from that list the article goes to hell very quickly. It is produced using standardised criteria, and I doubt Kansas City was somehow overlooked during its compilation. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 06:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London states that London metro area generates $669bn. Note that Tokyo uses urban area figure and New York uses the metro area figure. Therefore the comparison currently in the table is useless. 94.195.117.10 ( talk) 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope this distinction has been made here: surely many capital cities have a GDP per capita widely different from rural areas in the same country? Cerberus™ ( talk) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The figures quoted for the German cities are completely false and inconsistent with the other cities in the list. If Hamburg proper officially generated a GDP of €89.3 Billion in 2008 (more than $115 Billion), how is it possible that the GDP of its urban area was half that in 2005? The same goes for the other German cities. Munich and Berlin proper had a GDP of € 75.1 Billion ($98 Billion) and €87.4 Billion ($115 Billion), respectively. Frankfurt has the highest GDP per capita of any major European city but doesn't even appear on this list. Overall a very questionable ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallowjello ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is likely due to inaccuracies in the population estimates for German metropolitan areas. Anyone with better data on German cities could easily resolve this artifact. BDS2006 ( talk) 22:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: German Rhine-Ruhr region is not included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.233.236 ( talk) 19:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed, the Rhine-Ruhr should be on the list. Gjchan ( talk) 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The source linked to is not the original source, nor does it say anything about methodology. We need a copy of the original source and methodology so that these estimates can be independently verified. One source second hand is not enough to be authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.209.182 ( talk) 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The link to the source is a copy from the original source. Also the link before your edit was changed to a dead link so this might have caused some confusion. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The source is obviously defective. Moscow#Economy 2005 GRP in PPP adjusted for only city proper without added metropolitan area was $326bln. IMF PPP coversation rate, Russian GRP. Population for city proper at the end of 2005 was 10,425mln [3] Elk Salmon ( talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The population from the source for half of those cities are way off. Examples include Seoul, Jakarta, and Manila. The populations of these cities seems to be based on the agglomeration/metropolitan area of these cities. On alternate lists such as List of metropolitan areas by population and List of urban areas by population, the population of these cities are much higher. I wouldn't be surprised if the Moscow population was off as well. To my knowledge, the population data is based off the United Nations which the source, CityMayors copied over to their site. This list has been heavily criticized for its inaccuracy. Even though the source is not exactly from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Citymayors seems to have copied over their list for the GDP. I'm not sure about the reliability of PricewaterhouseCoopers though, so I can't say much about the numbers they give out for each city, but they seem to be involved in topics dealing with money. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

So there is a one way out - drop PricewaterhouseCoopers 2005 'consistency' in favor of current data by provided reliable data for each city, just like in List of urban areas by population. Years might differs, but we will have reliable figures. Elk Salmon ( talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, List of urban areas by population is one of those consistent articles. None of the cities there uses data from multiple sources. All the cities use data from Demographia. Arguments about using multiple sources does also spark disputes because people argue that this source measures differently than the other source, giving one an advantage/disadvantage. Rather than disputes in factual accuracy, disputes about "fairness" of the sources arises. So I'm indifferent about whether or not to use the Pricewaterhouse Coopers data or a multiple sources because they both have their ups and downs. Probably best to wait for some more input. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply

In anyway - if PWC data differs from real by over 100% it's worth to drop it. Official data at least somehow close to reality. Elk Salmon ( talk) 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd rather we didn't use different sources. We need to maintain comparability - that's the whole point of the table - and using different sources, relating to different years, compromises that. The table currently uses 2005, 2007 and 2008 data. How can cities be ranked when the data refer to different time periods? What a mess. I'd prefer to see the article deleted than this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have to agree. This article is starting to become a mess and getting harder to keep track of. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think its dubious at all or even that messy. As the user AlasdairGreen27 correctly pointed out many times earlier in this discussion, the list and methodology is based off of one source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. If you have stats from other sources, then follow wikipedia standard what was done for the list of countries by GDP one article with different lists from different sources and methodologies (i.e. IMF, World Bank, etc), or add them to the general list provided you have a source for them. I went ahead and updated everything to their 2008 stats, rewrote the title and description of this page so that it clearly shows who is behind this list and their methodology for it. It seems to me looking back on this discussion page, that issues seem to be more based on subjective opinions and biases that objective fact reporting which is what wikipedia is supposed to be. Eman007 0:50,13 November 2009 (UTC)

rubbish

i've come along a lot of crap on wikipedia, but this article beats it all. i request deletion. in light of so many mistakes, stating one obviously dubious source (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) certainly is no reason to keep this article in. Sundar1 ( talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If you want to nominate the article for deletion, you need to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I also find this article to be dubious in nature: taken from a single source, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and is almost an advertisement for the same company. This company does not cite its sources, or even where it gets its data or comes up with its numbers. Many seem to question this source's validity, as do I, for many reasons: speaking for France, I can say that the only economical data available in this country is from its administrative areas - communes, departements and regions - and the numbers PWC cites do not at all correspond to this. In reading their study we see that they've based their data on city urban areas, but in France the only thing the urban area (unité urbain) statistical area is used for is demographics (and it changes with every census), thus I don't know how PWC could come up with their numbers - it can only be an estimation. I have doubts about both the veracity and importance of this article - an article written about one source is a no-no here, and when the statistics it "creates" are both unreferenced and dubious, even more.

I will nominate this article for deletion, and let's continue the discussion there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Please find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cities_by_GDP. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article says PPP adjusted, but billions of USD. IMF applies the term of International Dollar. Why not to use it to avoid of misunderstanding for those who don't read the top of article? Elk Salmon ( talk) 02:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Was looking for Taipei, which aside from having the second highest per-capita GDP in Asia, isn't even on the list (or 151 cities). Has anyone noticed any other (prominent) cities missing? Multivariable ( talk) 05:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Kansas City is also missing (mentioned above). It was $101 billion in 2008 ( http://econpost.com/gdp/kansas-city-missouri-kansas-gdp) 75.81.1.78 ( talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Dubai Jawadreventon ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Tokyo's population is 35 million and Shanghai 14 million ?? Lol, there is a problem. -- Zhonghuo ( talk) 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Beijing 11 million and behind San Diego and Phoenix ??? lol -- Zhonghuo ( talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The population is based off figures from the United Nations )article just listed for convenience, original source in the article) which is also the source that Pricewaterhouse Coopers uses to base their figures as stated in it's methodology (see source). This is why the UN figures are being used so that the definitions will match. I do agree though that many of the cities that the UN measures are way off such as Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul for population. This is why you see unexpected numbers in both population and GDP numbers. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

{Moved from the AfD page) How about we structure the article in a way like List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population where we have multiple columns for different sources. We have one column for PWC, another column for an "official estimates" or "other estimate" column as some have stated to be found and another if another list is found for that source. This way we have multiple sources instead of one source as this seems to be a key issue and editors/readers can have a better idea of what are the current estimates out there. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment -Sounds like a good idea to me. Eman007 01:25, 8 December 2009

Sounds like a good idea to me as well. If you arrange it into a list whose order is modifiable by rank (according to..), name, etc, even better. You're going to have to put as much info in there about what data the estimates are based on - administrative region, urban area, metropolitan area, etc - but perhaps a notation system (a symbol or footnote link) next to each number would do the trick. Finding out how they extract economic numbers from administrative areas for their chosen areas of measure will be a harder chore - per-capita earnings vs. land covered, etc.? - but it could be a fun and informative project if you can find that info and present it in a citable way. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you Promenader, but do you mean something like this? See User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population. There are multiple rankings on there and one can easily modify the table by pressing the box with the triangles after the column name. There's a default rank in there since the was the suggested method on the article I'm working on, but we can always alphabetize it and clicking on that box will show the ranking according to the sources. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, something like that. Suggestion: can the numbers/ranking/number source of each estimation source be grouped a little more clearly - perhaps with coloured borders? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a good suggestion. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've created a table based on the suggestions given. See User:Elockid/List of cities by GDP. I don't know how to color the borders, but I know how the shade in the boxes so that's what I did to group them a little more clearly. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Nice! That makes everything crystal clear. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Would anybody mind if I work on it or help to work on it my subpage? The reason I say my subpage is because it will take a while to gather and complete the table unless no one minds the page being in construction. Could we also list out the alternate sources that were presented? Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

One of the very reasons I promoted this article for deletion was the fact that seemingly no-one was working on it (to any effect) - if there are few contributors, you hardly need to ask permission ; ) What's more, if you manage to turn this article into an objective multi-citable source (usable by any/all "vanity claims"), you'll be everyone's hero, sir. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Just added tags that should hopefully attract more people over to edit and contribute. Eman007 19:50, 15December 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be changed. Tehran is number one in the region yet Tel-Aviv takes the photo position! There needs to be consistency. Micro360 ( talk) 01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Photo changed. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

i'm using this discription because there has been so much criticism (see above) and absolutely no meaningful response. i fail to see good faith. perhaps the persons defending this list could explain, what the value of it is supposed to be, because i can see absolutely none. what information are you supposed to get out of it? i might as well put in a list: apple: 110 g, peeled cucumber 125 g, banana (with or without peel?) 86 g, pumpkin (seeded) 2,350 g etc. and rank them according to their weights. what would anyone get out of such a list, no matter what sources i use? the people defending this list obviously have no idea how statistics are made and what they reflect. Sundar1 ( talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, this list, recently nominated for deletion (by myself), was supposed to take on a more comprehensive/objective/multi-sourced aspect as a conclusion to that discussion, but not much has changed since then. Is there something in the works? THEPROMENADER 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Currently working on it. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added the the new table to the article per the suggestions above. This way, it will be easier to add multiple sources. I'll also be adding more data as soon is I find them. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 16:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The article is much better now ! Polylepsis ( talk) 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am giving Elockid major commendation for improving this article. In the next couple of days and weeks when I have the time, I will also add more of the necessary information to the article. It indeed looks much better though we still have much more work to do.

Promenader, a major project like this takes tremendous time and effort and will be an ongoing project for the coming months and even years to follow. Your hastiness in calling for the editing and deletion of this article is unwarranted, unnecessary, and facetious. A consensus was reached that this article will not be deleted. Need I remind you again that your personal wishes of disliking this article should be left off of wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated instead if you would help us find the necessary statistics to create the balance and veracity that is needed in this article. This goes for Sundar and others as well who dislike this article for merely personal personal reason than for any kind of objective merit. Thank you. Eman007 ( talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you Eman. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

you cannot defend this so-called list because arguments against it are supposedly "personal". as an urban planner i deal a lot with statistics and can tell you right now that such a list will never work, no matter how much time you waste on it. unless there is no international standard for defining cities and also for defining what goes into the gdp, such a list is totally useless. i would very much like to know, what info the defenders get out of it. the problems with such a list go much further than so far discussed: many north american cities have their own police force. the expenditures are part of their gdp. in other cities the police is run by the county, province or state. there the expenditures are part not part of the city-gdp. this is only one example of many. cities do not have the same responsibilities in every country. some build their own roads, others don't, some run their own libraries, others don't, some run their schools, hospitals, public transit, others don't, etc., etc.

you also cannot compare a city-gdp-list with other gdp lists because the latter refer to defined boundaries or statistical units. Sundar1 ( talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sundar1:

Once again, the discussion for the deletion of this page has long ended. This page at this point will not be deleted. As noted at the top of the page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cities by GDP article. If you don't have any suggestions for the improvement of this article, then I would cease calling for the deletion of this article as you are wasting space and your time. If this article bothers you so much, you can make the judgment to simply ignore it and not use it as reference. But please don't waste this space to continue to make a dead and very personal argument for a consensus that has long been reached. This is not a talk forum for that sort of thing either. Either you can help us add more statistics to make this article more correct, or just ignore it and move on. Thank you. Eman007 ( talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems to have defaulted to an alphabetical ranking, surely it should rank by GDP? I would change it but I am not familiar with formatting tables. Zarcadia ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually the table is formatted so that the table can be easily modifiable without editing. If you press the that little icon by the "2008 est.", the table will rank according to the PWC estimate. Elockid ^{( Talk}· _Contribs) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm fairly sure Brisbane and Perth would both have larger economies than Auckland. Just perusing this site, based on the information on per capita GDP given for Queensland and Western Australia respectively (information is not readily available on the specific figures for their capitals) and the populations given for their capitals, Brisbane would have a GDP of around $84.8b and Perth of about $95.7b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.168.72 ( talk) 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Where is Nagoya Japan? It should not be that far down from Osaka...here is an example of Nagoya's metro GDP. It should definately be in the top 25. http://www.i-bac.jp/economy/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.159.203 ( talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

According to this: http://www.city.nagoya.jp/global/en/more/industry/nagoya00064748.html

In 2004 Nagoya metro area (Aichi, Gifu and Mie prefectures) had a GDP of 459 billion. If you do Nagoya (aichi prefecture) alone the GDP is 321 billion in 2004. In 2010 that would be around 388 billion (Aichi prefecture is 7.36% of Japan's GDP so you multiple 2010 GDP statistic by that number). That would put it in the top 10 or right behind the top 10.

Since this page is in PPP I estimate Nagoya's 2009 PPP number is somewhere around 314 billion. Keep in mind this does not include Nagoya's entire metropolitan area but only Aichi prefecture.

—Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
AhochaudeJP (
talk • 
contribs) 19:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
reply 

either the PWC values are in some other measure than GDP (like PPP? it is explicitly lsited as GDP on the page), or PWC estimated the GDP for 2008 for NYC as just about 140% over the GDP of New York State that same year, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. --— robbiemuffin  ^{page talk} 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

seems biased, the urban area in the USA is like the the green belts in Canada. Chicago with 9.8 million people is like Toronto with 8.5-9.5 million people and a gdp twice as big than what's quoted. Grmike ( talk) 08:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)grmike reply

Source? The data for PWC is based on the area used by the UN definition of agglomeration. We have a list List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations) that shows the area and population. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)7 reply

For the North American region Chicago is listed as having 9.8 million people that is only possible if the region being considered is metro Chicago which had 9,785,747 people in 2009 and covered 28,163.5 k². That is roughly the same as the Greater Horseshoe Area with Toronto as its center and had 8.1 million people almost 5 years ago according to statistics Canada (taking into account a reasonable growth rate that would come close to Chicago in 2009). The list of cities by gdp gives Australian cities like Sydney and Melbourne 75-90% more area than Toronto and Montreal, Vancouver doesn't even include Victoria in most urban lists. As long as there are larger defined boundaries for cities like Toronto, Boston and San Francisco that aren't being represented there but are for other cities these kinds of lists don't give an accurate comparison. Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America with almost a third of Canada 34 million people within close proximity of its metro area, has North America's 3rd largest stock exchange, is one of the world's top 5 cities in economic clout according to the PWC [4], and ranks near the top in terms of corporate headquarters, and this list is saying that it's economic size is 86% the size of USA's 11th ranked Houston ? Grmike ( talk) 11:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)grmike reply

this source says that Toronto is home to a fifth of Canada's gdp (in 2007 that amounted to $263 billion] Canada's 2010 GDP is $1.6 trillion USD ranking 9th in the world. 1.6 divided by 5 is $320 billion. I'm not disputing the number as much as the information given for other countries specifically American ones. Grmike ( talk) 11:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)grmike reply

The population for Chicago is not the correct definition. Based on the UN data, the population is 9.2 million. That population and area of that 9.2 million figure corresponds to the GDP. Those populations are originally from CityMayors which I don't consider a reliable source. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 12:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If you're going to use the Golden Horseshoe then Chicago can add Milwaukee and have over 11 million people. The UN definition is based on continuous urban areas, that doesn't mean each city's region should cover the same area. In any case PWC shouldn't be blamed for taking UN stats. You can never get a truly accurate ranking on city lists. You can use larger metropolitan area definitions to boost a city's GDP numbers just as you can use lower ones to boost its density or transit riders per capita. I agree Canadian metropolitan areas are underestimated to some extent but I don't have a problem with this list. It just has to be taken with a grain of salt like every other city list. This is a list of GDPs not top financial districts. Other cities' economies are based on other industries which can be equally as important as finance, such as Houston's energy industry. PWC's Cities of Opportunity report uses many criteria that are not related to the size of a city's economy, and it surveys only 21 cities. Hypertall ( talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Chicago's metro area is larger than Toronto's in both size and population because the Chicago region is fully built up in and outward from Chicago, much further than Toronto's suburbs expand from Toronto. In fact, Chicago is built up going as far up toward the Milwaukee region, yet the Milwaukee region isn't counted with Chicago. So to answer the question, yes, Chicago can have a larger metro area geographically than Toronto. No two metro areas are going to be the same size geographically. Also, Toronto's population (or any city's population for that matter) doesn't necessarily relate to its status of its GDP output. For instance, Manila is one of the most populous metro areas in the world, but its GDP doesn't relate to the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 04:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Since when is Ankara in Eastern Europe? I can understand for Istanbul, but why is the case for Ankara? Elockid (Alternate) ^{( Talk)} 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply

because Ancyra is an european city? 95.114.114.32 ( talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The Bosphorus marks a boundary between Europe and Asia (it's about the only Europe/Asia boundary that has been consistently agreed on and unchanged over the last century). Ankara is therefore NOT in Europe. Istanbul is. 1812ahill ( talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:Berrini Avenue.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The ranking is incomplete and misleading (the places on the list). Missing metropolises, examples: Brisbane (2 million people), Perth (1.7 million people), Adelaide (1.2 million people), Katowice (2.7 million people), Valencia (2 million people), Ottawa (1.1 million people), Marseille (1.6 million people), Naples (2 million people), Porto (1.7 million people) and some other. PricewaterhouseCoopers poorly done their job. Subtropical-man ( talk) 17:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:Mumbai(r).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mumbai(r).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Instead of using only the PWC..which is missing entire cities/metro areas (for example Nagoya and Rhein-Ruhr which would be in the top 10 or 15) we should just use official government sources..which is quite easy. We also need to clearly differentiate between PPP and Nominally, either create 2 pages or clearly make 2 separate lists on this page. The way the list is now is a mess. I am willing to help out with this and I already had most of the figures for the USA (the US govt officially releases MSA GDP), and for Japan (same as the US) with sources..but I won't edit the page the way it is now because it's such a mess.

Any thoughts? SkyTree90 ( talk) 21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The article doesn't only use PWC. There's an "Official estimates" and a "Other estimates" column present. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes and that is the entire problem, it is not specified if they are PPP or Nominal. The entire page is a mess with different figures using different definitions and calculations, and yet there's no mention of it. We need to clearly differentiate PPP and Nominal and use government sources not the PWC. SkyTree90 ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The source says it is PPP. I've added that to the article. You also do know that governments have different definitions for metropolitan/urban/agglomerations. Wouldn't this go against your proposal since you stated that the page uses different definitions and calculations? You wouldn't be able to compare data from city to city if that's what you were aiming for. You can't expect to have a "good" list without having an accepted common definition. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Adding PPP doesn't solve the problem, because most of the official estimates are done nominally and many of the other estimates...which is what I mean by the page is a mess (as well as the PWC missing some big metros entirely). As for figuring out what is a metropolitan area...the PWC uses the OECD definition which is itself entirely speculation. The main criteria from the OECD is that commuters should account for at least 10% of the resident labor force...and that is how most governments in the world compile their metropolitan areas (some have higher thresholds at 15%). Either way, the PWC is using third party sources, is missing entire metros like the Rhein-Ruhr and Nagoya which are massive metros...and also the data is simply outdated (2008, while many countries have 2010 some even 2011 data now). However if you want to follow a strict criteria, the OECD has a list of all cities/provinces that are part of the metros: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/37/45511614.pdf . It is a pretty extensive list, I haven't checked through all of it but at least for Japan it has all the major metros. SkyTree90 ( talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Apparently not extensive enough. It's much less extensive than PWC. Entire countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, or China (BRIC) are missing from the list. Even major areas, more important or major than Nagoya or Rhine-Ruhr such as Hong Kong or Sao Paulo are missing. In general, there are a lot of [major] areas missing. Also, some sources do not consider Rhine-Ruhr as a single agglomeration/urban area/metro area. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 02:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Once again PWC uses the OECD definition and it is in their report, and of course it doesn't have every city..because for the other ones the PWC simply used the direct government source (For China, Brazil and Russia). Hong Kong is a city state with population control so there is no hong kong "metro", which is why the PWC just uses their GDP figure. SkyTree90 ( talk) 03:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

It states that they don't only use OECD data. Directly from PWC for OECD areas: "OECD Competitive Cities report (2006) estimates for 2002, extrapolated forward to 2008 using OECD data for 1995-2002 and IMF for 2005-2008, plus data on the city-national differential where available from individual national statistical offices." They also use data from the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank for non-OECD areas, so it is simply not the direct government source. Hong Kong is still an agglomeration/urban area. Population control is not a defining factor of a metropolitan area. I've even seen once source perhaps two sources that combine Hong Kong and Shenzhen together as a single metropolitan area. I don't expect a list to be complete. But I expect a number of major economic centers such as Singapore (I've seen sources combine Johor Bahru and Singapore as a single area), Moscow, Shanghai, or Mumbai to be present or major population centers such as Delhi, Jakarta, or Manila. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The PWC uses the OECD as a definition of metropolitan areas, I wasn't talking about the GDP figures (for example the IMF does not define a metropolitan area anywhere). The PWC and Hong Kong itself do not list a metropolitan area for it and simply uses the city state figure, since the amount of commuters between Shenzhen and Hong Kong is negligible due to strict controls. Not sure I follow on Moscow, Shanghai or Mumbai and in what context. I want to hear thoughts on: 1. The list is extremely messy, with PPP and Nominal figures mixed around 2. The list is missing some metros entirely 3. The PWC sources are outdated and using third party sources, they should be updated as it is the year 2012 now. Those are the 3 main issues with this page. So I propose: creating 2 lists..one with nominal figures and one with PPP figures, updating the list, and adding the missing metropolitan areas. SkyTree90 ( talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Last time I heard 388 billion dollars is the same as 388 billion dollars! So why is Philadelfia ahead of Sao Paulo if BOTH cities have the SAME GDP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulflytribe ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:0 3d46f 31b05490 orig.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:0 3d46f 31b05490 orig.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I proposed a new version (en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_cities_by_GDP&oldid=508924258) without discussion indeed. To explain my arguments :

• McKinsey has the advantage to give the nominal GDP which is not available for much cities
• The priority to the official estimates is the most neutral way
• Incidentally, I think the top 5 or top 10 rankings should be removed, all the more so the per capita calculation in the top 10 rankings could be arbitrary
• The ranking column is useless, the modification is inconvenient, and we can't have three "ranking columns" for each source (official, PwC and McKinsey)

Waiting for your comments, cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

See {{ rank order}} and Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about putting a separate rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update. This works whether the table is initially in rank order or alphabetical order. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

That's difficult, reference numbers are in superscript : the height of the cells are not uniform. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 23:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Why is Abu Dhabi there but not Dubai? Please add Dubai. Jawadreventon ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Seriouisly? Put it by rank you retards, otherwise how will /int/ use it for the muh dick contest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.98.160 ( talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry sir, it's 'srsly?'! We like alphabets (all of them) so u can stuff ur numbers), complain more -> we alphabetaize by Hangui

User 151.160.145.82 pushing an absurd amount of pictures [5]. His version is about 30 images. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not galery of pictures. Also, his version creates an additional problem: the table is wide and screens of monitors with lower display resolution than 1280x1024 displayed first 30 images, later the table and data. I changed the article using function of < gallery > and shrunk the number of images to 8 [6]. IP 151.160.145.82 begun edit war. So, what they think other users? You support reducing the amount of photos? Subtropical-man ( talk) 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Stop upsetting stylistic conventions that don't suit you and starting wars to dictate your preferences. I'm fine with making the thumbnails smaller or consolidating the chart a bit, but you need a better reason to invalidate common practices than "I don't like it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.57.203 ( talk) 13:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Just a warning, the IPs and the operator of the IPs (it's quite evident who it is based on the edit history) is getting dangerously close to being blocked for sockpuppetry. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

So, no response? Rail88 ( talk) 05:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Am I to consider this contention resolved, based on the lack of response to the more than a dozen examples of precedent I provided? After two and a half months, I see no reason to believe otherwise. Rail88 ( talk) 09:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply

23 March, user Camins removed gallery [7]. This is ok. I support two version: using function of < gallery > and max 8 pitures or removed all pictures (via Camins version), strong oppose for 30 pictures on right of the page. Subtropical-man ( talk) 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply

How about ranking this, not alphabetical order. That will be much more useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 04:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• I Agree. Right now it is one of the most useless lists I have ever seen in my life... If it had some kind of sequential order (other than alphabetic which is useful only to an alphabet) it would offer some insight. Without it, it offers nonsense as a sequential chaos. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

No way until the economic bubbles inherent in the stock markets are taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.170.230 ( talk) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The list can be modified into a rank order by pressing the arrow buttons in the table. Even if the lists were rank we would have to chose which list would be the primary rank (this could lead to further disputes since there may be others who disagree which of the lists should be the primary rank) or separate the table into multiple tables which could be very tedious/harder for readers to navigate. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I would like to know why there is a note added to Seoul's ranking in the Brookings list which says "(includes Incheon)". It's worth pointing out that places like Tokyo include Yokohama, places like New York include Jersey City and Newark. Seoul has a similar relationship with Incheon as Tokyo does with Yokohama and New York does with Jersey City. Also, "Busan" as listed refers to "Busan-Ulsan" in the source material; if correspondence with source material is an important thing, then should that be changed? And if not, why does only Seoul have this kind of note when other cities in similarly-organized metro areas don't? Aquaticko ( talk) 23:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)aquaticko reply

Surely the figures for Europe should reflect official Eurostats for the relevant NUTS area? The Hamburg and Berlin figures (easy to verify, since both are indepedent Laender) bear no connection to reality... 194.80.132.250 ( talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC) As stated above the entire article bears no connection to reality (eg. Brussels: GDP $245bn, GDP PPP $83bn? Now that's an expensive place to live in!) 1812ahill ( talk) 05:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Those statitics are really funny. Thanks to WP to show them, but many of those are badly wrong. As many people noticed, Europe have certified stats (Euro Stats) about those figures but you cant find them here... Not really the WP spirit ;) 85.69.175.172 ( talk) 02:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Latin America aren't a geographical region, is only a social thing, the correct is Central America and Southern America — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGBLOCKFAN ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The Brookings Institution figures mostly seem to differ from the source. Indeed the source ref http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3 is being redirected to http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/01/22-global-metro-monitor. It looks like they produced a new report report for 2013–2014 superseding the old report (2011-12), but put it on the same url. Juniorpetjua seems to have partially updated that column on 21:37, 8 May 2015. Have I understood this correctly? (If so, it looks like there's some typing to do...) Batternut ( talk) 13:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Did the typing: Brookings GDP figures now have 2013-14 report values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batternut ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Re edits:

• (a) by 192.91.75.30 ( talk · contribs) changing Seoul's official estimate (a) from 688 $USD BN (2014) to 406 $USD BN (2015), and
• (b) by myself, changing Seoul's official estimate from that 406 $USD BN (2015) to 635 $USD BN (2015)

Let's discuss to avoid an edit-war!

The main question is should Seoul's GDP include that of Incheon and Gyeonggi-do? I think it should, as they are in Seoul's metropolitan area - see Seoul Capital Area, and generally this list includes metro areas. Batternut ( talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

No comments, so newly derived 2015 figure (635 $USD BN) added to article. Batternut ( talk) 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There are two issues I think that we should look at as it relates to the San Francisco Listing. First is labeling/identification. Some cities show up as just the city name, like San Francisco. Others in the list show the name of the metropolitan area. Unfortunately, as I now get into what comprises the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a bit of ambiguity. Most people who live in the area would consider the entire 9 county Bay Area to be the metropolitan area. Unfortunately, the Federal government considers the Bay Area to be comprised of multiple MSA's, the two largest being the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA, and the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA.

I think the best that we can do is use the same language the BLS uses on their list of MSA's by GDP and try to be consistent and not label the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA as Dallas-Fort Worth, and the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA as San Francisco. I would suggest either choosing only the largest or most prominent city in each, and then creating a footnote clearly defining what is and is not included, or using the MSA name exactly as it is used in US BLS publications.

172.92.4.251 ( talk) 06:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I think the data for Indian cities specially Delhi and Mumbai is incorrect. This list shows 293 billion USD for Delhi and 310 billion USD for Mumbai while in this list data for Delhi is just 96 billion USD and Maharashtra state (where Mumbai is located) GDP is 390 billion USD and it means Mumbai alone is producing 79-80% GDP of the state of Maharashtra. If these figures as shown in cities GDP list were true Delhi and Mumbai would both rank as middle income cities as these figures mean both the cities will have per capita GDP in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 dollars and it is not true for any city and region in India. So I think figures needs to be corrected. Also Delhi and Mumbai having these GDPs mean both the cities combined producing about 25% of the GDP of whole whole country which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.159.36 ( talk) 06:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It is the difference between PPP adjusted GDP and Nominal GDP. Batternut ( talk) 08:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

mumbai GDP is more than whole Pakistan Hhtvhjjj ( talk) 08:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

None of the data is from the UNSD, so why are we listing their regional classification? Wouldn't just using continents make more sense? Rob984 ( talk) 15:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The finer granularity of UNSD sub-region is more informative, imho. It is arbitrary, but using continents would be just as or indeed more arbitrary. Batternut ( talk) 08:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The GDP values listed as Brookings(2014) here comes from their table at Global Metro Monitor. But these figures are not listed in their reports. They concentrated on changes both in GDP per capita and in employment. GDP is just a building block for their study. They gathered the data that could derive the two changes mentioned. If they could not, they have not included such metros in their 300. Consequently, their 300 metros look almost complete to the smallest GDPs for the metros in the USA, while not in China. 25 Chinese metros in 1-100th GDPs, 22 in 101-200, and only 2 in 201-300. 13 USA metros in 1-100th, 28 in 101-200, and 29 in 201-300. Pwc(2008) lists Tehran(127b$), but it is not in Brookings. 127b$ is 106th in the Brookings 300. Brookings GDPs are not a set of the largest metro GDPs in the world. Moreover, there are some notes for some Brookings GDPs, implying the values are by a set of cities. But, I feel most of Brookings metros are rather small. I could identify many small metros around a larger one (See the maps at Global Metro Monitor or the report pdf file). Other researchers appear to add them up to make a larger metro. Use Brookings GDPs with such cautions.

Finally, my "Edit summary" was truncated. I listed up down to (1) metro. After I have noticed this list, the summary could be this.

All the 300 entries for the Brookings(2014) are now correct; Deleted: India(9), Pakistan(4) Decreased: India(4), France(1), Turkey(1) Recovered: USA(26), China(19), Japan(9), Germany(7), France(4), Taiwan(4), Canada(3), Italy(3), Netherlands(2), Switzerland(2), UK(2), Austria(1), Belgium(1), Israel(1), Kazakhstan(1), Luxembourg(1), Malaysia(1), Poland(1), Puerto Rico(1), Sweden(1), Turkey(1)

The task has filled up a day. Do not cheat the numbers. The data are just data. Ask local governments to issue their data publicly. LuisJp ( talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

India surpassed Japan in 2009 ^[1]. China did USA in 2014 ^[2]. LuisJp ( talk) 13:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

For completeness, here are all the correction details I have noticed.

Erased Karachi Pakistan South Asia 97.0 Pune India South Asia 69.0 Ahmedabad India South Asia 68.0 Surat India South Asia 59.8 Lahore Pakistan South Asia 59.0 Visakhapatnam India South Asia 43.5 Faisalabad Pakistan South Asia 35.0 Lucknow India South Asia 34.7 Jaipur India South Asia 31.2 Islamabad Pakistan South Asia 25.0 Nagpur India South Asia 18.0 Patna India South Asia 15.0 Indore India South Asia 12.0

Changed Hyderabad India South Asia 40.2 <= 402.0 ratio 10.0 Kolkata India South Asia 60.4 <= 160.4 ratio 2.5 Bangalore India South Asia 45.3 <= 110.4 ratio 2.4 Mumbai India South Asia 150.9 <= 310.0 ratio 2.1 Istanbul Turkey Middle East 348.7 <= 587.9 ratio 1.7 Chennai India South Asia 58.6 <= 78.6 ratio 1.3 Paris France Western Europe 715.1 <= 822.1 ratio 1.2 Delhi India South Asia 293.6 <= 193.6 ratio 0.7

Added Zhengzhou China East Asia 156.0 Yantai China East Asia 149.0 Shijiazhuang China East Asia 130.5 Nantong China East Asia 128.3 Kaohsiung Republic of China East Asia 113.6 Wenzhou China East Asia 101.9 Hartford United States North America 101.2 Zibo China East Asia 100.3 Aachen-Liège Belgium Western Europe 99.7 Daqing China East Asia 98.5 Nanchang China East Asia 96.0 Baotou China East Asia 94.1 Eindhoven-Den Bosch Netherlands Western Europe 91.5 Kunming China East Asia 88.6 Taoyuan Republic of China East Asia 86.8 Dongying China East Asia 83.7 Sapporo Japan East Asia 80.5 Bursa Turkey Western Asia 80.1 Tainan Republic of China East Asia 76.7 Sendai Japan East Asia 75.3 Hiroshima Japan East Asia 74.9 Nürnberg-Fürth Germany Western Europe 74.5 Buffalo United States North America 72.7 Nanning China East Asia 70.3 Huhehaote China East Asia 70.1 Bridgeport United States North America 70.0 Zhongshan China East Asia 68.7 Rochester United States North America 67.8 Anshan China East Asia 67.4 Taiyuan China East Asia 63.0 Luxembourg-Trier Luxembourg Western Europe 62.5 Hannover Germany Western Europe 59.6 Wulumuqi China East Asia 59.6 Honolulu United States North America 58.6 Shizuoka Japan East Asia 58.4 Albany United States North America 58.4 Ottawa Canada North America 58.2 Venice-Padova Italy Western Europe 57.3 Okayama Japan East Asia 56.8 Basel-Mulhouse Switzerland Western Europe 56.2 Almaty Kazakhstan East Asia 53.1 Florence Italy Western Europe 52.5 Hamamatsu Japan East Asia 52.3 Grand Rapids United States North America 51.6 Omaha United States North America 51.2 Nottingham-Derby United Kingdom Northern Europe 51.0 Bielefeld-Detmold Germany Western Europe 50.5 Niigata Japan East Asia 50.3 Bremen Germany Western Europe 47.9 Bakersfield United States North America 47.9 Toulouse France Western Europe 47.4 Braunschweig-Wolfsburg Germany Western Europe 45.5 Fresno United States North America 45.5 Worcester United States North America 44.7 Linz Austria Central Europe 44.6 Arnhem-Nijmegen Netherlands Western Europe 44.4 Genève-Annemasse Switzerland Western Europe 44.0 San Juan Puerto Rico Caribbean 42.7 Kumamoto Japan East Asia 41.8 Madison United States North America 41.8 Saarbrucken Germany Western Europe 41.7 Zhuhai China East Asia 41.3 Tucson United States North America 41.2 Greensboro United States North America 40.9 Little Rock United States North America 40.7 Syracuse United States North America 40.6 Haifa Israel Western Asia 40.4 Bordeaux France Western Europe 40.2 Gothenburg Sweden Northern Europe 40.0 Leipzig-Halle Germany Western Europe 39.6 Des Moines United States North America 39.5 Shantou China East Asia 38.7 Hsinchu Republic of China East Asia 38.4 George Town Malaysia South-East Asia 38.0 Dayton United States North America 37.5 Allentown United States North America 37.3 Strasbourg France Western Europe 37.3 Columbia United States North America 37.2 Durham United States North America 37.0 Bologna Italy Western Europe 36.3 Cardiff-Newport United Kingdom Northern Europe 36.0 Greenville United States North America 35.6 Harrisburg United States North America 35.1 Kagoshima Japan East Asia 34.3 Quebec City Canada North America 33.4 Cracow Poland Central Europe 33.1 Akron United States North America 32.8 Springfield United States North America 32.8 El Paso United States North America 32.7 Winnipeg Canada North America 32.5 Nantes France Western Europe 32.0 LuisJp ( talk) 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The current figures give Milan's GDP as near 700 million, almost as big as Chicago, even though the link to the Eurostat does not show this (if you download the document that informs the online spreadsheet, the real eurostae figure is less than 200 million!) and bigger than London which has an unsually specific figure from a different source than Eurostat citing its heavily deprecated value relative to the pound in 2016 (when the pound was plunged against dollar in the immediate aftermath of brexit vote...)

It seems like somebody or some people are trying to mislead us about which cities are the biggest European economies haha. I am not sure how to make changes however I would appreciate if this was corrected and the figures cited a consistent AND reliable source as this is potentially a really cool resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.79.196 ( talk) 20:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Please correct the flag and country column for the Chinese cities such as Beijing and Shanghai to People's Republic of China. Currently it is showing the Republic of China (Taiwan) and its flag.

Thanks! 185.62.116.67 ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I question your data on Chinese cities. I am a Chinese writer in the field of finance and economics, and I collect a lot of economic data on Chinese cities every year, but the data you put together really does not know where to mess around, which is completely wrong.

Take the data of Shanghai, the population you use is the population of the Shanghai jurisdiction, 24.89 million, so there is no need to talk about the administrative scope, right? In 2021, the GDP of this range is 4,321,485 million yuan, and the average exchange rate in 2021 is 6.4515.That translates to $669.8 billion.

You can find me for data on Chinese cities, at least in nominal GDP I can help you collect, but it is not right to write indiscriminately. And that "Chongqing", the real urban part of Chongqing is very small, have you learned?

I go on Wikipedia every day, and I will reply immediately when I see it, thank you! 李双能 ( talk) 14:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC) reply

China is releasing 2022 economic data for all regions. The average annual exchange rate of RMB against the US dollar in 2022 is 6.7261:1, and the data will be converted on this basis. 李双能 ( talk) 02:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

In the entire Wikipedia list, the concept of city scope, metropolitan scope, is too vague, and the data range is not clear, which is not a good start.How do we define the scope? Do you want to add a note or how? Here I have a proposal, that is, we all add pictures to this city and draw accurate ranges, can you try? 李双能 ( talk) 05:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, agreed. This also has repercussions for inclusion of data from different sources in different rows that define what the boundaries are of their "city" population figures differently, namely, it leads to a massive WP:SYNTH problem. Many rows in the table currently are incomparable with other rows because of this, making the column-sort widgets useless (and a SYNTH-violation); it may also require breaking up tables by sources, or listing the data as lists rather than tables, which strongly imply comparable data, which is definitely not the case at the moment. This article has some very serious problems and may require major surgery. Mathglot ( talk) 06:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Most, or perhaps all of the edits made since revision 1132434025 of 21:36, 8 January 2023 appear to be unsourced, and I am planning to roll the article back to that version, if the information changed or added to the article since then remains unsourced. User:李双能, many of these changes are from a series of edits you made starting on 15 January, and continuing since then. I'll give you some time to find sources for the data you have added or changed; would a week be sufficient? If you need help on how to cite sources, you can ask below, or at your Talk page using the {{Help me}} template, or you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

What kind of sources are needed to quote? Local government statistics bureaus or state media statistics?How should the source of the annual average exchange rate be cited? For example, the average exchange rate of RMB against the US dollar in 2022 is 6.7261 and the average exchange rate of RMB against the international US dollar in 2022 is 4.19, is it necessary to cite the source of the exchange rate? Or treat it as simple financial common sense? 李双能 ( talk) 11:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

In addition, I have another problem, which is that China's administrative divisions are too large compared to other countries. Chongqing, for example, covers 82,400 square kilometers, which is much larger than the Chicago metropolitan area. Can I edit my data within the scope of Chongqing recognized by the Chinese people? But this data will be fragmented because it is a patchwork of data from multiple regions.I can only make sure it's the same time of data. Beyond what many people realize, if the concept of a foreign metropolis is followed, the largest cities in China are Shenzhen and Guangzhou, but because of the administrative divisions, it leads to an unfair ranking. Well, let me put it bluntly, is the city scope based on existing administrative divisions or is it a custom and reasonable range by the organizers? 李双能 ( talk) 11:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems there are two questions here, one concerning the quality of the source to be cited, and the other concerning currency conversion. With respect to the first question: please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. In my opinion, both examples you mentioned are probably reliable sources, but if you have any doubts, you may pose a question at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to get more feedback about a particular source you are unsure of. (Or, search their archives for previous discussions about the source.)

With respect to the conversion question, Wikipedia has templates which will calculate the correct conversion for you, given the currency name, and the year; see Template:To USD, and Template:To USD round.

It's late in my time zone, and I will have to respond to your remaining questions tomorrow. I hope this helps, Mathglot ( talk) 12:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Please allow me to respond more generally to the questions in your second comment. Overall, it is important to understand that our role as Wikipedia editors is limited to finding information already published in reliable, secondary sources, and in the case of text content, summarizing it in our own words, and including it in the article, along with citations that make it possible for any interested reader to verify that the content is not just something we invented, but represents actual, reliable, content. In the case of non-creative content (such as population figures), we can copy numbers from tables that are generally available and fit Wikipedia's standards of a reliable source. The opposite of sourcing your data, is putting your own knowledge, opinion, or figures based on calculations you have made into an article; this is called " original research" and is strictly forbidden. A corollary of the key policy of WP:No original research is WP:SYNTH, which forbids original analysis made by an editor using a combination of two or more sources, even if they are highly reliable sources. In your question about the different types of administrative divisions, and the patchwork of data, this is understandable, and if you were a demographer or a scientist writing a report, then one task you would have to address is how to deal with all these different systems, and you might find some way to align all the source data so they could be directly compared. However, as a Wikipedia editor, you cannot do this, because that would be a synthesis of different sources made by you, and you (and me, and everybody at Wikipedia) are not a reliable source; we cannot add your streamlined, comparable data, along with a citation containing your name on it. (But, if you do that work, adjusting the data to make it directly comparable across administrative divisions, and get a reliable journal in China to publish your new information, then you *can* add it to the article, along with a citation to your published paper.) Does this make sense to you? Think of it this way: *everything* must be traceable to a reliable source, so that any reader of Wikipedia can assure themselves by following a footnote, that the information was published somewhere before, and is not original work by some random Wikipedia editor.

The flip side of this, is this: if you find an article that lacks citations for assertions in the article, you are free to remove that content from the article, even if that results in reducing an article of 185kb, 25 sections, and fifteen tables to a single sentence. (I don't recommend that in practice, because courtesy would suggest raising it on the Talk page first, and allowing interested editors some time to source the content, rather than have it suddenly removed, even if removal is correct, according to policy.) In this article, as in many demographic articles about GDP, HDI, population, etc., one convention is to add the source in a citation in each column header of a table, for all figures in that column. As long as every figure in that column is traceable to the source indicated in the column header citation, that is satisfactory.

Given the general level of this reply, does this give you enough to go on, now? If you still have more specific questions, please ask and I'll try to address them individually. Mathglot ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

So I have a simple question, for example, Chongqing's 82,400-square-kilometer area is a "prefecture-level city". It also has several range concepts, such as "urban area", which has an area of 43,200 square kilometers, and "main city 21 districts", which has an area of 28,700 square kilometers, of course, the most recognized is the "main city nine districts", an area of 4,779 square kilometers, in addition to which people have also proposed a "main city eleven districts", which range of data should be used to be reasonable? 李双能 ( talk) 03:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, 李双能. Regarding your sample city, I think you may be asking the wrong question. I found Chongqing in two tables: § Major metropolitan areas (PPP)} (where it is #17) and § Full List (Nominal) (#26); are you asking about one of these tables, or both? The first table claims sourcing by Visual Capitalist (in the section header for column six)—if true, that's a good thing, and then there is no SYNTH problem. I checked the VC source, where Chongqing is listed as 407,562 (millions of USD), and that matches our article, so the value in our article for Chongqing is verified by the given source. On the other hand, we list Chongqing as #17 (below Guangzhou, #16) and the VC source lists it as #24 in the Metropolitan Areas column (above Guangzhou, #25), so why is that? That seems problematic, and something must be wrong, somewhere. (That wasn't your question, but it identifies a different problem, and it should be addressed.)

So, I said you might be asking the wrong question above. What I meant was, when you ask about "prefecture-level" versus "urban area" or "main city districts", it sounds like you are talking about either something you know professionally, or something you learned from another source, that is, a source that is *not* the VC source cited in column six, as the VC source never mentions any of these, and therefore, you cannot use any of them in the article, and your question doesn't make sense in this context. You could ask that question in a different context, and propose that some other source (other than the VC source) be used instead, because your theoretical other source knows about these distinctions, and then as long as this other source has Chongqing, and all the other world cities we would like to report on, in theory you could throw out the current table based on VC entirely, and start from zero with a new table based on your other source. From a practical point of view, this would probably meet with opposition, as you'd have to provide some reason why it was worth spending the effort to do this, when we already have a table which seems okay, and properly sourced. It's not impossible, so if you really want to try this, raise another discussion below and propose it, giving your reasons why the VC-based table should be replaced by another one.

If we keep the current, VC-based table, then the answer to your question is that we cannot use any of the other city/prefecture/urban/main types you speak of, because the VC source we are using doesn't have them. Adding any of them yourself based on your own knowledge, analysis, derivation, or calculation would be prohibited WP:Original research. Hope this helps. Mathglot ( talk) 01:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sir, it was me, not you, who answered you this time. According to the data of the prefecture-level Chongqing city, in 2022, Chongqing's official GDP exceeded 290 million yuan, while Guangzhou's 289 million yuan, surpassed by Chongqing, and Chongqing's ranking higher than Guangzhou is correct, which is the situation in 2022.The standards of "Chongqing urban area" and "Chongqing main city 21 district" and "main city 9 district" mentioned to you earlier were not created by me, but were designed by Chongqing's official design. The "21st District of the Main City" is often used to compare other cities in China. Say something interesting and you may not believe it.In addition to "prefecture-level cities", China has also developed a "Chinese version of metropolitan areas" in recent years. Except for Chongqing, all of these metropolitan areas are larger than their own prefecture-level administrative divisions. Because Chongqing is so big that it can't be considered a city at all.Of course, if you feel that Chongqing's super-large jurisdiction does not affect the ranking of other cities, then you can do so, and I want to say that the data of visual capitalists is only a prediction, and the actual data should prevail, rather than the use of visual capitalists' data, the predicted data is meaningless

If you find it difficult to check the official data, then I can provide you with China's social platforms. The following website is also very simple to use, for example, if you enter "Yongzhou Development Bulletin" (please translate it into Chinese first), you can see the communiqué data released by the official media below. Then you convert according to the annual average exchange rate.It's that simple, it's not dragging on at all, and you can look up GDP data for Chinese cities on this platform.Of course, I personally usually use the data provided by the official website of the local statistical bureau or the "City GDP Ranking" mini program, but unfortunately it is difficult to provide links to the outside world because of the firewall.

www.toutiao.com 李双能 ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Roll back to revision 1132434025 of 21:36, 8 January 2023 completed. If you believe I have inadvertently removed an edit of yours since then, please provide the revision id, or the exact timestamp of the edit and the source that verifies it, and I will restore it for you. Alternatively, if you prefer, you can restore your edit. Please do not add unsourced material to this article, they will just be reverted, and may result in warnings on your Talk page. As always, changes backed by citations to a reliable source are welcome; please feel free to add them.

This rollback may not have been sufficient to guarantee verifiability of the remaining figures in the article, and a further rollback may be required. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

In the meantime, further edits have been made in good faith, but combining (sourced) figures from two different years and performing arithmetic on them to deduce the per-capita GDP. This results in a meaningless value, and these edits have been removed. (The question of further rollbacks has not been addressed yet, and is still pending. Besides requiring reliable sources, please pay attention to WP:SYNTH, and that data is logically consistent and corresponds to the correct year. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

No, the GDP of Chinese cities in 2021 was updated (adjusted) again at the end of last year, but I don't have all the information yet.Thank you for your patience, but our government did not release all the data adjustments in a timely manner. If you want, you can search for economic data on Chinese cities on Chinese website (these are not adjusted for last year). Cheers! 李双能 ( talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Meanwhile, Wikiuser552 has been working diligently to update the table and put it on a sound footing, including use of the templates {{ to USD}} and {{ per capita}}, which should reduce the risk of errors. So let's see where things end up after their round of changes. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 07:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey maybe it’s time to include Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region and Greater Shanghai metropolitan area to table. Pearl river delta has population density of 1500 per sq km which is similar to London metro or Tokyo metro and GDP of 1.9 trillion. It’s unfair we don’t have these metropolitan areas in table just separate cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou. 84.15.182.142 ( talk) 17:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair point, Is there a consistent definition for Chinese metropolitan areas? Beijing is certainly a huge city, but 110,000,000 seems too high for the urban population around Beijing-Tianjin. We need a consistent classification of metro areas that doesn't include regions that over 217,000 square kilometers in area, with a population density of just 507/km2. "Jingjinji Metropolitan Region" covers a land area larger than that of Belarus! Greater London, by comparison, is much more modest 9,000 square kilometers. Remember, this article is titled, "List of cities by GDP." BDS2006 ( talk) 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ranking should be determined automatically by the GDP data. For example, both San Francisco and Paris are ranked #8. Furthermore, there two cities ranked 9th and 10th, respectively. Anyone willing to fix this annoying issue? BDS2006 ( talk) 22:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The list is currently sorted alphabetically by default which is not very intuitive. On the Wikipedia app, there is no way to choose other parameters by which to sort the data. Sorting by GDP (descending) would be the most intuitive. BDS2006 ( talk) 22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Someone removed Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, who should at least do your duty to add those mega cities (or Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region) back to the list if you feel this bay area too large in your understanding... 103.146.82.123 ( talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please refer to bea.gov for the most current MSA and CSA GDP data. Also, you report CSA data for NY, LA and Chicago and MSA data for the other areas. The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA has a GDP of over $1.3T according to the latest data release for 2022, and Chicago's CSA is in the 800B range, Dallas is also only in the 700B range 2601:644:4902:B970:2D7C:EC41:FABB:9BA ( talk) 10:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply