Talk:List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates

message: To everybody who thinks the data given here is not real: PLEASE consider the currency exchange rate first. Thank you. --SleepySheepy (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

message: According to this list, the nominal GDP of the EU will be 15,342.908 billions of USD by the end of this year, and it was 18,394,115 millions of USD (about 18,394 billions) last year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) ). However according to IMF's "WORLD ECONOMIC OUTPUT (APRIL 2009)/Real GDP Growth"-list (http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php) the GDP of the EU will "only" fall 4% this year. Using simple mathematics ( 18,394,115 * 0.04 = 735,764.1 18,394,115 - 735,764.1 = 17,658,350.9 ) would make the GDP of the EU about 17,658,350.9 millions of USD next year. Am I doing something wrong here or did they forgot about 2 trillion dollars!? - Swedish pirate (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note that both lists provided were updated at about the same time. - Swedish pirate (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get IMF! 

message: gdp growth rates and exchange rates are changing all the time the numbers for 2008 could have been made a year ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.250.83 (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: are the numbers from this list going to replace the real list next year ?

message: 2007
Russia 1.3 trillion
Brazil 1.31 trillion
2008 
Russia 1.7 trillion
Brazil 1.6 trillion
how are those countries and Spain growing faster than Canada which has a strong currency, lots of oil, and ranks 8-9th in the world in exports and imports.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: stability, lots of oil, strong currency, etc. aren't the only factors in  growth. Canada also has a very stifling tax/social welfare system that makes doing business in Canada very undesirable. Canada also is much less populous than Russia and Brazil, thus it's market is consequently smaller.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  then what happened in 2009 ?  Russia and Brazil contracted a lot more than Canada did.
Chchow (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  the new estimates show that Canada is almost keeping up with India's growth until 2014 and Russia until 2013  overtaking Spain in 2 years
Grmike (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How can the gdp numbers be right

message: India's Nominal GDP is higher than projected in this list
Cross posting from the merged thread
Indian GDP for 2007 
Its crossed the 1 trillion dollar mark guys... As such the 933 billion dollar figure is inaccurate and wrong.     ''
The IMF data is not uptodate. If there is no data available from other reliable sources then we must rely on it. If there is uptodate accurate data available why stick to the old, inacurate data provided by IMF?
Chanakyathegreat 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it IMF data is out of date for India, it's also out of date for everyone else, so take it easy.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Your 2008 figure is WP:OR, your 2007 figure is replacing a figure from a international, reliable, independent source. If you want to use local media as a source for all countries an all years, this page will become in-maintainable and the values will be incomparable with each other. Coming September the IMF will update their figures, please be patient. --Van helsing 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good grief. Yeah, that's right the IMF is just a big conspiracy to screw-over India and tick off impotent Indian nationalists like yourself whose entire self-worth is dependent on how great India is. See a therapist.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: India's Nominal GDP

message: This article correctly makes use of parentheses to designate alternative names or information about the listed countries.  It also incorrectly (by any manual of style, and companion articles) uses parentheses to show parent countries of separately listed territories.  IE, Republic of China (Taiwan) is correct, it tells the reader the more familiar name.  Hong Kong (People's Republic of China) is not correct, PRC is not a more familiar name for Hong Kong.  Hong Kong is a constituent part of the People's Republic of China.  As a manual of style would direct, going from lesser to greater for a place name necessitates a comma. The name Hong Kong uses in economic NGOs is Hong Kong, China. I am going to make that change. In doing so, I am removing Kingdom of the Netherlands from Netherlands Antilles, as Netherlands is already part of the name, giving readers all that they need to know. SchmuckyTheCat 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please discuss before you apply your preference. Second, British Columbia isn't (as at 20:14, June 9, 2006) British. — Instantnood 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: parentheses

message: Plus, Taiwan is not a country, it should appear in the list the same format as Hong Kong and Macau!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chow (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan is not a country, but the Republic of China is. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan is not a country! 

message: Re  - Why should the Netherlands Antilles be ranked, but not Hong Kong? — Instantnood 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that I changed the numbering scheme.  Quit making stupid style edits that get reverted and this kind of thing won't happen. Why don't you re-number Hong Kong without making other edits you know will be reverted? SchmuckyTheCat 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes in three different edits . You have the obligation to revert only what you disagrees. " .. stupid style edits .. " - Please take note of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. — Instantnood 06:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by user:SchmuckyTheCat

message: Come on, the figures for Zimbabwe are comical - where on Earth have these statistics come from? Obviously wrong, as Zimbabwe's economy is shrinking and hardly exploding, even nominally, as suggested here.58.160.121.129 11:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zimbabwe!?!

message: I think the separate list of trade blocks with the EU and Mercosur looks silly. There was a long discussion about this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29, where the consensus was to keep the EU in the main table, without a ranking. To summarize, the European Union is unique in the world (not at all comparable to Mercosur or any other trade bloc), and is economically close to being a country. Can we agree to put the EU back in the main table, and delete the table of trade blocs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.72.27 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade blocks? 

message: To the person who added the "Economy 40% down" comment : The World Bank made that correction to China's GDP *PPP*, not nominal GDP. 
Commutator (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China's GDP

message: I think is needed now the new estimations for 2009.LearnratesX (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New estimations for 2009

message: The E.U cannot be added to the list since it is not a country. And if E.U is added as a country in the list then we have to remove the member states from the list like U.K, Germany, France, Italy etc.Chanakya The Great (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The EU being present on such lists has a long precedence. And anyway, based on your logic we would have to remove all the nations because the world is listed. 78.105.230.196 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  E.U 

message: they are all very close for the next 5-6 years small changes in exchange rates or the price of oil could change the order of them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.63.221 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada, Spain, Brasil Nominal GDP

message: Its ridiculous to suggest that pakistan has currently a half a trillion dollar economy measured in nominal terms. Which is projected to become a trillion dollar one by 2010. these are the antics of some self-deprecating idiot from pakistan going through an inferiority complex.
Rather than mouth off like some pathetic angry idiot, revert the changes, should be simple enough to do. And vandalism happens all over Wikipedia, which is why this site will never be a fully reliable academic source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan

message: October database is available
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=79&pr.y=7&sy=2008&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C446%2C914%2C666%2C612%2C668%2C614%2C672%2C311%2C946%2C213%2C137%2C911%2C962%2C193%2C674%2C122%2C676%2C912%2C548%2C313%2C556%2C419%2C678%2C513%2C181%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698%2C941&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=
I'll start to modify the old data and to order the table based on 2013 values  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadeiuss (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Economic Outlook Database, October 2008 

message: Can anyone post a source link to figures posted by User:58.9.163.196? In other way they have to be restored to IMF data. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data from November-December 2008. 

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries.  Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discussion

message: Which column is used to come up with the initial ranking of the list that readers see when they just start reading the article (i.e., before manually ranking the list)?
I assume this should be according to the 2008 data, but it is not. Actually, none of the columns proved to be consistently used for this ranking. Therefore, I propose to fix this problem using the 2008 estimate as reference to apply the initial ranking. Tomeasy T C 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank according to which column? 

message: There must be some serious flaws about India. India is the next superpower and the major competitor of China. How it possible India's GDP is so tiny.
China 2008 4,222.423
India 2008 1,232.946
China 2014 9,156.053
India 2014 2,285.012
That is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with India? 

message: lets stick to the firgures from the IMF october 2008,  the next update are in April  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.34.139 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets stick to IMF

message: by next year Canada is expected to overtake Brazil and it will have a larger economy for the next 3 years.  if it takes a phenomenal year for India in 2013 to get it past Canada for the first time in history it doesn't deserve the spot its at.  Keep Canada where it's at until 2011 and then check the estimates for 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.224.12 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please get India outta there stop overrating its size

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) "Taiwan, Republic of China"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita "China, Republic of (Taiwan)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth "Taiwan"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_and_Pacific_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) "Republic of China (Taiwan)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) contains a footnote which explains that the name "Taiwan, Province of China" is based on the IMF's naming convention. For tables which use IMF data, it might not be a bad idea to name Taiwan consistently and incorporate a footnote to clarify the name for people (like me) who are confused because they are not familiar with the IMF's naming convention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.47.123 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan - Naming Consistency (IMF Data) 

message: I think theese estimates are very low  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.59.192 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theese are funny :) 

message: International Monetary Fund list says germanys GDP of 2008 is 3,667,513 
How can it be that it is already MUCH higher than what is expected for 2014 (3,292.870) while it's growing each year on this list?
German GDP must shrink by 16.8% in 2009 to get low as the stupid 2009 estimation of 3,060.312
This list is completely nonsense,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.118.33 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany completely wrong! 2008 GDP is already much higher than this 2014 estimation  

message: one of the worst recessions in the world happened between 2008 data and 2009.  that's why almost every economy contracted.
average exchange rate of euro to us dollar was about 1.4-1.5 in 2008.
in 2009 so far it's between 1.35-1.40.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.1 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: economies are suppose to contract in 2009, Euro went down in value

message: is currently undergoing deletion. Please replace its use in the article with its relevant successor template  --Cybercobra (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: JPG-GR (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  template replacement 

message: in 2008 their lists differed a lot .  world bank Canada gdp 1.4 trillion cia factbook Canada gdp 1.6 trillion.  the imf list is not more important than the other ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.1 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: cia factbook, world bank also make their own lists

message: The current table seems not to include the only verified data of the year 2008. Right now all annual figures including the year 2009 are estimates and speculation. I´m wondering that not one figure here has a sustainable value. Very strange. Seniorfox (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the data is a projection of factual data put together by the imf over the course of the year.  the page is titled estimates for that reason.Grmike (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystalball table

message: the gdp is 920 billion putting it ahead of South Korea, Mexico.Grmike (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the table is ranked for the column most right, while you looked at the left. Tomeasy T C 07:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: South Korea, Spain, Russia rankings reflect the first column not the last.  ranking using the first column is better because the data in the right columns becomes progressively less reliable.Grmike (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong inclination to either coumn being used, as long as one column is used consistently. Tomeasy T C 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia should be higher

message: Majority of european countries were in recession during 2009. How can the article present a growth GDP for countries like Spain?
Please, this article is not acceptable for studies and consult. Someone clear that data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malves12 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this has no sense 

message: Sorry but that list its a bunch of crap.Polish GDP nominal is already more than 567,400 and on that list estimates on 2014 is 535,655.So what?One of the fastest growing economy will not grow or will contract?please somebody fix that list of nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.201.88 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The dear Mr SleepySheepy is indeed right. It has a lot to do with the exchange rate, as the Polish GDP that presumably is first calculated in PLN needs to tranfered into USD to be comparable to all the others. This transition is done by nothing else than the exchange rate. Hence, if the Polish economy stagnates in PLN it can still in- or decrease in USD. Tomeasy T C 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the new IMF estimate for Poland for 2010 will be around 495 billions (or more), although the official data for 2009 will remain at around 420 billions. When IMF calculates the GDP in dollars, it divides the GDP in national currency by the average exchange rate during the given year. For example, if the average exchange rate USD/PLN in 2008 was 2.41 and the GDP in national currency is 1,271.734, then the GDP in dollars will be 1,271.734 / 2.41 = 527.700. The average exchange rate in 2009 was more or less 3.14 PLN for 1 USD; estimated GDP in national currency for 2009 is 1,332.339 billions. Let's divide 1,332.339/3.14. Result = 424 billions. So it's very similar to IMF's estimate (422 billions). --SleepySheepy (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland  

message: I wrote some code today. When you go to the source with IMF data, select everything using your mouse, copy & paste to a text file (in.txt). My program will sort everything according to the left-most year. Then it will create an output file with wiki-like formating. You just need to copy the content of the output file and paste it to wiki ;)
This is the code of my program:
/*
* VERY IMPORTANT:
*
* there HAS TO be a SPACE at the end of each line !!!
*
* there HAS TO be a new line at the end of the input file !!!
*
* name of the input file: in.txt
* name of the output file: out.txt
*
* The programme does not need any parameters to run
*
*/
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef struct strROWS {
   char line[1000];
   double value;
} strROWS;
void operate_on_row(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *row);
void word(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *word, int *WRITE, int *SPACE_OR_PIPES, int *WAS_FIRST_YEAR);
double extract_value(char *word);
int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b);
int main(void)
{
   FILE *fileIn, *fileOut;
   strROWS RowsOfStr[500];
   int current_row = 0;
   char row[1000];
   char character;
   int current_char = 0;
   char get_enter[5];
   int i; //loop counter
   fileIn = fopen("in.txt", "rt");
   if (fileIn == NULL)
   {
      printf("I can't open the input file in.txt\n");
      fgets(get_enter, 3, stdin);
      return 1;
   }
   fileOut = fopen("out.txt", "wt");
   if (fileOut == NULL)
   {
      printf("I can't open the output file out.txt\n");
      fgets(get_enter, 3, stdin);
      fclose(fileIn);
      return 1;
   }
   while ( (character = fgetc(fileIn)) != EOF )
   {
      if (character != '\n')  //there HAS TO be a new line at the end of the input file
      {
          row[current_char] = character;
          current_char++;
      }
      else
      {
          row[current_char] = '\0';
          RowsOfStr[current_row].line[0]='\0';
          operate_on_row(current_row, RowsOfStr, row);  //operate on this row
          current_row++; // go to the next row
          current_char = 0;
      }
   }
   qsort((void *)RowsOfStr, current_row, sizeof(strROWS), sort_function);
   for (i=current_row-1; i>=0; i--)
   {
       fprintf(fileOut, "|");
   }
   if ( strcmp(word, "") == 0 )
   {
       *WRITE=1;
       return;
   }
   if (*WRITE==0) return;
   if (*SPACE_OR_PIPES == 1)
      strcat(structure[current_line].line, " ");
   else
   {
      if (*WAS_FIRST_YEAR == 0)
      {
         *WAS_FIRST_YEAR = 1;
         structure[current_line].value = extract_value(word);
         //return; //omit first year (use this year only for sorting)
      }
      strcat(structure[current_line].line, " || ");
   }
   strcat(structure[current_line].line, word);
}
double extract_value(char *word)
{
    char buf[100];
    int i;
    int found_a_comma = 0;
    int marker;
    double to_return;
    strcpy(buf, word);
    do {
         marker = 0;
         for (i=0; buf[i]!='\0'; i++)
         {
              if ( buf[i] == ',' )
              {
                   found_a_comma = 1;
                   buf[i] = '\0';
                   strcat(buf, buf+i+1);
                   marker = 1; //breaks the loop earlier
                   break; //break the FOR loop
              }
         }
         if ( marker == 0 ) found_a_comma = 0; //if "normally" exited the loop
    }
    while ( found_a_comma == 1 );
    to_return = atof(buf);
    return to_return;
}
int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b)
{
   if ( ((strROWS*)a)->value < ((strROWS*)b)->value ) return -1;
   if ( ((strROWS*)a)->value > ((strROWS*)b)->value ) return 1;
   return 0;  // a == b
}
--SleepySheepy (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic IMF-data extractor ;) 

message: Cuba information has been removed. Why has this happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.136.175 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for late reply. I don't know why. The article contains all the countries mentioned in IMF's WEO Database. Tomorrow a new WEO Database should be released. Maybe it will contain Cuba. --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Still no data for Cuba. --SleepySheepy (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who took Cuba Information 

message: Turkmenistan is missing from this list, but appears in the List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates. Is this an oversight?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.137.189 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not in the source, then it's the IMF's fault. Ask them. We can't do anything about it lol --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkmenistan missing. 

message: Why are countries like Canada and Australia almost always estimated at the very low end 2+ years in the future, every time the list is made?  Those countries were suppose to grow less than 50 billion in 2011 even though they had nominal gdp growth similar to China and Brazil in 2010, and again they outperformed by a lot.  For example last year every list had Canada and Australia trailing countries like Russia and India by a large margin as recently as 2011/2012 but every year they end up outperforming by a lot.  My guess would be the large populations in the developing world they think will have a much bigger impact than the rising prices of natural resources/stable currencies (Canada).  I know this isn't a forum for debate but just wanted to know if anyone has noticed growth IN countries like Australia usually being a lot higher in the future than the estimates suggest.Grmike (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question about how the IMF makes future estimates

message: Where is data about Libya ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.165 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Libya data is not given in the list.  it says na for every year.Grmike (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libya missing 

message: Why not just rename this page 'IMF List of countries by future GDP'?, then with that solved you can all go and argue about the rankings in top of the pops. Don't you all see these figures are meaningless? 
1) Because of the dollar exchange rate issue, which can't be predicted 40 days ahead, let along 40 years! If it could I would be a very, very rich man. 
2) Because the same thing applies to growth rates.
3) Because you certainly cannot predict events like natural disasters (I'm obviously alluding to Japan's tsunami here), the effects of civil unrest in places like China and the middle east, future wars over natural resources, etc, etc.
On that last point, maybe we would all be better off if these figures weren't rising so fast, but falling. The planet can't handle us at the moment, so can you imagine what its gonna be like when China's output becomes greater than the whole world's right now. One thing is certain, by 2050, a few of the countries at the bottom can be removed from the list as they will be sunk (literally).1812ahill (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop your childish arguments: