Talk:Global city/Archive 1

message: People are changing the GaWC list.  Everything after Washington DC in row 6 has been added on this page and differs from the GaWC report.  And Dublin has been added to row 4.  Was this discussed on this talk page, or with the GaWC authors? --DeanoNightRider 12:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: People are changing the GaWC list

message: World city is an actual term in cultural geography.
:If there's an authoritative definition from an academic discipline, one or more definitions with references could be helpful here.  ishu 04:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural geography 

message: I propose that the following cities be added to the list, as I feel that the meet most of the criteria in the article (especially the early ones):
*Delhi
*Tel Aviv
*St. Petersburg
*Athens
*Munich
*Barcelona
*Florence
*Venice
*Montreal
*Vancouver
*Boston
*Philadelphia
*Houston
*Dallas
I'd like to get a response before taking any action.
Acegikmo1 03:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding cities to list 

message: According to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html, only two of the 27 surveys consider Chicago an alpha world city.  Should Chicago be removed from the alpha list?  RickK 20:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
* Sorry RickK, but there are problems with that. If we remove Chicago, why not also remove Los Angeles being another city that only has two mentions on the 27 listed? Or Singapore which is only listed once. The problem with our re-intepretation of the GAWC studies is that they used a lot of criteria in defining what a world city is besides just those authors opinions. Read some of the breakdowns by industry further down in the studdy. It's also worth noting that the same sources were used several times throughout the 27 listed (Reed was used twice, so was Sassen). As a result situations change. I don't see any reason why Chicago, Los Angeles, Milan or Singapore should be removed, as that wasn't the only criteria used. This section of the thread should be closed.
This web page here seems to be consistent with this current article. Is it really up to the members of Wikipedia to decide which cities are alpha world cities?! --Rebroad 21:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago

message: Surely, Ottawa the capital of Canada is more important than Winnipeg! Earl Andrew 22:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottawa

message: I don't think that GaWC stuff from Loughbrough or whatever University should be on this page because it seems to lack NPOV, at least unless and until that terminology gets picked up and used by urban studies scholars at several better-known and more prestigious universities.  Otherwise we're going to have instructors at every community college putting their own idiosyncratic ontologies and theories into Wikipedia.  
My concern is that the terminology fails to reflect the firm consensus of scholars who specialize in studying cities (and we should be striving for the neutral consensus view since this is an encyclopedia).  For example, I just ran a LexisNexis search on the ALLNEWS file (which covers all news from 1980 onward in the majority of English-language newspapers and magazines) and the total number of articles that mention "alpha world city" is three.  And yes, that's including plural forms as well.
--Coolcaesar 08:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on with that Alpha Gamma World City whatever stuff? 

message: Tehran megapolis with 15.000.000 inhabitants and full service (2 international airports, metro, numerous museums, recreational facilities, cable cars, 6 ski resorts, 800 large parks etc.) containing a huge number of large industrial centers, one of the largest highway systems of the world etc. is a world city for many years. Why is it put down the list by some? It is at least many times bigger and more equipped than Madrid.
--212.238.143.99 11:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tehran

message: Since this list is nowhere near realistic, it is highly dubious.  Frankfurt? One day Berlin may be a world city, but I would say that Germany doesn't have any at present, partly as a deliberate federal policy.  I would say that Europe's world cities are London, Paris, Moscow and Istanbul, based on a combination their size and their significance to the rest of the world.  My POV, but if the list is nowhere near what I and others think then it has little value.   And note that the fact that the vast majority are in the nothern hemisphere is not a surprise; so are the vast majority of the world's landmass and the vast majority of its population. --Henrygb 03:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrealistic 

message: The page has been much more stable for the past month, ever since I added pictures of the big four world cities and Randwicked got rid of most of the controversial GaWC list. 
I think seeing what a real world city looks like is enough to drive away most of the bozos who think that their own little hometown deserves to be called a world city!
--Coolcaesar 10:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like adding some pictures was the right idea

message: --I think we need to remove the last four on the list of criteria for being a World City. The requirement of having hosted an Olympics is really nonsensical; I suppose Lake Placid and Lillehammer are more World Cities than New York City? Also, the other three of the last four are highly subjective and don't have much to do with the topic: what sizable city couldn't claim to have a "unique cultural air", "varied retailers" and "landmarks"? --Jleon 14:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of criteria 

message: Fascinating point--one criteria is to multiethnic communities...yet this is specifically noted as being  true for the Western World only? The fact may not be contentious, but we should at least say why the different standards. Surely many people will feel this is singling out one region of the world, and we should explain why, assuming we have good justification. ~ Dpr 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Moscow is a very multinational city, but there are no "Chinatowns" in it becauise of litte city areas diversification. All the nationalities live in all the city areas. Couriously, there are EXIST a place called "Китай-город", which could be literally translated "China-town", but this is obviously a medieval name and percent of chaneese is the same there. By the way, in Medieval times there were ethnical areas of the city - for example "Немецкая слобода" - a German area. I think, this could not be an indicator of significancy of a city.--Nixer 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "In the West"

message: Should any note be made of the fact that any one world city may have another large urban center in the mantle of its metro area, or at least within close proximity? It may sometimes be difficult to dissect a large urban center and localize what part counts as significant and what doesn't. ~ Dpr 07:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Metro Areas

message: --I suggest that this article be renamed "Global city" with a redirect from "World city," rather than the other way around. I'm not sure what the case is in the U.K., Canada, or Australia, but in the U.S. the term 'global city' is by far the most common. Also, most writers in Urban Studies/Urban Planning & Urban Sociology use the term almost universally in preference to 'world city.' --Jleon 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to rename article 

message: I removed most of the GaWC list again. Good lord, what monster have I birthed here? Comparing the newest Wikipedia list to the one on their website shows little to no correspondence apart from the first four, as usual. Topeka??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Try boosting your cities now, fools! - Randwicked 13:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of that.  The ignorance of people who have never visited a true megacity is just amazing.  --Coolcaesar 10:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GaWC 

message: I removed the div tag surrounding the first 4 images on the page (London, New York, Paris, Tokyo). Since my Wikipedia preferences specify large image thumbnails, and the div was limited in width to 145 pixels, it broke formatting for me (under Mozilla Firefox in Linux), causing the article text to flow under the pictures, causing much fo the content to disappear from view. Removing the div tag seems to have fixed the problem. However, I realize that cross-platform/cross-browser compatibility for things like this can be tough, so if the formatting now looks broken for someone else, it's probably my fault and you can feel free to revert my change. :) Colin M. 06:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting fix for first 4 images 

message: Sorry, but that picture is awful. The other pictures are impressive shots of the city, and Milan's is... what, a school? A government building? There's a fountain in front, sure, but the picture isn't anywhere near as good as the others. I'm taking out the picture. Feel free to add a better one. --Matt Yeager 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
: Done. Gryffindor 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there!  I changed the pictures for Milan (with the Duomo di Milano in prominence), Paris (with the Eiffel Tower at night), and NYC (with city and Central Park in view); I think they are now better than their predecessors.  Whatyathink? E Pluribus Anthony 02:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! Very nice.  --Coolcaesar 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milan's picture 

message: The first sentence of this article is one of the stupidest I've encountered on Wiki: "A global city (also known as a world city or world-class city) is a city with a somewhat arbitrary set of traits, some of which are listed below." "Somewhat arbitrary" and "some of which are listed" brought to mind a bored editor with a beer and a box of donuts and nothing else to do but add this article, perhaps in an attempt to denigrate the idea. Seriously, lead sentences need to say something and the lead here seems to state "don't bother reading it's just a bit of bullshit." Marskell 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno who came up with that awful, awful lead-in (one would have to trace through a LOT of this frequently vandalized article's history to find who put it in) but I suspect that it was probably done as a foolish attempt to comply with the neutral-point-of-view policy.  Unfortunately, it's only made the article worse.  --Coolcaesar 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead