Talk:List of the largest administrative divisions by GRDP

message: Where are Seoul and Gyeonggi?
GDP of seoul or Gyeonggi exceeds 200 bil dollars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.145.190.9 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seoul and Gyeonggi 

message: ... is not appropriate per MOS:FLAG. Anyone interested in cleaning it up? Plus it looks really weird to have a country flag next to a subdivision name. Most of these entities have their own flags in fact, e.g. . So, either we add the country names or remove the flags altogether.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of flag icons without country name... 

message: Call me daft, but what does the grey background mean? —Felix the Cassowary 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color coding? 

message: Is this list real? Why is Scotland richer than Catalonia? This doesn't make sense. 90.171.122.196 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland vs Catalonia 

message: Is there a reason why there is Washington D.C., and District of Columbia? –Spesh531, My talk, and  External links 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington, D.C. or District of Columbia? 

message: The "Subjects of the Federation" of Russia are second-level, not first-level. The Federal Districts are first-level.
Moreover, Russia and Belorussia consider themselves parts of the Union State. So, Russia and Belorussia are actually first-level. СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia. 

message: the destricts have governours too and capitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia
i will add them as kind of a benchmark to mess but not numbered, i will use this list below of gdp per capita x times the population which will be the total gdp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_subjects_by_GRP#Per_capita --Shokioto22 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian subjects should be replaced with federal districts 

message: Currently there are several sources listing the GDP in currencies other than USD. Be it Euros or Pesos or whatever, the exchange rates used in the article don't always seem to reflect the reference year. We should decide on how to determine the rate used for such conversions. IMO there are two possibilities: either we take the exchange rate as of 31 December of the reference year, or we use the annual average exchange rate for that year (e.g. here). At the moment though, several list entries seem to be based on the daily rate from the time of the edit or other undefined exchange values. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange rates 

message: There have been problems with referencing the GDP of England, namely the choice of source. On my user talk page, AfricaTanz stated that for political subdivisions the GDP equals the GDP, so we could use this table. But at least according to our own Wikipedia articles I'm having a hard time following this logic. The Gross regional domestic product is said to be the aggregate data of one region's GVA, but then Gross value added as such has to be corrected for taxes and subsidies to get the GDP proper. On the other hand, I'm not too happy with the source introduced by Der Statisker: . This link to Eurostat leaves it open which of the several databases should be consulted for reference. The data there is provided for the NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions, which in case of England include an awful lot of subunits like Greater Manchest, East Cumbria, and so on (see Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions). So, even if we sum up all possible English NUTS X regions from these lists we're still left with the problem of conversion from Euro to USD (see thread above). De728631 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  England data 

message: There is currently an editing conflict where one user disagrees that England is a subdivision. I can see your point of view that there is no official "English government" but it seems daft that in this article the UK is separated into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland... what is England to you then? The UK's first level country subdivisions are definitely England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, regardless if there's an official English government. In the Administrative geography of the United Kingdom it clearly states "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.". For local government in the United Kingdom, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own system of administrative and geographic demarcation. The article continues and clearly refers to the first level administration of the UK as the four countries. Just because an English parliament doesn't exist doesn't mean the subdivision of "England" doesn't. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you think if "seems daft" from your perspective but fortunately, Wikipedia relies on citations and not what seems daft. I don't mean that as unkind retort, simply asking that you stick to sourcing instead of how things seem. There are many things wrong with this list, but I'm starting my clean up on the issue of making an economic comparison between a Country like England and those of states and provinces. While I asked for a citation in my deletion description, you chose to reference a Wikipedia article instead (WP:CIRCULAR). Fine, but the actual reference used in the quote you grabbed was from a UN Standardization document that actually described the first division of the UK as being between Great Britain and North Ireland (but not as its first level administrative division). It subsequently refers to England as a "Country", which is not the title for a subdivision of a country; hence my complaint about comparing the economy of a country to a state or province (unless that is the point of the list). But most importantly, this UN Standards document specifically states about England: "Note that the process of devolution omits England entirely. There is consequently no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing United Kingdom at this very high level, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be considered first-order administrative divisions in the conventional sense" (pg.5 'Administrative Divisions Summary). I don't see how this can be interpreted in any other way than exclusion of England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland from this list. If you have a better citation, preferably from the UK government itself, I'd be happy to entertain it. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your comment and my general thought is either have all four "countries" of the UK or none of them. I don't quite understand the idea of Great Britain as an entity because Great Britain is a purely geographical term, not political. The UK government website (.gov.uk) splits the UK up as England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. This is how the gov.uk website illustrates matters such as voting laws and student finance. Interestingly, it should be considered that "England and Wales" is a political entity in its own right, as laws, agencies, prison laws, commisions, registries and even holidays are usually separated as "Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales". This "3-subdivision" system is demonstrated in the justic administration which has 3 courts for the UK, Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity, I'm convinced that England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland all don't belong on this list as the UN clearly does not consider any of them to be first-order administrative units of a country. Nor do I support adding Great Britain to this list. My point in bringing up Great Britain was to demonstrate that the first political division of a country/kingdom, is not necessarily it's first-order administrative division. I was highlighting the fact that England is not even the first natural division of the United Kingdom. Your pointing out that England/Walse share a political unity separate from the rest only emphasizes this point. Another example would be with the United States, where the first level political divide is not between states, but between states, territories, and protectorates (i.g. Puerto Rico). This division has all the administrative divisions you point out above, like differences in voting laws, prison laws, and commissions. Puerto Rico even has a different official languages of government (Spanish & English) and a semi-autonomous government like Scotland, with its own power to create certain domestic laws. But no one would suggest putting "Continental United States" and Puerto Rico as a single division on this chart because they are not treated as first-order administrative unites of a country. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So to summarize: simply demonstrating administrative divisions exist, is not the same as demonstrating a first-order administrative division of a country. That has a more specific definition. I've cited a UN definition for the UK that specifically states E/W/Sc/NI are not first-order administrative divisions of the UK. It also happens to be the citation used by the good people who wrote the Administrative geography of the United Kingdom page. The only citation I could see trumping that, would be a UK government deceleration that England is a first-order administrative entity. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  England as a subdivision 

message: In the above discussion I found a link to the UN's description of UK subdivision, but I just recently came across this page about the UK government's official interpretation of the EU NUTS classification system. It looks like Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales are treated as first order subdivisions, but England is not. On the first order, England is subdivided into the various regions. With this, I support adding Scotland back to the list, but not England. I am now adding the Regions of England to the list. It looks like nearly all of them meet the criterion. This link from the UK government on their official classification should settle the issue. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official government subdivisions of the UK. 

message: I think we have to increase lower limit to 200/500 billion US dollars. Many developing nations are rapidly growing and this list grows like a virus. What is the point when human brain cannot fathom a list which contains hundreds of names ?   106.216.180.114 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a more restrictive inclusion criterion. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I support it to increase the inclusion limit to over 500 billion$ --तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 15:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is very large 

message: The table in the article is not sortable though sortable attribute is there in source of this article. Please look into that and make it sortable as all tables should be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.151.33 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sorting 

message: Kanto region is a geographical area of Honshu, the largest island of Japan, Kanto region is not the first subdivision of Japan. It is similar to the Northeast Region of China and the West Coast Region of the United States. Here, it is more inappropriate to use it as a country subdivision. Cncs (Talk) 02:35 April 28 2018 (UTC)
:By the same token Kyushu and Chugoku Region are geographical classifications rather than first level national subdivisions. I think they should be removed from this list? Just posting this to express my concern and not prematurely edit something I could be wrong about. Frodo.mintoff (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kanto region 

message: In the page "Kantō region" it mentions Kantō as the second-largest sub-national economy in the world, but I don't see that listed clearly here. Am I overlooking something? EddyViola36 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference from Kantō Region page 

message: Andalusia has more than 200 million in PPP I think 31.131.181.153 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andalusia? 

message: according to Wikipedia Delhi's GDP is 210 billion dollars but it is not there in list Affan javed (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delhi(union territory of India) GDP is 210 billion dollars 

message: Is there a way to move the images so that they don't reduce the table size? For me, the table becomes unreadable. If not, I'd just remove the images. 09:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image ruins table readability 

message: Very wide tables are hard to read, so I have tried to squish the table as much as possible with template tricks. I also removed the "Largest cities" column because it's not all that relevant.
Two more columns make the table larger without pulling their weight (my opinion): Population and Continent. Population isn't necessary to note GDP per capita and most countries in this list are famous enough, making the continent obvious.
I'll remove both of these soon if there are no objections. Wizmut (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least important column