Talk:List of cities by GDP

message: 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 Second, the article is very outdated and full of errors, please urgently update it.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)
thread_title:  And the PPP GDP? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Per capita calculations are rubbish 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Per Capita? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Out to date 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mistakes in per Capita calculations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much St.Petersburgs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Manila Metro? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Quite possibly, but there are any number of ways to skin the cat - see here for example the wikipedia main entry for Western Europe: []. 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)
thread_title:  Classifications within Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi Romaioi, the source is as given in the article: . Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Milan < Rome? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Unsourced "statistics" have no place in an encyclopedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GDP per capita 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of cities by GDP  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas City 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metro Area vs City 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The GDP per capita of a city does not equal the GDP per capita of its country 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Entire list is screwed up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PPP is known as International Dollar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Dubai Jawadreventon (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Cities? 

message: Tokyo's population is 35 million and Shanghai 14 million ?? Lol, there is a problem. --Zhonghuo (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Beijing 11 million and behind San Diego and Phoenix ??? lol --Zhonghuo (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: Photo changed. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Tel-Aviv over Tehran 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of top 100 cities in the world by GDP value in PPP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oceania Cities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nagoya Japan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nagoya GDP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York City GDP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Chicago can cover 30,000 sq km's but Toronto can't ?

message: 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)
replies: text: because Ancyra is an european city? 95.114.114.32 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ankara 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Berrini Avenue.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title: The ranking is incomplete

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mumbai(r).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Entire page needs overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is Sao Paulo at the tenth position? 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Tehranwnight34w.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:0 3d46f 31b05490 orig.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I proposed a new version (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)
thread_title:  New version 

message: See  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Put rank column (1,2,3) next to table, but not in it 

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

message: User 151.160.145.82 pushing an absurd amount of pictures . 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 . 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)
replies: text: Stop upsetting stylistic conventions that don't suit you and starting edit 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seoul: Incheon note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Euronuts? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funny 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Most Brookings GDP figures differ from the source 

message: Re edits:
* (a) by  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)
replies: text: No comments, so newly derived 2015 figure (635 $USD BN) added to article. Batternut (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seoul official estimate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  San Francisco Listing 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is the difference between PPP adjusted GDP and Nominal GDP. Batternut (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data for Indian cities specially Delhi and Mumbai is incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why UNSD sub-region, when there is no UNSD data?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brookings(2014) GDPs are still incomplete. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  milan and london figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong flags and countries for Chinese cities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There are a lot of errors in the GDP data on Chinese cities. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Starting from 10:00 Beijing time on January 17, 2023, China is officially releasing GDP data for various regions. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The concept of scope is too vague 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Megalopolises in China 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ranking does not correspond to GDP data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List should be sorted by GDP by default 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hong Kong, Guangzhou are missing from the list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent US Data