Talk:List of cities by GDP

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2: 365 days

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

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GDP per capita

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done. This will probably put a stop to people constantly adding and changing figures in this column. 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

German cities

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

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

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

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

Fixed, added Rhine-Ruhr. Suntzu3500 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megalopolises in China

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

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

Ranking does not correspond to GDP data

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

List should be sorted by GDP by default

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

And the PPP GDP?

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

@2806:10A6:19:7BDC:A08D:A582:C7D8:A3C0: @2806:2f0:92a1:9965:b90e:8150:c659:c808: Yes, that would be an improvement -- but at the moment the list in its entirety is flawed, in a way that wouldn't be fixed by adding purchasing power parity - for the reasons noted at the top of the article. The definition of a 'city' differs between cities and organisations, and the methodology for measuring macroeconomic indicators differs between the sources. In countries where the civil service is appointed by the executive, it means that it might even differ depending on which party is currently in charge.

It makes the figures totally incomparable and, if readers take the figures at face value, it should make data scientists frown.

If you need comparable data for something, then I suggest using something like OECD data or picking one source with multiple cities listed (like c40.org) and using that. Komonzia (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore -- Purchasing power parity is usually measured and published on a 'country' basis, not smaller jurisdictions. So it's unlikely you will find sources to add to the article. If you do find a source with many cities, feel free to suggest it. Until one is found, more should be removed than added to this article in my opinion. Komonzia (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong, Guangzhou are missing from the list

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

Inconsistent US Data

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

Moscow metropolitan area population is wrong

It says 17,400,00 for some reason ,instead of 21,534,777 according to Moscow's Wikipedia page. 84.245.120.225 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the population figure doesn't seem reliable. I'm not convinced the source for GDP is referring to the same 'definition of a city' either compared to the linked Wikipedia page. I've added it to my "update" tag for now -- but as detailed at the top of the article, the definition of a city (even the same city) differs between sources/authorities. So this article isn't very valuable even in terms of comparing. Komonzia (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing comparisons

Komonzia, I support your placement of the {{Confusing}} banner on the article based on differing definitions of city, as well as different sources. However, I would go beyond just confusing, and say invalid. I would support a major rework of this article based on reports from a single, trusted source, if we wish to retain the tabular presentation (which comes from Wikipedia editors, not from sources, so in that sense can be said to be prohibited original resear○h, as it promotes or implies the idea of cross-country comparability, whereas no source actually makes that claim). An alternative would be to remove the implied comparability, by removing the table presentation, and recasting the table content as prose, perhaps organized by continent, region, and country, where the fact that different countries had different sources for their data, would not be seen to imply an invalid comparison not claimed by the sources. Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - me adding that tag was actually inspired by this request to add purchasing power parity GDP data.

How about splitting the table into different sections, based on their sources? So, a table for cities covered by the OECD, another for the US Census, another for the EU, and so on. It might be a bad idea still, as it will bias the article towards those that have a common body for them - some of the Indian cities seem to be self-reporting rather than referring to any kind of union data.

If the content is converted into prose, then the article would probably change to being one about urban economics? Komonzia (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]