Talk:BRIC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether to merge BRIC, BRICS, G5 articles[edit]

I say no. They are different terms with different meanings and have been in use in mutually exclusive ways at different times. It is appropriate to refer to the other terms in each article or to consider them disambiguations of a higher level article on country grouping for various purposes.

71.110.202.44 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

The articles are fine by themselves. People will be more confused if they are merged together.

I believe BRIC and BRICS should be merged, but the G5 are related but not the same. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thesis has too much text[edit]

I don't have time to edit this myself at the moment. I just want to highlight that the text about Goldman Sachs in the Thesis chapter is doubled. The bit starting from "Goldman Sachs argues that the economic..." is esentially copied at "Goldman Sachs has argued that..." in section 5 of the same chapter. Skrofler (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projected GDP (nominal) 2025 and 2050[edit]

Merely a query over the projected GDP tables for 2025 & 2050: Australia features as the 14th largest economy by nominal GDP in 2008, yet fails to feature in the top 22 in both 2025 and 2050. I am curious what the basis of the reasoning behind this is. Even if Australia was to maintain the same nominal GDP from 2008 into 2025, which is unlikely in that it would more likely grow, it would still feature as number 19 (?) in the 2025 nominal GDP table ahead of Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.248.131 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry Im not used to edit wikipedia sites. I jsut wanted to say that the quote for the prediction that the BRIC countries will surpass the G7 in 2032 can be found in page 138 of: Goldman Sachs (2007), ‘BRICs and beyond’, Goldman Sachs Global Economics Group http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRIC-Full.pdf

Cheers, Emile le reveil (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

hey i have put a better piture of mumbai, why are you taking it off.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.64.87 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The year of concept birth (moved from top of page)[edit]

The article says that the term BRIC was first coined by Goldman Sachs in 2001. However, the article links to the report of 2003. Is it a misprint or the term did really appear in 2001 but in a different document? GS website also does not provide anything earlier than 2003.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvec (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should "brick" rederect from here?[edit]

I type in brick trying to get information on bricks as in the building product and it goes to this very obscure subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.110.206 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GDP Nominal Graph Issue[edit]

The caption reads top 5 countries in terms of GDP Nominal by 2050. However the data lists Mexico as number 5 by 2050 over Russia which is placed 6th. Micro360 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"they decided to exclude initially because they looked..."[edit]

This sentence is stated in the article in three different places. I have removed the two first ones. The last one, found in the Mexico sub-entry -- where it is more fitting -- is still there.189.118.199.29 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox consensus[edit]

There are plausible reasons for modifying the navbox templates at the bottom of the page at BRIC. An opportunity for discussion needs to be part of any process which precedes change. Three arguable improvements are:

A. Combining two of the current navboxes at the bottom of the page?

B. Deleting the current leaders navbox?

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over time. The functional utility of this navbox is not greater or better than one which only shows member nations.

C. Perhaps decision-making may be helped by comparing an array of similar groups and templates?

What is the best next step for this article? for similar articles? --Tenmei (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is mexico, indonesia and south korea listed here?[edit]

Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea are countries included in the Next Eleven report, also by Goldman Sachs. There is hardly any description of these countries in the next eleven article. Since this is an article on BRIC countries, the rest should be moved to the 'Next Eleven' article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaiman (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexico and South Korea were the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered more developed" :i live in mexico and i watch korean dramas and i see how korea is really developed,korea look like a high developed country,but i live in mexico and here the country have some nice places but most mexico look poor,i don't see mexico much more developed than the brics,is the true.

Request of Protection[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} Extreme vandalism over this article by anonimous brazilian partisan who are in several places trying to bring to top its country in every ranking. kardrak (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the place to request protection; the {{Edit semi-protected}} template is only for requesting edits to already- protected articles. To request protection, please see WP:RFPP. However, please note that reverting repeatedly and without discussion is not an appropriate way to solve a content dispute. Intelligentsium 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BRICI[edit]

Whoever is trying to transform this page from a BRIC page into a BRICI page, STOP. There is no such thing as BRICI. If you want to coin that term, you will be the first to do so.. so please go and make a new article if you are desperate for a BRICI article. Please stop tampering with this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.85.201 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Indonesia, or whoever else has not officially joined BRICS. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOVESPA is the second largest stock market in the world by 'market value'?[edit]

I just removed a highly dubious claim stating that BOVESPA, Brazil's main bourse, is the second largest in the world by 'market value'. This claim was cited from a Chinese state newspaper, but no sources from the World Federation of Exchanges could support such a claim. In fact, I do not even know what they mean by 'market value', since there is no such criterion to choose from when you try to get data relating to stock exchanges from the World Federation of Exchanges. Here's the link.

http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/ytd-monthly

The closest you could get to is market capitalization, which is probably what they meant by market value, and BOVESPA is only the world's 12th largest according to market capitalization.

Please do not add dubious claims as facts simply because it is cited from some other source. (1tephania (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There's a wave of Brazilian boosterism all around Wikipedia (you should see Portuguese Wikipedia, there Brazil is a "raising superpower"). Thank God there's really committed users that check the references and remove dubious claims. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1tephania: BOVESPA is the second-largest stock exchange in the world by market value, behind Hong Kong and ahead of Chicago. Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Alex Covarrubias: currently, the English-language Wikipedia deems Brazil a Potential superpower. I believe the attention given to Mexico and South Korea in the BRIC article is the relevant case of boosterism here. Missionary (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Missionary, get your nationalist hands off this article. Edemir Pinto, the president of BOVESPA, is saying that BOVESPA became the second largest bourse by market capitalization ONLY on Thursday, September 24 of 2010, thanks to Petrobras' latest offering on the exchange.
If you actually bothered to read the article instead of blinding yourself to Brazilian boosterism, you would have read that the BOVESPA reached the market value of US$ 17.7 billion on Thursday, placing it second to the Hong Kong market. No bourse in the world can be the second largest in market value with only US$ 17.7 billion.
I believe I already gave the most authoritative source possible on this issue, by none other than the World Federation of Exchanges. You think some online newspapers have it more right than the World Federation of Exchanges on BOVESPA's market value? Follow the link and take a look at it.
http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/ytd-monthly
You try to impress us with the number of sources you can cite, but they are basically all one and the same article, just reported by different media outlets.
I will be closely monitoring this article from now on. If you lay another hand on that bourse issue, I will be sure to undo your change. (1tephania (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear 1tephania, perhaps you failed to grasp the difference between the market value of stocks listed on a bourse and the market value of the bourse itself, the latter being what I referenced in my edit. For example, there are stocks worth $2.7 trillion listed on the Hong Kong exchange, but HKEx's market value is the largest in the world, at "just" 24 billion dollars. In other words, we're talking about the value of the stock operators, not the companies listed. Your World-exchanges.org link provides no clarification on the market value of the stock operators.

Finally, I leave you a message to Assume Good Faith over your fellow Wikipedia contributors, and most importantly, realize that, in Wikipedia, nobody has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. Please, do not expect your fellow users to be cowered or intimidated by messages such as "get your hands off this article", or threats like "if you lay another hand here, then ...". This is known as a no-edit order, a proscribed and scorned practice in this collaborative project.

I will re-do my edit because I am absolutely positive it is truthful and relevant to the article. If you wish to discuss this further, please do. Missionary (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS[edit]

Someone should take the time to make this BRIC + S since South Africa was recently added to the group.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA04Ad02.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-01/02/c_13674385.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.108.175.37 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think South Africa should definitely be included: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-12-24-south-africa-invited-to-join-bric-group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.206.23 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to question the neutrality of the section on south Africas admission. It starts off saying "even xyz, was confused" so it has a negative slant against south africa's inclusion rather then presenting the issue surrounding south africa's inclusion. It is pretty clear the author does not think SA should be included and they leave no room for why SA was included.--MsTingaK (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should update it to include South Africa. It should be BRICS, not BRIC. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BRIC became BRICS today. I have updated the article technically the whole body. However I think the title of the article has to be changed. Only the title of the remains to be changed. The name of the article is BRIC. This should be changed to BRICS as S has been officially instated into the abbreviation and is know by it. Someone should ask an administrator to change the title of the article itself only from BRIC to BRICS. This is the only one remaining outstanding change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.169.150 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so too, so therefore BRIC and BRICS should be merged. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa[edit]

South Africa should be officially added?? I mean we should wait out the next publication of Goldman Sachs and view the statistics for South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge 2701 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need, SA is officially a part of BRIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BRIC became BRICS today. I have updated the article technically the whole body. However I think the title of the article has to be changed. Only the title of the remains to be changed. The name of the article is BRIC. This should be changed to BRICS as S has been officially instated into the abbreviation and is know by it. Someone should ask an administrator to change the title of the article itself only from BRIC to BRICS. This is the only one remaining outstanding change.
I believe so too, so therefore BRIC and BRICS should be merged. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nanothailand.org/investing/why-should-you-invest-in-brics. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRIC block voting at United Nations[edit]

Is there any possible reason to include:

In 2011, the BRIC countries all abstained from the United Nations security council vote that authorized military intervention in Libya. However, South Africa (the newest member of an expanded BRICS) did vote in favour. Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about BRIC, do you want to make a wp article called BRICS/BASIC countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.35 (talk • contribs) 23:27, March 30, 2011 Special:Contributions/99.119.128.35 99.190.84.131 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. The first sentence also has no reason to be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOVESPA stock exchange size[edit]

Jorge 2701, we had already discussed this on your talk page one month ago. Why remove the relevant information that BM&FBovespa, Brazil's stock exchange operator, is the third largest in the world by market value? Isn't this a relevant show of economic importance from a BRIC company (and the whole country), and appropriate to the Marketing section? Missionary (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need to respond me directly, I asked you to respond to the community. Of course we discussed this before and I accept my mistake but recently I saw the World Bank report of Market capitalization (also known as market value) of stock exchanges and I realized that it was a better source because it explains what is the market value, besides having data of all world stock markets, my intention is nothing more than having a Neutral point of view, and therefore I asked you to expose what are the reasons to maintain previous source but you didn´t do it, and to avoid a revert war I suggest that other users discuss about which is the best source to show, the World Bank explains what is the Market capitalization very clearly that is what the image says.--Jorge 2701 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (BRIC to BRICS)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Nightw 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRIC → BRICS — South Africs is now part of the group so it should be rename. — ASDFGH =] talk? 06:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong and obvious support was just about to ocome and propose this./ South Africa are now officially a full member and everywehere the grouping is now called BRICS. Also BRICS (disambiguation) is the redirect for BRICS, but this is by far and away the most common and obvious term (ther other option was a redlink and unsourced, thus with questionalble notability)Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Does this need an RM? I'd suggest just doing it, it seems like a non-controversial procedural change. Nightw 21:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been done by an admin. Nightw 21:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Goldman Sachs BRIC report vs BRIC, the organization[edit]

Goldman Sachs and the author of the report is mentioned so many times (sometimes unnecessarily) that the current article is becoming quite confusing.

The editors are requested to split this page into two different wikipedia topics - one, that analyzes and discusses the Goldman Sachs report which coined the term, and the other on the the formation and trends of BRIC the politico-economic organization.

Also, the current report only includes praise and criticism from a western point of view (and mostly based on the Goldman Sachs report). In the interest of neutrality, please analyze the newspaper reports on BRIC from the newspapers of these four countries (Brazil, Russia, China, India) for a better perspective on the political plus and minuses of this grouping. 117.205.84.62 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to split BRIC from BRICS[edit]

See Talk:BRICS/draft for version I couldn't check in. 67.100.125.92 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your draft seems about right. It should be clearly noted in the lead paragraph that BRICS is a political organization and that its name derived from original Goldman Sachs' financial thesis called BRIC. We all agree that BRIC and BRICS are separate things. However, we do need to move back BRICS to BRIC because the move contains all the article history of BRIC. Then we start a new BRICS article. I'm requesting the move right now. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it looks like a good start. The intro/history section is slightly confusing, though, with the mention of Jim O'Neill coining the term and his surprise at SA's inclusion, but no previous mention of him or what he has to do with the topic. (A reader unfamiliar with the topic might think that he coined the BRICS term, and not be able to find further info on the topic, because other than the link to the BRIC article (which is only through clicking on the BRIC name in a different section) there is no specific mention of Goldman Sachs and the theories they published. I think there should be at least a single statement to that effect, with a
    Main article: BRIC
    direct. It could also be qualified with the statement that none of the member countries have referred to the Goldman Sachs reports as contributing to their decision to form a trade bloc. Perhaps "Theoretical Base" (should be concise, though) and "History" could be two different sections? — Gk sa (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ... no.[edit]

Other countries do not form trade alliances to deny the US its rightful place as the arbiter and dictator of nations. Removed flagged text implying as much. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong to move BRIC to BRICS[edit]

BRIC is an economic term/accronym and a financial thesis by Goldam Sachs' Jim O'Neil. BRIC countries now united in a political organization and included South Africa, creating the BRICS. It was wrong to move BRIC to BRICS since the two accronyms are about different subjects.

One article should talk about the financial thesis as BRIC originally was intended to. BRICS should be about the meetings, treaties, accords, summits and common policies developed by Brazin, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

We had to start a "new" article at BRIC, but that is not right because we've lost all the article history. I will request a move back to BRIC, and then we should create a new article from scratch about the political organization here at BRICS. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move BRICS to BRIC (to recover edit history) and start a new BRICS article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved BRICS back to BRIC; moved the forked-off duplicated BRIC page that had been created in the meantime out of the way, to Talk:BRIC/forked, where it is now blanked but has its history of between April and June 2011 preserved. Hope this is what people wanted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


BRICS → BRIC —

  • I'm requesting BRICS to be moved back to BRIC. It was a procedural error. Our new article BRICS should had been started from scratch since everybody agrees both are different terms with different meanings. Currently the article BRIC has a copy-paste of an old version, but we lost all the article history 'cause it was moved to BRICS and all corresponded links now link to BRICS. We want BRICS to be moved back to BRIC and start BRICS from scratch. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support this. This article (from BRICS perspective) has far too much on the theoretical BRIC perspective, which would be far more useful when explained in a short-ish "Origins" section with a
    Main article: BRIC
    to direct those who wish to know more. This article has too much baggage to give fair treatment to the BRICS topic. After moving, please just copy the top Infobox, the Wikitable in "Member Countries" and the sortable Wikitable in "Statistics" that includes South Africa to the new BRICS article before reverting. They're nicely done. — Gk sa (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Articles exist at BRIC and BRICS. What is wanted? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BRIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a WP:CFORK of BRICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above comment, if you mean that the articles should be kept merged. BRIC falls under Articles whose subject is a POV in WP:CFORK and BRICS is an established international entity. And in this case, the theoretical POV came first, so all the more reason why it should remain a seperate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk sa (talk • contribs) 04:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article appears to have already been vandalised. hist — Gk sa (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BRIC and BRICS are different things. It was wrong to move BRIC to BRICS because now all the edit history of BRIC is gone. We need to move back to BRIC and create a new article here at BRICS. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Whatever the initial reasons for the move, it was probably done incorrectly or inappropriately. Initially, BRIC was the association of 4 polities: Brazil, Russia, India, China. These 4 polities decided that South Africa should be admitted into their discussion, so it has gone beyond the initial economic association of these polities. The argument that this move was done incorrectly or even inappropriately is meritable, because the history has be broken. As someone has pointed out, the inclusion of South Africa has transformed this "club" so that it is has a new association: therefore, BRICS should have been a new article, not the other way around.Curb Chain (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Chain, you should vote support. Your explanations totally support the move. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my opinion to Support. This is because Talk:BRICS#Attempted_to_split_BRIC_from_BRICS proves this move was not done correctly. The page history will make it very confusing for the future and future editors to see what the development of changes are without looking through the talk pages of both articles AND their histories. (And this is urgent because many edits are being done to both article and talk pages.)Curb Chain (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - O'Neill's thesis should remain as part of the history of this organization, it is the realization of his idea. But the organization is not static; it can, has, and probably will continue to grow. There is no need to have a separate article for BRICS any more than there would be for MBRICS if Mexico were to join at some later point. -- Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the countries involved would distance themselves from the concept that their economic co-operation is "the realization of his idea" (especially since he is a UK/US economist). Already they have broken away from his theories by including South Africa, which he was opposed to. Can you provide a citation to support this POV? Also, I think this article might become inordinately long if it were to include all the Goldman Sachs theory material plus all future developments for the trade bloc. — Gk sa (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha, you should take a look at Talk:BRIC. It's been established that BRICS is a political concept, because leaders actually endorsed this concept, not an economic paper (I was actually watching the news where they held a meeting. BRICS is no longer a economic group of polities, it is a group of polities that actually acknowledge its existence).Curb Chain (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a tough one but support a move to recover the edit history and the creation of a separate article for the BRICS. Although the spirit of O'Neill's Goldman Sachs remains to a degree, the addition of South Africa is not just another member but a new stage in the development of the group and a partial repudiation of O'Neill. Cf. the European Community which was superseded by the EU with the two having their own articles. —  AjaxSmack  15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to unify article edit history. Disjointed edit history may become problematic down the road, or at the very least cause confusion to future editors.. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Unify article edit history under "BRIC". "BRICS" is clearly something else. Ng.j (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All the edit history of this article in reality belongs to the development of the article BRIC. We move it back and then make a new article about BRICS. Sefirotaeris (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment for 2 days now... what remains to be done to resolve this issue? — Gk sa (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There consensus to do the action nominated.Curb Chain (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, a move was done, but this SECOND move doesn't seem to have been done properly...Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am now completely confused as to what is going on here with the move. Plus, there has been so many edits to both articles since BRICS was moved from BRIC and BRIC recreated from history, I don't know whether it still makes sense to do this. We might have to accept that BRIC's edit history will remain here, rather than risk further disruption... — Gk sa (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just move it back because the sooner we do it, the fewer improper edits. Yes, there has been some constructive edits confusing the history but we still have to do it just for damage control.Curb Chain (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Above For Reasons[edit]

Please move BRICS to BRIC (w/ history + talk) and BRIC to BRICS (w/ history + talk). A second move was done and it was improperly done it seems.Curb Chain (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this was not done, and the repeat process is forced. If there is a problem, this process has to be redone.Curb Chain (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion[edit]

  • As I can see from the histories of pages BRIC and BRICS as they are now (I can find no evidence of an old or recent history-merge in these 2 pages):
    • At 21:40, 13 April 2011 User:Tone moved BRIC to BRICS properly, leaving a redirect in BRIC.
    • Then at 19:21, 14 April 2011 User:67.100.125.92 copy-and-pasted about two-thirds of BRICS into BRIC, thus starting a WP:Parallel history which is still running. The history before that point belongs better with BRICS, where it is now; I see no use for a history-split and history-merge. Much text is duplicated between BRIC and BRICS: see WP:Content forking.
    • If BRIC and BRICS are distinct political concepts, then those 2 pages better stay separate, but weed out duplicated text. The start of BRICS says "This article is about the five-nation political organization that also includes South Africa"; but page BRICS seems to say little about a formed organization with delegates sent to regular formal meetings and suchlike, and plenty about each of the 5 nations as its own unit. If BRIC largely means BRICS, the two pages could be text-merged in BRICS.
I have asked User:Tone to come and sort this mess out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I got what happened.
Up above in one of the discussion sections, BRIC was made as an article in a user's space. This was because in the real world, South Africa joined BRICS so a new article was "needed", and indeed, a user made such an article in his/her userspace and was reviewed by other editors evidenced by said discussion section.
User:Tone did not move this user's draft/article onto BRIC, he instead deleted BRICS and then moved BRIC to BRICS. What should have been done was NOT have deleted BRICS, but the user article should have been pasted ONTOP OF BRIC.Curb Chain (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a move should not have happened at all. Maybe the (user's) article should have been just pasted ontop of BRICS.Curb Chain (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flags icons[edit]

I believe that in this article we must leave the names of the countries with flag for ease of reading, i mean, many people see the flag and recognize what country are we talking about at least in the statistics section, is not a nationalistic pride. Please comment --Jorge 2701 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICONDECORATION disagrees Gnevin (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - but does it really mean no flag icons anywhere in the article? As far as I've seen, flag icons see some fairly regular use on WP. — Gk sa (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how they are used. One view is flagcruft. Gnevin links a good article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

For the (coming) BRICS article, should the map not be of a different type? The Robinson projection, while a compromise projection, is still a very poor illustration of the countries involved in comparison to each other. How about a map that is Equal-area? — Gk sa (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


North Korea's GDP?[edit]

This article says that by 2050, North Korea's GDP will be 1,982 billion and its GDP per capita $70,000, in stark contrast to the 40 billion and 1,900 today. That would require a (correct me if I'm wrong) 4,955 percent growth rate for GDP (even higher if the figures for 2050 North Korea's GDP are nominal and not PPP). Even though the source is reliable, I found this extremely hard to believe. Snakespeaker (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the source assumes a no-sanctions scenario (surely Kim Jong Il will not live until 2050?), which would revolutionise the North Korean economy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk sa (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also weird that the list of GDP per capita in 2050 does not show North Korea, but features several countries with less than $70.000. Also, the per capita income of South Korea is slightly different from that table to the list, but the difference is enough to change South Korea's position to first in the rank, instead of second. These two problems show that the projections are clearly from very different sources. 189.13.137.28 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2050 North Korea projections made in 2009 were made on the hypothetical assumption that Korean reunification occurs around 2010 and that North Korea immediately implements free-market reforms. Obviously neither of those things have happened yet. These projections weren't about how North Korea's economy will be in 2050, only what it could be with good leadership and free-market reforms. Also, North Korea is not a part of BRIC or the Next Eleven, which is why it is not mentioned in the main section of this article. And yes, the 2050 North Korea GDP is nominal, not PPP. Futurist110 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WE NEED THE FLAG ICONS BACK![edit]

Whoever took the flags away, please put them back. The tables don't look very friendly without them. We need the flags back!!! 86.162.36.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICONDECORATION Gnevin (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And shouting doesn't make your case more convincing.Curb Chain (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly to WP, icons should be avoided in infoboxes, so no we "don't need icons back". AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Accordingly to WP? Those are guidelines, not rules. As an outside third party observer, I don't see the harm in having the flags.
WP:RS and WP:N are guidelines too , do you ignore them? Gnevin (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an argument to be made, just look at any miltary operation , they've got flag icons, which helps the reader get a simpler understanding of who was involved in the conflict. (Think of it as a quick refernce guild) Jetijonez (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it do that? --John (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "quick reference guild"? How many of he world's 200-plus flags are you familiar enough with to reliably identify them? I am pretty into flags and I doubt I can recognize more than half of them. How do you distinguish Australia from New Zealand? Republic of Ireland from Ivory Coast? --John (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I first felt that the loss of the icons left the article poorer, I think the point that MOS:FLAG is actually trying to make is that flag icons are to be used when there is no space for the entire country name, such as with sports teams and military operations. For instance, in Iraq War, the flag next to "United States" is there not embellish the country's name, but to establish the link between the two, so that it can be used further down next to "George W. Bush" and "Barack Obama" to illustrate which country they represented, without repeating "United States", "United States", "United States" over and over again (for which there is no space, anyway). Since the BRICS article does not use "team members" or "military commanders", flag icons are unnecessary, and best left out. — Gk sa (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's kill everyone here leave'em out. I'm just putting in my two cents. Icons / No Icons to the average reader, I doublt it would make a difference. Jetijonez (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fry can you please discuss the removal here and Template:Current BRIC Leaders instead of warring Gnevin (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one warring. Warring against the countless people who've asked or told you to stop. If it were any other user with as many complaints against a single continuous action by as many other users as you have received, that user would have no doubt been banned by now. Fry1989 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CON in this thread supports the removal. As for the rest of that post , nonsense Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense only in yoru mind, reality on the rest of Wikipedia. I've seen several people banned for less. Fry1989 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI , prove it so Gnevin (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{flagcountry}} vs. {{flagicon}}[edit]

I have no issue using {{flagicon}}, but the current state is better than using {{flagcountry}}.Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chafis has been doing the same thing to the G8 and G-20 major economies articles, too. As a result, he is making edit warring controversies there, too. Since this block was posted here, he has not returned to explain his actions. Rockies77 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Can an admin please add this to the external links section. Thanks --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing anything about the subject, or able to understand Russian, could someone else confirm that this is an appropriate and relevant link to add before this is done please. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who edits on foreign relations of Russia, I can confirm that it is relevant to the subject. I wouldn't be wasting my time if it weren't. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting you, but just asking for a second opinion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated discussion about flag icons[edit]

re WP:Manual of Style (icons)
This thread explicitly centralises and references other threads on this page, e.g.,
Perhaps the related issues can be discussed and resolved in this consolidated thread? --Tenmei (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As a arguably helpful starting point, please consider the following, which was copied from an archived thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags):

Question: The article about the G8 incorporates a Wikitable; and flags are posted as a quick graphic device to distinguish amongst the 34 summits which have been held since 1975. This use of the flagicon-template is helpful; but I do not know whether it will be perceived as consistent with the guidelines for flags. If not, why not?
Answer: The table in question would be considered appropriate because it's a list in which the flags are useful for navigation. The way to avoid future problems is simply to read the guidelines (and discuss the matter here if you don't like them!) Cop 663 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 ... compare Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Appropriate_use
MITIGATING POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

In the evolving context of this BRICS article, if a flagicon-template were to be questioned in future, this thread may help expedite a process of constructive dispute resolution.

In a broader context, please review Talk:G8#Flags in table and Talk:G-20 major economies#Flags in table. Perhaps someone will have constructive comments to add? --Tenmei (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Use of {{flagicon}} in tables[edit]

It is proposed: The {{flagicon}} should be restored in the tables only because the flags are useful for navigation.

Support[edit]

  1. --Tenmei (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Our readers are able to read and they have no problem decoding letters to extract meanings of simple and well-known country names like "Brazil". Adding the flag icons makes the resource look trashy and sub-literate. --John (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The flag icons ultimately serve no purpose, other than as clutter. On larger lists, having a flag icon would be useful (as Tenmei noted above), but this is a list that only contains five countries. This is no large list that needs to be scanned quickly for the reader's country of interest. - SudoGhost (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is about a political organization. As noted by Gk sa in Talk:BRICS#WE_NEED_THE_FLAG_ICONS_BACK.21, icons can convey more information in a 2d space. This is useful if it DOES do that, such as when in articles that not only talk about the political science of a polity, but the culture as well. This article is only about the politics.Curb Chain (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I was referring to the use of flag icons in infoboxes, specifically. I am neutral on the use of flag icons in tables. Additional comments in Discussion below. — Gk sa (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First of all, Wikipedia says we should not use flagicons on infoboxes. Secondly, there's only 4 nations listed there and a big map. People can read. No need for flags. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This poll focuses solely on the use of {{flagicon}} in the table context -- nothing to do with the infobox. --Tenmei (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per all the above Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  1. I find the graphic icons helpful when I try to scan the array of rows and columns. It may be tangentially relevant that the use of flags in templates has evolved inconsistently -- see Template talk:Current BRIC Leaders#Flags. --Tenmei (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the arrow of SudoGhost above hits the center of the target. IMO, the only arguable reason for including {{flagicon}} in a table for this specific article is a perceived value in format consistency across the array of a category of articles, e.g.,
If we agree that it is not necessary, the question becomes: Is it arguably helpful for the BRIC table format to mirror the format of tables in corollary articles like G-20 major economies and G8?

John and SudoGhost think that this is not good. Whether or not we accept their opinion as consensus, this is constructive step in a process.

This poll has become part of the process which helps us to discover a consensus viewpoint which we can all accept. --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we centralise this discussion , having it 4 places is a pain Gnevin (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course; but can we not agree that this thread serves to centralise and consolidate the previous disparate discussion threads? ----Tenmei (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A separate debate has been on going @ Template:Infobox bilateral relations. I've reopened a rfc on flags but with an additional proposal; see Template_talk:Infobox_bilateral_relations#RFC_For_Overhaul_Of_This_Template and its edit summary.Curb Chain (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As stated above, I am neutral on the topic of flag icons in tables. I do believe icons in general carry a slight advantage when locating information on a list/table, but I also believe that it cannot be a substitute for the name of what it represents, unless it is universally recognisable (or as mentioned in my original statement in Talk:BRICS#WE_NEED_THE_FLAG_ICONS_BACK.21, when there are space limitations and it's meaning is established higher up in the text). I do think the number of rows in the table under consideration is very relevant, and if a discussion ever to be had about a consistent guideline for using flag icons in tables, I would support it's use in tables of a certain number of rows or more. (I'm thinking 15 or more, perhaps as low as 10 rows - but for a guideline to be set, there would be a lot more of discussion about the specific number.) The fact that there are currently only five nations in BRICS militates against the usefulness of any flag icons. Additionally, there is no point in reaching a consensus about it here, and for editors of another article to reach a different consensus. It's vastly more important to have a fairly consistent style across Wikipedia than either of the two options here are, in isolation. — Gk sa (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing poll[edit]

I was asked a while ago by Tenmei to close this as an uninvolved party. It appears the consensus is not to use flagicons in the table. I am aware that some of the comments misunderstood the proposal, but the majority still appears to favour not adding the flags. Nightw 12:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from talk page of forked BRIC page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRIC is not the same as BRICS, please help mantain the article[edit]

BRIC is an acronym of a financial thesis created by Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neil. BRIC countries have since then grouped in a political movement that now includes South Africa, named BRICS. This article should be dedicated exclusively to the financial thesis. BRICS article will talk about the political group, their treaties, accords, summits and whatever political stuff.

BRICS article was created by moving BRIC, which was not right. So I've added the last good version without South Africa. South Africa was "included" in the political group, not in the financial group that this article represents. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexico and South Korea were the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered more developed" :i live in mexico and i watch korean dramas and i see how korea is really developed,korea look like a high developed country,but i live in mexico and here the country have some nice places but most mexico look poor,i don't see mexico much more developed than the brics,is the true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.0.122 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. The other language Wikipedias have them together, not separate. I would like to see a merger. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: About moving back BRICS to BRIC[edit]

The original article was about BRIC, the financial accronym and economical thesis created by Goldman Sach's Jim O'Neil. It contained all the financial information needed.

In April 13 2011 it was forked and moved to BRICS, starting a new article because this organization decided to include South Africa (that's why the "S" was added). This was wrong because BRIC and BRICS are completely different terms. BRIC is simply a term, while BRICS is a political organization on its own.

Now that BRICS was restored to BRIC and the article history has been recovered (yay!), we can start a real BRICS article. It doesn't have to repeat the same information, remember BRICS is a political organization.

I have restored the article as it was previous to the move. Please help to improve it and correct whatever is wrong. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better had you NOT done this: we can take out irrelevant information. Now I have to dig through the dirt literally and literally start from scratch since all the improvements have been lost.Curb Chain (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the improvements you talk about were about BRICS not BRIC, so we only have to add back whatever was relevant in the previous version. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For BRICS, I like the draft that was created at Talk:BRIC/draft - I think we should start from there. (Yes, I'm posting it here, because there is currently no talk page for BRICS.) If so, we should avoid ccreating a new BRICS article until the draft has been moved. Who agrees? — Gk sa (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a great way to start BRICS. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 08:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've made a small start to updating the draft - it refers to the Beijing meeting as still in the future. Hopefully we can sort out both articles' schizophrenia soon. Roger (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we have all this huge mess of history is because this same draft you are talking about was proposed here: Talk:BRIC#Attempted_to_split_BRIC_from_BRICS. Gk sa, you know this. There has been at least 2 editors who have judged these two articles as content forks. We are back at square one. Please please do not request moves or move anything until you sort this out. It will give huge headaches if we have to go through a flurry of double (redundant) moves.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood, the consensus was that the original BRIC article belongs at BRIC, and only has some relation to BRICS as a formalised grouping. I understood the consensus to be that BRICS deserves its own article and that South Africa should not be covered in BRIC except for stating O'Neill's opinion on SA, perhaps. (As it is now, finally). None of the editors who raised the issue of content forks responded on subsequent comments stating reasons why it is not the same as a content fork - which creates the impression that the issue was resolved and consensus was reached. The entire point of posting here first and asking for agreement, is take make sure that that consensus exists, however, and for that reason, I would not request a move until consensus is confirmed. Please note that I am NOT saying that the draft should be located at BRIC, but rather at BRICS, which is currently a redirect. Are you saying that South Africa should not be included anywhere in a BRIC/BRICS article? — Gk sa (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa is a whole different matter and no, I am not saying that. But I am saying that, long story short, the draft and the article at the time are not much different from each other, which is what those content fork claimants claimed, and I can see where they are coming from.Curb Chain (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. The other language Wikipedias have them together, not separate. I would like to see a merger. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to start a real BRICS article[edit]

I think it's time to create a real article about the political organization BRICS. Now that the content fork has been resolved we can work together to create a new article about this. Please note that BRICS is a political organization, different from the Goldam Sachs accronym BRIC.

I believe the new article should have:

  • An infobox about the member countries
  • Information about each BRICS summit (this is very important)
  • Brief history about how South Africa was included (as this was an important political step)
  • Avoid too much information about economics (remember the previous BRICS article was basically an exact copy of BRIC, which was regarded as a forking)
  • Treaties or agreements the BRICS countries have reached so far

So what do you think? Please let me know what you think and help to create this new article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly support this move, as this addresses contentforking. Feel free to draft one.Curb Chain (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it seems nobody is interested in creating this article! Incredible, then one must assume that moving BRIC to BRICS was indeed a content fringe... AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've written the first sentence. Roger (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbai night pic.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Mumbai night pic.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale
  • 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 Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CIUDAD MEXICO, DF.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CIUDAD MEXICO, DF.jpg, 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 image page (File:CIUDAD MEXICO, DF.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg, 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 image page (File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New 2050 GDP Projections by Goldman Sachs[edit]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HXQQdIX_yv4J:www.theasset.nl/8761/111208-Goldman-Sachs-Global-Economics-Paper-208.pdf?v%3D0+brics+10+years+projections&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgthhqgu3duAV14lW0G9DuPubtiirriyS1-tsR1AIkhSy2tEErUwaFH_K3ECIw2NZWbO-7Opu_-a-eIsmJgOiv0ugCWfY7ms9H9TqFgBMBW0KAuLxz2E1ObHH0C6Ije7c-H6p2O&sig=AHIEtbQTt-iIMGUFLx1zWuhdHLcZ-Lp3ZQ

Why does this page continue to use the 2007 projections when Goldman Sachs released new 2011 BRIC and Next Eleven projections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS and BRIC[edit]

LOOK I apologize in advance for kicking this dead horse again, I realize it is getting mushy and is not resulting in anything, but... BRICS AND BRIC involve different financial institution's terms, fine but in the end 4/5 parts of BRICS should already have the same info in BRIC, should these two not be merged into BRIC(S) the S in brackets as often used to denote the new incumbent, this way we could latch the extra info on, even if you don't want to merge them per say, you could just have BRIC(S) as the page with a section at the bottom that talks about South Africa in a somewhat segregated (no offence intended in reference to the term segregation and south africa) part of the article that talks about why it's included, what financial institutes see as challenges and potential, etc. etc. etc., it seems inefficient to have two articles when a vast majority of the coverage is the same SandeepSinghToor (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the articles should be merged. -- Beland (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previously BRIC was coined by Jim O'Neill as acronym of 4 countries which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development, but in 2009 the leaders of BRIC countries made the first summit and in 2010 BRIC became a formal institution. South Africa began efforts to join the BRIC grouping and on December 24, 2010 South Africa is invited to join BRICS. The aim of BRIC is establishment of an equitable, democratic and multi polar world order, but later BRIC became a political organization, moreover after South Africa joined BRICS. Jim O'Neill, told the summit that South Africa, at a population of under 50 million people, was just too small an economy to join the BRIC ranks. I think it is better to maintain two articles and not merge into one article, because BRIC and BRICS have different background. BRIC article can be focused to maintain economic development among BRIC countries and BRICS article can be focused to others among BRICS countries.Gsarwa (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not being maintained[edit]

There are various outdated/false stats. For example, India's 2.3 Trillion$ GDP stands at no.7 as of 2015, not no.10. Brazil and Russia fall below. Per capita incomes arent right either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.246.245 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was just about to say that. It's badly outdated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tag the article as being out of date. If you have the information and time please correct/update it. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to merge BRIC and BRICS[edit]

As a name of bloc of nations, the two terms are generally refering to one thing. The difference of the two terms can be explained in a few lines. Will.L.T. (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BRIC&oldid=1209878484"