Talk:List of cities by GDP/Archive 1

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

Per Capita?
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)

I agree with 62.16.243.119, the page isn't sorted by GDP per Capita, and only lists it in some cases. It's focused on, and sorted by, GDP. Lejman 10:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the list for EUROPE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.9.31 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Out to date
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). Then I'll correct it on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.47.11 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Too much St.Petersburgs
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)

Manila Metro?
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 chicago entry a metro area, it would be number 1. Same with any top ten cities. Sas556 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking metropolitan/urban areas here and not just core cities. It is pointless to consider only the core. I believe Tokyo and London figures are for the Metro Areas -there can't be 8.2 million people in London city alone (divide it's GDP in billions by it's per capita GDP). That would be awfully dense. It would make more sense to rename these cities by their known metro area names because apparently that's where the GDP figures are based from.Eubravo (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

including its outer suburbs in what are known as the "Home Counties". In most of the rankings used internationally, our London GDP is far ahead of Chicago or Paris, and usually just below NY and Tokyo. The PPP data used in this survey is poorlt implemented and distorting of true GDP. (User talk: EricW,LondonGov)
 * London's population is about 7.3 million (2009) in its urban area and about 15.8 million

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

Headings
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)
 * 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)

Why are Frankfurt, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Ruhr Region and Stuttgart not even on this list. They are high on the list of Germany's top cities in GDP per capita. Eubravo (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems the metro regions of above mentioned German cities are not counted, only the cities proper, which is why they don't make the list. This is not consistent, of course. In addition, the figure for Hamburg is extremely far off. It says $58 billion for Hamburg metro, while the Hamburg article says €86 billion (currently well over $100 billion) for the city alone. I also assume the figures for Munich to be too low. It's the richest city in Germany after Hamburg, and certainly way ahead of Berlin in per capita GDP, possibly twice as high. Speaking of Berlin, the total and per capita figures don't add up at all. The city has 3.4 million inhabitants, and the metro around 4 million. They don't quite fit for Hamburg, either, given the city alone has 1.75 million inhabitants. Overall, it appears as though the figures for German cities were randomly made up. That also casts some doubt on the rest, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.160.139 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographs
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)

Kansas City
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)
 * 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)
 * Great, thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Metro Area vs City
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)

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

Entire list is screwed up
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)
 * 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)

PPP is known as International Dollar
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)

Dubious
The source is obviously defective. Moscow 2005 GRP in PPP adjusted for only city proper without added metropolitan area was $326bln. IMF PPP coversation rate, Russian GRP. Population for city proper at the end of 2005 was 10,425mln Elk Salmon (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The population from the source for half of those cities are way off. Examples include Seoul, Jakarta, and Manila. The populations of these cities seems to be based on the agglomeration/metropolitan area of these cities. On alternate lists such as List of metropolitan areas by population and List of urban areas by population, the population of these cities are much higher. I wouldn't be surprised if the Moscow population was off as well. To my knowledge, the population data is based off the United Nations which the source, CityMayors copied over to their site. This list has been heavily criticized for its inaccuracy. Even though the source is not exactly from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Citymayors seems to have copied over their list for the GDP. I'm not sure about the reliability of PricewaterhouseCoopers though, so I can't say much about the numbers they give out for each city, but they seem to be involved in topics dealing with money. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So there is a one way out - drop PricewaterhouseCoopers 2005 'consistency' in favor of current data by provided reliable data for each city, just like in List of urban areas by population. Years might differs, but we will have reliable figures. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, List of urban areas by population is one of those consistent articles. None of the cities there uses data from multiple sources. All the cities use data from Demographia. Arguments about using multiple sources does also spark disputes because people argue that this source measures differently than the other source, giving one an advantage/disadvantage. Rather than disputes in factual accuracy, disputes about "fairness" of the sources arises. So I'm indifferent about whether or not to use the Pricewaterhouse Coopers data or a multiple sources because they both have their ups and downs. Probably best to wait for some more input. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In anyway - if PWC data differs from real by over 100% it's worth to drop it. Official data at least somehow close to reality. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we didn't use different sources. We need to maintain comparability - that's the whole point of the table - and using different sources, relating to different years, compromises that. The table currently uses 2005, 2007 and 2008 data. How can cities be ranked when the data refer to different time periods? What a mess. I'd prefer to see the article deleted than this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This article is starting to become a mess and getting harder to keep track of. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its dubious at all or even that messy. As the user AlasdairGreen27 correctly pointed out many times earlier in this discussion, the list and methodology is based off of one source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. If you have stats from other sources, then follow wikipedia standard what was done for the list of countries by GDP one article with different lists from different sources and methodologies (i.e. IMF, World Bank, etc), or add them to the general list provided you have a source for them. I went ahead and updated everything to their 2008 stats, rewrote the title and description of this page so that it clearly shows who is behind this list and their methodology for it. It seems to me looking back on this discussion page, that issues seem to be more based on subjective opinions and biases that objective fact reporting which is what wikipedia is supposed to be. Eman007 0:50,13 November 2009 (UTC)

rubbish

i've come along a lot of crap on wikipedia, but this article beats it all. i request deletion. in light of so many mistakes, stating one obviously dubious source (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) certainly is no reason to keep this article in.Sundar1 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to nominate the article for deletion, you need to follow the steps outlined at Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also find this article to be dubious in nature: taken from a single source, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and is almost an advertisement for the same company. This company does not cite its sources, or even where it gets its data or comes up with its numbers. Many seem to question this source's validity, as do I, for many reasons: speaking for France, I can say that the only economical data available in this country is from its administrative areas - communes, departements and regions - and the numbers PWC cites do not at all correspond to this. In reading their study we see that they've based their data on city urban areas, but in France the only thing the urban area (unité urbain) statistical area is used for is demographics (and it changes with every census), thus I don't know how PWC could come up with their numbers - it can only be an estimation. I have doubts about both the veracity and importance of this article - an article written about one source is a no-no here, and when the statistics it "creates" are both unreferenced and dubious, even more.


 * I will nominate this article for deletion, and let's continue the discussion there. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Please find the discussion here: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cities_by_GDP. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Classifications within Europe
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Photo Tel-Aviv over Tehran
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)


 * Photo changed. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for article
{Moved from the AfD page) How about we structure the article in a way like List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population where we have multiple columns for different sources. We have one column for PWC, another column for an "official estimates" or "other estimate" column as some have stated to be found and another if another list is found for that source. This way we have multiple sources instead of one source as this seems to be a key issue and editors/readers can have a better idea of what are the current estimates out there. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -Sounds like a good idea to me. Eman007 01:25, 8 December 2009
 * Sounds like a good idea to me as well. If you arrange it into a list whose order is modifiable by rank (according to..), name, etc, even better. You're going to have to put as much info in there about what data the estimates are based on - administrative region, urban area, metropolitan area, etc - but perhaps a notation system (a symbol or footnote link) next to each number would do the trick. Finding out how they extract economic numbers from administrative areas for their chosen areas of measure will be a harder chore - per-capita earnings vs. land covered, etc.? - but it could be a fun and informative project if you can find that info and present it in a citable way. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not misunderstanding you Promenader, but do you mean something like this? See User:Elockid/List of metropolitan areas by population. There are multiple rankings on there and one can easily modify the table by pressing the box with the triangles after the column name. There's a default rank in there since the was the suggested method on the article I'm working on, but we can always alphabetize it and clicking on that box will show the ranking according to the sources. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that. Suggestion: can the numbers/ranking/number source of each estimation source be grouped a little more clearly - perhaps with coloured borders? Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  11:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good suggestion. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a table based on the suggestions given. See User:Elockid/List of cities by GDP. I don't know how to color the borders, but I know how the shade in the boxes so that's what I did to group them a little more clearly. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice! That makes everything crystal clear. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would anybody mind if I work on it or help to work on it my subpage? The reason I say my subpage is because it will take a while to gather and complete the table unless no one minds the page being in construction. Could we also list out the alternate sources that were presented? <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the very reasons I promoted this article for deletion was the fact that seemingly no-one was working on it (to any effect) - if there are few contributors, you hardly need to ask permission ; ) What's more, if you manage to turn this article into an objective multi-citable source (usable by any/all "vanity claims"), you'll be everyone's hero, sir. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just added tags that should hopefully attract more people over to edit and contribute. Eman007 19:50, 15December 2009 (UTC)

List of top 100 cities in the world by GDP value in PPP
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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

this article is a bag of cr..
i'm using this discription because there has been so much criticism (see above) and absolutely no meaningful response. i fail to see good faith. perhaps the persons defending this list could explain, what the value of it is supposed to be, because i can see absolutely none. what information are you supposed to get out of it? i might as well put in a list: apple: 110 g, peeled cucumber 125 g, banana (with or without peel?) 86 g, pumpkin (seeded) 2,350 g etc. and rank them according to their weights. what would anyone get out of such a list, no matter what sources i use? the people defending this list obviously have no idea how statistics are made and what they reflect.Sundar1 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this list, recently nominated for deletion (by myself), was supposed to take on a more comprehensive/objective/multi-sourced aspect as a conclusion to that discussion, but not much has changed since then. Is there something in the works? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently working on it. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the the new table to the article per the suggestions above. This way, it will be easier to add multiple sources. I'll also be adding more data as soon is I find them. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 16:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is much better now ! Polylepsis (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am giving Elockid major commendation for improving this article. In the next couple of days and weeks when I have the time, I will also add more of the necessary information to the article. It indeed looks much better though we still have much more work to do. Promenader, a major project like this takes tremendous time and effort and will be an ongoing project for the coming months and even years to follow. Your hastiness in calling for the editing and deletion of this article is unwarranted, unnecessary, and facetious. A consensus was reached that this article will not be deleted. Need I remind you again that your personal wishes of disliking this article should be left off of wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated instead if you would help us find the necessary statistics to create the balance and veracity that is needed in this article. This goes for Sundar and others as well who dislike this article for merely personal personal reason than for any kind of objective merit. Thank you. Eman007 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Eman. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you cannot defend this so-called list because arguments against it are supposedly "personal". as an urban planner i deal a lot with statistics and can tell you right now that such a list will never work, no matter how much time you waste on it. unless there is no international standard for defining cities and also for defining what goes into the gdp, such a list is totally useless. i would very much like to know, what info the defenders get out of it. the problems with such a list go much further than so far discussed: many north american cities have their own police force. the expenditures are part of their gdp. in other cities the police is run by the county, province or state. there the expenditures are part not part of the city-gdp. this is only one example of many. cities do not have the same responsibilities in every country. some build their own roads, others don't, some run their own libraries, others don't, some run their schools, hospitals, public transit, others don't, etc., etc.
 * you also cannot compare a city-gdp-list with other gdp lists because the latter refer to defined boundaries or statistical units. Sundar1 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sundar1:
 * Once again, the discussion for the deletion of this page has long ended. This page at this point will not be deleted. As noted at the top of the page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cities by GDP article. If you don't have any suggestions for the improvement of this article, then I would cease calling for the deletion of this article as you are wasting space and your time. If this article bothers you so much, you can make the judgment to simply ignore it and not use it as reference. But please don't waste this space to continue to make a dead and very personal argument for a consensus that has long been reached. This is not a talk forum for that sort of thing either. Either you can help us add more statistics to make this article more correct, or just ignore it and move on. Thank you. Eman007 (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

List of cities by GDP

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I see your point. But would like to make 2 points of myself.
 * 1) There is something to say for additional information even at the cost of comparability. Both are in the interest of the article. Consensus should decide which is the overriding principle in compiling this list.
 * 2) There is actually an alternative. The article could state specifically, that various sources are used in order to incorporate new information as it becomes available, and that this might affect the comparability of the data.
 * 3) If consensus should be that this article should stick to the 2005 list, then the title of the article should be changed accordingly, because this title clearly does not fit this constriction. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Taipei is left out of the PWC study. I believe it has a $229 billion GDP at PPP, which would rank it 27th if included in the PWC list. They do say on page 31 of their report that they start with a UN list of cities. Since Taiwan is not part of the UN, I assume this is why Taipei has not got picked up. I might go as far to suggest this was unintended by PWC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan88888 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oceania Cities
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)

Nagoya Japan
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)

Nagoya GDP
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AhochaudeJP (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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) 19:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New York City GDP
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. --—  r obbiemuffin  page talk 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Per capita calculations are rubbish
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)
 * Second this – the page also misuses the PWC study that's it's main source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.96 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WHY DONT YU DO JUST A LIST BY ORDER INSTEAD OF ALPHABETIC?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.78.151 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicago can cover 30,000 sq km's but Toronto can't ?
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)grmike
 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)7
 * 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)grmike
 * 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)grmike
 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#A40000;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Chicago's metro area is larger than Toronto's in both size and population because the Chicago region is fully built up in and outward from Chicago, much further than Toronto's suburbs expand from Toronto. In fact, Chicago is built up going as far up toward the Milwaukee region, yet the Milwaukee region isn't counted with Chicago. So to answer the question, yes, Chicago can have a larger metro area geographically than Toronto. No two metro areas are going to be the same size geographically. Also, Toronto's population (or any city's population for that matter) doesn't necessarily relate to its status of its GDP output. For instance, Manila is one of the most populous metro areas in the world, but its GDP doesn't relate to the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The ranking is incomplete
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)

Entire page needs overhaul
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)


 * The article doesn't only use PWC. There's an "Official estimates" and a "Other estimates" column present. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 02:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

Why is Sao Paulo at the tenth position?
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)

New version
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 : Waiting for your comments, cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Put rank column (1,2,3) next to table, but not in it
See rank order and Help:Sorting. 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)


 * 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)

Missing Cities?
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)
 * 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)


 * Dubai Jawadreventon (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Pictures
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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 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)

23 March, user Camins removed gallery. This is ok. I support two version: using function of and max 8 pitures or removed all pictures (via Camins version), strong oppose for 30 pictures on right of the page. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seoul: Incheon note
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)aquaticko

Alphabetical order..
Seriouisly? Put it by rank you retards, otherwise how will /int/ use it for the muh dick contest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.98.160 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry sir, it's 'srsly?'! We like alphabets (all of them) so u can stuff ur numbers), complain more -> we alphabetaize by Hangui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.170.230 (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rank
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)


 * I Agree. Right now it is one of the most useless lists I have ever seen in my life... If it had some kind of sequential order (other than alphabetic which is useful only to an alphabet) it would offer some insight. Without it, it offers nonsense as a sequential chaos. Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The Bosphorus marks a boundary between Europe and Asia (it's about the only Europe/Asia boundary that has been consistently agreed on and unchanged over the last century). Ankara is therefore NOT in Europe. Istanbul is.1812ahill (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Euronuts?
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)
 * As stated above the entire article bears no connection to reality (eg. Brussels: GDP $245bn, GDP PPP $83bn? Now that's an expensive place to live in!)1812ahill (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny
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)

Latin America
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)

Most Brookings GDP figures differ from the source
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)
 * 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)

Seoul official estimate
Re edits: Let's discuss to avoid an edit-war!
 * (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)

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)


 * No comments, so newly derived 2015 figure (635 $USD BN) added to article. Batternut (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

San Francisco Listing
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)

Why UNSD sub-region, when there is no UNSD data?
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)
 * 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)

Brookings(2014) GDPs are still incomplete.
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)

India surpassed Japan in 2009 . China did USA in 2014 . LuisJp (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For completeness, here are all the correction details I have noticed.

Erased Karachi	Pakistan	South Asia	97.0 Pune	India	South Asia	69.0 Ahmedabad	India	South Asia	68.0 Surat	India	South Asia	59.8 Lahore	Pakistan	South Asia	59.0 Visakhapatnam	India	South Asia	43.5 Faisalabad	Pakistan	South Asia	35.0 Lucknow	India	South Asia	34.7 Jaipur	India	South Asia	31.2 Islamabad	Pakistan	South Asia	25.0 Nagpur	India	South Asia	18.0 Patna	India	South Asia	15.0 Indore	India	South Asia	12.0

Changed Hyderabad	India	South Asia	40.2	<=	402.0	ratio	10.0 Kolkata	India	South Asia	60.4	<=	160.4	ratio	2.5 Bangalore	India	South Asia	45.3	<=	110.4	ratio	2.4 Mumbai	India	South Asia	150.9	<=	310.0	ratio	2.1 Istanbul	Turkey	Middle East	348.7	<=	587.9	ratio	1.7 Chennai	India	South Asia	58.6	<=	78.6	ratio	1.3 Paris	France	Western Europe	715.1	<=	822.1	ratio	1.2 Delhi	India	South Asia	293.6	<=	193.6	ratio	0.7

Added Zhengzhou	China	East Asia	156.0 Yantai	China	East Asia	149.0 Shijiazhuang	China	East Asia	130.5 Nantong	China	East Asia	128.3 Kaohsiung	Republic of China	East Asia	113.6 Wenzhou	China	East Asia	101.9 Hartford	United States	North America	101.2 Zibo	China	East Asia	100.3 Aachen-Liège	Belgium	Western Europe	99.7 Daqing	China	East Asia	98.5 Nanchang	China	East Asia	96.0 Baotou	China	East Asia	94.1 Eindhoven-Den Bosch	Netherlands	Western Europe	91.5 Kunming	China	East Asia	88.6 Taoyuan	Republic of China	East Asia	86.8 Dongying	China	East Asia	83.7 Sapporo	Japan	East Asia	80.5 Bursa	Turkey	Western Asia	80.1 Tainan	Republic of China	East Asia	76.7 Sendai	Japan	East Asia	75.3 Hiroshima	Japan	East Asia	74.9 Nürnberg-Fürth	Germany	Western Europe	74.5 Buffalo	United States	North America	72.7 Nanning	China	East Asia	70.3 Huhehaote	China	East Asia	70.1 Bridgeport	United States	North America	70.0 Zhongshan	China	East Asia	68.7 Rochester	United States	North America	67.8 Anshan	China	East Asia	67.4 Taiyuan	China	East Asia	63.0 Luxembourg-Trier	Luxembourg	Western Europe	62.5 Hannover	Germany	Western Europe	59.6 Wulumuqi	China	East Asia	59.6 Honolulu	United States	North America	58.6 Shizuoka	Japan	East Asia	58.4 Albany	United States	North America	58.4 Ottawa	Canada	North America	58.2 Venice-Padova	Italy	Western Europe	57.3 Okayama	Japan	East Asia	56.8 Basel-Mulhouse	Switzerland	Western Europe	56.2 Almaty	Kazakhstan	East Asia	53.1 Florence	Italy	Western Europe	52.5 Hamamatsu	Japan	East Asia	52.3 Grand Rapids	United States	North America	51.6 Omaha	United States	North America	51.2 Nottingham-Derby	United Kingdom	Northern Europe	51.0 Bielefeld-Detmold	Germany	Western Europe	50.5 Niigata	Japan	East Asia	50.3 Bremen	Germany	Western Europe	47.9 Bakersfield	United States	North America	47.9 Toulouse	France	Western Europe	47.4 Braunschweig-Wolfsburg	Germany	Western Europe	45.5 Fresno	United States	North America	45.5 Worcester	United States	North America	44.7 Linz	Austria	Central Europe	44.6 Arnhem-Nijmegen	Netherlands	Western Europe	44.4 Genève-Annemasse	Switzerland	Western Europe	44.0 San Juan	Puerto Rico	Caribbean	42.7 Kumamoto	Japan	East Asia	41.8 Madison	United States	North America	41.8 Saarbrucken	Germany	Western Europe	41.7 Zhuhai	China	East Asia	41.3 Tucson	United States	North America	41.2 Greensboro	United States	North America	40.9 Little Rock	United States	North America	40.7 Syracuse	United States	North America	40.6 Haifa	Israel	Western Asia	40.4 Bordeaux	France	Western Europe	40.2 Gothenburg	Sweden	Northern Europe	40.0 Leipzig-Halle	Germany	Western Europe	39.6 Des Moines	United States	North America	39.5 Shantou	China	East Asia	38.7 Hsinchu	Republic of China	East Asia	38.4 George Town	Malaysia	South-East Asia	38.0 Dayton	United States	North America	37.5 Allentown	United States	North America	37.3 Strasbourg	France	Western Europe	37.3 Columbia	United States	North America	37.2 Durham	United States	North America	37.0 Bologna	Italy	Western Europe	36.3 Cardiff-Newport	United Kingdom	Northern Europe	36.0 Greenville	United States	North America	35.6 Harrisburg	United States	North America	35.1 Kagoshima	Japan	East Asia	34.3 Quebec City	Canada	North America	33.4 Cracow	Poland	Central Europe	33.1 Akron	United States	North America	32.8 Springfield	United States	North America	32.8 El Paso	United States	North America	32.7 Winnipeg	Canada	North America	32.5 Nantes	France	Western Europe	32.0 LuisJp (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

milan and london figures
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)

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

mumbai GDP is more than whole Pakistan Hhtvhjjj (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes in per Capita calculations
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)


 * 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)

Wrong flags and countries for Chinese cities
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)

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

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

The concept of scope is too vague
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)
 * 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)