Talk:Global city/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Man the GaWC list is bizarre...

Nicosia is at the same level as Rio de Janeiro, and a level higher than Montreal? How is that possible? I'd guess there must be some sort of huge "capital city" bonus, except that Ottawa, say, isn't listed at all. In what possible way is Nicosia a more important city than Ottawa? Ottawa is a bigger city and the capital of a larger and more important country. The whole thing seems utterly mystifying. john k (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Airport Traffic

Under the "Cities ranked by category" section in the "Annual airport traffic by passnger" list, it shows in order, London, New York City, Tokyo, Atlanta, Chicago, Paris, and Los Angeles for airport traffic. Is this list comprised of one airport in the metro area or all airports in the metro area? I would think it's comprised of all airports because Atlanta and Chicago have the world's busiest airports and they are not listed as number 1 and 2. BUT a question: If it is comprised of all airports, how can Atlanta be ahead of Chicago? Surely Atlanta's one airport, Hartsfield-Jackson, doesn't have more traffic than Chicago's mega O'Hare and Midway airports combined. n addition, the Los Angeles area has LAX, not as busy as Hartsfield-Jackson or O'Hare, but when you consider the airports in Burbank, Santa Ana, Long Beach, and Ontario surely Los Angeles should be higher on the list. Also, it would seem the New York City area airports of Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark, and White Plains would place it higher on the list than London. So again, is this ranking based on the all airports within the city limits only, or all airports in the metropolitan area? And if the latter, why isn't Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York ranked higher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Power City Index

I think there needs to be some adjusting. Under this segment, the top 20 cities have scores in the 200's. Then starting with the 21st city, every city in the list has a score of 2. Surely a gap this big in score from 20 to 21 can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lisbon/Montreal

It surprises me that Lisbon is above Montreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.92.235 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does that surprise you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.238.198 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Where would Las Vegas fall on the global cities rank: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc? Las Vegas has become quite famous around the world. Las Vegas has become one of most popular destinations in the U.S by international travelers. Some people tell me when I go overseas that they'd love to go to Vegas one day. Also, the city is booming and growing quickly in the desert. If Las Vegas is really "the entertainment capital of the world" and a place where a lot of people would love to live or visit, then it has to be a world city, but I haven't seen anything that mentioned Las Vegas as a global city in this article. Willminator (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Because none of the major global city lists or indexes have picked it up yet. Wikipedia can only repeat what has been published elsewhere, under core content policies WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Those policies can be annoying at times because it means Wikipedia always lags changes in the real world, but everyone agrees they're essential to preventing this user-edited encyclopedia from being overrun by quacks, idiots, and crazies (some parts already have been overrun). If you have a problem with the various global city lists/indexes, you'll have to directly lobby the people who create them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Alpha,Alpha++,Beta Ect

Sorry to be a a probable bore,but could some one please link this hole Alpha ++ thing I have only heard about it in one solitary youtube video [the user was probably referencing this page] apart form that I can't find reference. one a definition is reached it might help to list a reference in the alpha,beta section as it is a quite interesting concept.thank you (SlyRatchet (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

I have since found reference in the article. How ever I'd still lake to ad that the alpha++ thing should be explained better within the article specially considering the every-man won't go searching through the reference pages. I am on the website where the the idea originates and it is still hard to verify how they came up with the list. So it really os very difficult to find out what this thing is about and definitely no casual user would know what it is. (SlyRatchet (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Let's napalm this article

• subject matter is based on material of dubious scholarship.
• the article becomes a lightning rod for hidden agendas, boosterism and the attendant unencyclopedic style (heavily caveated assumptions and flagcruff) Kransky (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think the article is based on dubbious references. What a "global city" is defined in different ways, and that's what the article tries to reflect by adding different global city lists. Boosterism is a really big problem in articles that have lists, but we can all help to prevent it by simply reverting modifications to ranks if they are not backed by a solid reference. I've done that several times when I detect a boosterism attempt. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

At least keep a historical record of it... It's cool just to see which cities were relevant during a historical time period. I mean, it would be absolutely stupid to keep only the most updated information while discarding historical facts... keeping a record of characteristical trends is more useful in my opinion for historical documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever copied the roster lost the city order among the different categories

Apparently, the cities are ordered in the different categories from more important to less important in the original source; that is London comes first, next NYC; Hong Kong is the most important Alpha+ city whereas Beijing is the least important of those. Whoever brought the roster here put it in alphabetical order thereby losing a lot of information. If I'm right, this should be fixed. --Belchman (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was recently changed to alphabetical order, though I have reverted those edits to preserve the pertinence of the order. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetic order in GAWC list to comply with WP:NPOV policy

The GAWC do not rank cities other than their categories: alpha, beta and gamma. In their website they do not rank cities numerically in each category. So, per Wikipolicy the best neutral point of view WP:NPOV practice is to order these cities in alphabetic order. We've seen tons of vandalism moving cities here and there as a boosterism practice. I've listed the cities alphabetically, of course respecting the category GAWC assigned. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List order complies with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR with reference to the sourced table. They are listed in that order because that is the order of importance within each category. If it were not a matter of importance, then GaWC would have listed them alphabetically. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll need an inline citation to sustain that they are listed in "order of importance", other way it's just WP:OR. GaWC does not say that. The only ranks GaWC uses is alpha, beta and gamma. Per WP:NPOV alphabetic order is crucial. I also recommend you to not violate WP:3RR. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that they are listed in order of importance, otherwise they would have been listed alphabetically. If you read this article, you will see the author says Milan retains its eighth ranking (Taylor 2011, 24) although it is closely followed by the rapidly rising Shanghai and Beijing. In the GaWC table Milan is listed ahead of Shanghai and Beijing. Evidently the order in which they are listed is of extreme pertinence and thus an alphabetically ordered list is not warranted. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, it's ok. I even defended your point of view in the past but the GAWC doesn't say anything about particular ranking within each category. They only talk about alpha, beta and gamma. I believe that to guarantee neutrality and avoid vandalism and boosterism, given the fact that GaWC says nothing about other kind of rank but alpha, beta and gamma, alphabetic order in each category is the best WP:NPOV. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is false. The author explicitly says Milan retains its eighth ranking showing that they are indeed ranked numerically. Again, if you count on the list Milan will be ranked eighth. The author(s) do talk about rank, though it is in their numerous articles on their studies of global cities. While we're talking about rank, in addition to alpha, gamma, and beta, they mention and list high sufficiency and sufficiency cities. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion they seem to only rank cities in the three categories named alpha, beta and gamma. I read the whole reference and it doesn't say anything about other kind of rank. They could easily add a number next to each city in the three categories, but they didn't, which strongly indicates they don't numerically rank cities. Alphabetic order seems the best choice until a reference clearly tell us they do numerically rank each city in their three main categories. So alpha order follow NPOV policies and it was good I think, I don't see any problem with it. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 03:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed your opinion, as you yourself pointed out. However, when the authors of the table explicitly mention cities with rankings in their vast plethora of articles, and they are listed in that order on their table, it is blatantly obvious that they are indeed listed in a ranking system. Please cease making changes to the article until a proper consensus has been obtained and finalized. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not my opinion it's a fact that he website doesn't say anything about rankings other than alpha, beta and gamma cities. And also applying alphabetic order is a NPOV practice to correct a bias that is not properly sourced. Listen I'm not against any other kind of ranking, but it must be referenced!!!. Right now we only have the website indicating they categorize these cities in alpha, beta and gamma. Chill out!!! KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 03:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The website doesn't need to list numbers next to them because they are already listed in that order. To re-order the cities in a list different than that of the sourced table is original research and makes the list a candidate for deletion. The website talks about the rankings in their numerous articles. Simply because two users are unwilling to comb through their vast library of articles to find evidence that they are ranked in the order they are listed is a terrible excuse for them to be listed alphabetically when they are so clearly listed the way they are for a reason. If the author of the table ranks Milan higher than Beijing and Shanghai why should it not be listed before them? In fact, it is on the table of cities created by GaWC; listing them alphabetically will make Wikipedia a venue for inaccurate information. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I must demand you to be WP:CIVIL and avoid AD HOMINEM attacks. Alphabetic order is never original research because it is not an arbitrary sorting. In fact, it is a policy recommended for implementation as the best neutral solution in cases where there's a lack of references. In this case we don't have references supporting directly that GaWC assigns numeric or other kind of ranking other than their main alpha, beta and gamma categories.

In fact, GaWC explains their alpha-beta-gamma system in detail!!! but again, they don't acknowledge any other type of ranking. Any other interpretation of their system, without a direct quoting, is just a personal opinion and of course qualifies as original research. I also should remind you that since you're the one saying they have other ranking system, the WP:BURDEN of evidence lies with you.

Also Alex Coverrubias says he's addressing not only a NPOV problem but a vandalism problem because too many editors and ip addresses edit the list trying to booster their favorite cities. Alphabetic order is the best solution until until we can find other sources directly talking about other type of ranking other than alpha-beta-gamma. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 05:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We indeed to have a source directly supporting the ranking GaWC assigns to their cities. It is the table in which they are listed. Would you suggest that an organization as thorough in their studies as GaWC, that have spent a lengthy amount of time devising empirical formulas to calculate the worlds global cities, would arbitrarily list their defined global cities? No doubt they know about the alphabetical format but obviously their methodology foregoes that system and they rank cities by importance. The order they present their cities has pertinence. If Wikipedia fails to properly duplicate this list, or alters its original listing, it becomes original research. GaWC in fact acknowledges the ranking within their system. May I again reveal to you a direct quote from one of their documents: Milan retains its eighth ranking (Taylor 2011, 24) although it is closely followed by the rapidly rising Shanghai and Beijing. The quote is within their paper title Milan as Italy’s Leading City in the World City Network of the Early Twenty First Century where they explain the methodology behind its ranking. This is really common sense. The list that explains the alpha-beta-gamma system only relates the cities to London and New York and their ability to act independently. The real explanation of their methodology lies in their articles. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OceanBeach you were warned by an administrator to stop your edit warring, we are only fulfilling WP policy about neutrality and sorting this list alphabetically because in this case, we have no direct evidence and sources that the GaWC uses other ranking other than the alpha beta gamma system.

You refused to stop reverting and continued to edit-war just now. That is disruptive because the changes were not controversial. This was just because accordingly with Alex this list has been altered too many times by users and anonymous IP users. Also you have failed to support your claim that the GaWC uses other ranking system. So far we haven't seen any direct mention of such a system. You should stop being uncivil and avoid reverting. Thanks. I think we are just trying to have an adult level conversation. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 02:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was warned about not violating the three revert rule, not edit warring. I waited the 24-hour period before reinstating the accurate version as produced by GaWC. You have evidence from GaWC, I feel no need to further explain; I cannot see any way to further explain. I have produced direct quotes and again the table remains the primary source. You have made changes before a consensus was finalized. I am not being uncivil. You are disrespecting a discussion by introducing changes that have not been properly discussed upon. The best way to stop vandalism is to stick to the exact order presented in the GaWC table; in fact, today a user moved Istanbul to a higher category even though it was in the alphabetical format. So the idea that somehow producing the list alphabetically will stop vandalism is not true. You repeatedly bring up the case of WP:NPOV when in fact, the list is supported by and complies with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. There is more than one Wikipedia policy to go by. Again, stick to the listed order presented by GaWC. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Violating repeteadly 3RR is a form of edit-warring. You have been reported and blocked accordingly 1 week. You also were blocked in the past for not respecting this same rule.

Ok cut to the chase. Again, the GaWC aknowledges only three rankings: alpha, beta and gamma as explained in their metodology page (see link here [1]). They don't rank the cities inside each of these three categories. We need a source that explicitly say they also sub-rank each of these three categories. So far we only have a source explicitly saying they rank alpha, beta and gamma and the link you provided do not say anything about other metodology. So per NPOV the best is to sort alphabetically I honestly think. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 06:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to resolve this

Introspective of any GaWC order within the category this page should list the cities in each category in alphabetical order.

• Support, as proposer. Mtking ^(edits) 09:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support the alphabetic order. The GaWC website inform very well about their categorization system, in which they only rank cities in alpha, beta and gamma. We don't have clear and direct evidence supporting any other type of ranking, and especially not another ranking within the three main categories. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - For now, alphabetic order is the best to solve vandalism and boosterism. But, as I said before, if we find a GaWC document where they explain another ranking system other than Alpha, Beta and Gamma as clearly as they do here [2], we should definitely consider it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've often found that Alphabetic order helps to solve issues when nationalism or other highly sensitive issues come into play. I've used this technique in Arab-Israeli related articles with great success...and we all know how difficult editing in that area can be...and how hard it can be to gather consensus. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting GaWC

This table shows cities changing position within the Alpha-Beta-Gamma system. It no doubts indicates rank. The article also refers to Hong Kong as being ranked third. Regardless, seeing as Karnifro refuses to accept that they rank cities individually, even though there are numerous mentions of cities being accompanied by rankings, I am contacting GaWC to see if they really do rank them individually. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the global cities list be arranged as presented by GaWC?

Should the list of global cities in this article be arranged to replicate the list as presented by GaWC? Answer yes or no, and please explain a no answer with an alternative or by stating there is none. This list order was recently changed and does not follow the order of the cities as presented by GaWC. The primary argument against this is that the cities are listed arbitrarily, but GaWC recognizes the pertinence of the order by giving cities a certain ranking relative to other world cities in the following documents by GaWC: Milan as Italy’s Leading City in the World City Network of the Early Twenty First Century and Measuring the World City Network: New Results and Developments (also the present methodology page). 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• No It seems consenus was reached in a previous section with editors supporting an alphabetical order I concur. There is controversy in the order, therefore we should avoid making conclusion based on weak evidence. I acknowledge that there is some evidence supporting a ranking system, however, if they intended one it is odd that the cities are not numbered or something similar. Eomund (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Eomund: What do you think the GaWC means when they say things like "Hong Kong is consistently number 3 (NOT Tokyo) and is definitely gaining in importance and approaching the alpha++ level ..."? Isn't it pretty clear what the rationale is for their order. Clearly, the creators of the lists are very anal when it comes to numbers, scoring, and ranking. It is not reasonable to conclude that they randomized the cities within each grouping. To the contrary, a reading of the sources makes it clear that the cities are ranked within each group. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your first question: I don't know what they mean. The job of wikipedia is not to say what things mean. We should find some secondary sources that say what GaWC means. Saying what someone else means without reliable sources is OR. To answer your second question: as I understand it, wikipedia's job is not to make conclusions, reasonable or otherwise. We should report what other people conclude, not make conclusion ourself. Eomund (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I am curious to hear the reply to your email Eomund (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Preserving the original order presented in the source is not OR. Concluding that the original order is meaningless while ignoring strong evidence to the contrary, and arbitrarily changing the order, probably is. Zanhe (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is not an arbitrary order. I believe it is the best NPOV solution when there's no direct evidence about a subject. In this case, we don't have strong direct evidence about other kind of ranking system other than alpha, beta and gamma. GaWC only aknowledges these three categories. Interpreting their system is just OR. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. Also, a few users who have replied "no" repeatedly purport that the cities are not accompanied by rankings; suggesting that we are interpreting GaWC's system when, in fact, we are merely citing text by GaWC. There is no interpretation, erroneous or unerring, but the simply stated facts presented by GaWC. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• No Consensus was reached [3] to list cities alphabetically within each category. Several very good reasons were explained in the discussion, being the most important argument the fact that GaWC doesn't aknowledge another kind of ranking system other than alpha, beta and gamma [4]. Opening this RfC after consensus was reached at the talk page, seems to be only a POV forking method. The alphabetic arrange of cities within these 3 categories should remain, as it is the best NPOV practice to avoid vandalism and boosterism by both registered and unregistered users. Interpreting a type of arrage that the GaWC project doesn't aknowledge is just OR. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC was opened because only four people, three of them editors to this article, "obtained consensus" and possibly millions of people will view this page. The POV of a small group is being pushed upon this article, when consensus is more accurately obtained through a large number. According to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, community consensus is preferred. Also, consensus is not binding and is subject to change, read WP:CCC. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Since I didn't state my position, the cities are listed by GaWC in an order for a reason, to assume that they arbitrarily listed cities is nonsensical as anyone willing to work for GaWC no doubt knows of alphabetical order but forgoes that order for a purpose. If one reads their plethora of articles it will become evident that there is a pertinent hierarchy as cities will often be accompanied by rankings. Editors repeatedly mention that this page is their methodology page when in fact it only talks about cities being able to operate with independence to New York City and London. Their true methodology page is located here. It was also suggested that an order different from that presented by GaWC would prevent vandalism, though in fact, almost immediately after the change it was vandalized. There have also been similar instances that have occurred since. The order also complies with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR as this table is the primary source. To avoid any confusion, the list should be replicated exactly. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• No (Yes to alphabetical order) is best as it furthers the agenda of the alphabet so that it can conquer the world. Mtking ^(edits) 07:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But seriously, this is bordering on forum shopping, unless the GaWC comes out and flatly states (on their website) that the order is important and what the rational for that order is then alphabetical order is the only one that is NPOV. Mtking ^(edits) 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mtking: RfCs are designed to solicit input from uninvolved editors. It is not "forum shopping". To the contrary, it is a low-key, rational step in the WP:Dispute resolution process. In a typical Talk page, there are typically 3 to 10 editors that provide input, and that is not a decent sample size. RfCs get additional input from random WP editors. That is a good thing. --Noleander (talk)

• No (Yes to alphabetic order) because well basically we has a consensus. I agree with the same reasons MtKing and AlexCovarrubias explained. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Karnifro: I changed your bold !vote from "Yes to alphabetic order" to "No (Yes to alphabetic order)". Normally I would never change another editors comment, but the RfC asked for Yes/No preferences, and your !vote was the reverse of what you intended, true? If you object to my changes, feel free to undo it. --Noleander (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - The GaWC source, which this entire article is based upon, makes it clear that their list is fully sorted, and that the order within the groups is meaningful. For example, one of the sources states "Hong Kong is consistently number 3 (NOT Tokyo) and is definitely gaining in importance and approaching the alpha++ level ..." and this corroborates the fact that Hong Kong is listed at the top slot in the second group. By sorting the cities alphabetically, we are depriving readers of the encyclopedia of valuable information. --Noleander (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I sent an email to one of the persons (apparently a lead researcher) listed on the GaWC web site, asking them if they could clarify what - if any - significance there is to the listing order. --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - I was initially leaning toward alphabetical order, but after reading the GaWC articles it appears clear to me that the list is sorted, and scrambling up the original order removes valuable information from the source. In addition to the observation made above by Noleander that "Hong Kong is consistently number 3 (NOT Tokyo)" and is therefore listed at number three in the overall list (and number 1 in the Alpha+ category), this article clearly states that "Milan retains its eighth ranking (Taylor 2011, 24) although it is closely followed by the rapidly rising Shanghai and Beijing", and the original order from GaWC matches this statement perfectly. Zanhe (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - GaWC sources mention that Hong Kong is ranked number 3, Milan number 8, followed by Shanghai and Beijing, all of them match the original order perfectly. There are a total of 8 cities in the Alpha+ category, so the probability that this happens by chance is 1/8 * 1/7 * 1/6 * 1/5 = 0.06%. In other words, there's a 99.94% probability that the original list is sorted, using basic statistics.

Even if we completely disregarded such overwhelming evidence, changing the original order, even in a seemingly innocuous manner, involves the implicit assumption that the original order is random and meaningless, and that smacks of OR to me. On the other hand, preserving the original order, just like a direct quotation from the source, is almost never OR. Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Zanhe, you bring up one of my key points in previous discussion. Thank you for taking the time to calculate the probability of the list being sorted. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - One of the leaders of the GAWC research, Peter Taylor, replied to my email inquiry. He says:

"The reason we present the GaWC results as strata is that we do not want people to interpret our connectivity scores as precise and indisputable results. However we do not ramdomize within strata so that the listing is actually a ranking (Hong Kong is third). For my position on this see GaWC Research Bulletin No. 300. We are always trying to improve our methods and we are now thinking in terms of two rankings reflecting intensive and extensive globalizations. 2010 results are now ready for posting and may include this additional sophistication. I trust this aids your debates - Peter"

Bulletin #300 that he references is http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb300.html --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So essentially there is a ranking and it isn't an arbitrary or randomized listing. How much more explicit can one get? 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The original proposal by MtKing (that we all agreed) was to order alphabetically irrespective of any other order. As Peter Taylor said in that e-mail they don't rank because they don't interpret their connectivity scores as precise and indisputable. So if they don't think they are precise in their work, the best NPOV solution is still alpha order. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Only four users participated in the "original proposal." It's hardly consensus. Pete Taylor said Hong Kong is ranked third, and that the listing is not randomized. Thus there is a ranking. Since there are now to ranking categories, as Taylor points out, we now need two lists - though that is another discussion. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any ranking of global cities can claim to be precise and indisputable. If you logic were to be followed, we'd need to alphabetize the results of all the other rankings on this page as well. And I think keeping the original order would be a better solution. Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know anything about Wikipedia or editing its content, but I'd like to say, as someone involved in the GaWC project, that the GaWC results are meant to be in the order they appear on the list, NOT alphabatised. While the tiers are important in that they classify cities into groups based on relative importance, they should be left in the order the appear on the study. (ie Alpha+ cities should appear as follows: Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, etc., NOT Chicago, Dubai, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.21.32 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this hasn't been changed yet. Are you all from Chicago or something? It doesn't matter what the "original proposal" was, we've since discovered that the list is clearly meant to be in the order it appears in the study. By putting it in alphabetical order, we are distorting the intentions of the study and misleading readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.21.32 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm confused. It seems as if all comments address the GaWC section, but the original proposal seems to me to address an overall method of sorting, which I don't see in the article at all. However, we definitely need to put the GaWC section in the same order as GaWC does; it's patently wrong to say "Here's what this source says" and then proceed to say something different. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

London Moves Ahead

http://zyen.com/long-finance/global-financial-centres-index-gfci.html, all the important index's reflect that London is now top and the article should reflect that .Twobells (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in "A map showing the distribution of GaWC-ranked world cities (2008 data)" image

In the image "A map showing the distribution of GaWC-ranked world cities (2008 data)", Almaty, Kazakhstan is not located correctly. The location indicated appears to be Astana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.114.57 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The list is just .....

I am really surprised so see some cities being present and some cities being absent on the list. I really don't understand how Baku, Yerevan and Jerusalem aren't there. There is no point in adding that Jerusalem is very relevant in history and religion. Also it is very notorious city. Baku - largest city in Caucasus with 2 million people and largest Caspian port. Yerevan - big capital of Armenia, one of the oldest cities in the world..... Also it surprises me that city where I live in - Belgrade is only at Gamma + level?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade011 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

List Deletions

About a week ago a user deleted the lists on this page citing copyright, although reading the WP:CIL article it says this is generally done for lists based off value judgements and not data, and I'm no expert but I question whether that really is a problem with copyright. AlphaNumerical1 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Chicago

Chicago has been placed at the top of Alpha+, thus wrongly suggesting that it immediately follows New York (rather than Hong Kong). This is not in line with the GaWC study (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html for the latest data, released 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.76 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening statement

The opening statement that global city status is "desirable" is extremely non-encyclopedic. Considered by whom to be "desirable" in what manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.217.221 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Vancouver

Would somebody please check the Vancouver ranking. Although Vancouver does have great quality of live, I'm convinced the Word Class Vancouver campaigners have given it a bump when no one is looking. If you have lived in Vancouver for any amount of time you will know Vancouver is fixated on being world class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.151.246 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong description

Actually, the picture of Tokyo has nothing to do with Tokyo. It was obviously taken in Shizuoka or Yamanashi. I'd like you to change it right away. 58.190.205.238 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This List Does not mean they are Great Cities

Criteria selection states two of these point "Cultural Interaction", "Livability", there are so many cities in this list which one or both of those criteria's certainly do not apply the list is contentious, ridiculous and bordering on the deranged in its selection process.--Navops47 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you gonna do about it? It's a list that exists. It's not Wikipedia's list. C.harrison1988 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Stupid criteria

With respect to middle sized cities like Stockholm, Vienna, Zurich, Boston or Dubai, how can it be that a city like Rome is ranked after them? ranked at 28 place? Rome is the seat of the most followed religion in the world, the seat of one of the major human civilisation and also the capital city of a country that is ranked in the top-10, among the most important and influential.--79.31.115.134 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As its ranking reflects, Rome is a relative backwater that hasn't been a top-level world city for decades. Italy is an important and influential country, but that is because of its strong industrial centers in the north at Milan and Turin, not Rome, which is a mere playground for tourists and government bureaucrats. Rome has a small airport, small freeways, a short skyline (even Milan's modest skyline is more impressive), small companies, mediocre universities, etc. Good food, though. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

^With respect to this post, although I agree with you that Rome has fallen out of contention as of late, your criteria are laughable. Small freeways? Really? Gee, I wonder what city you're from. This seems to be more of an attack on Rome than a valid refutation of its importance. Oh and by the way, if you think Los Angeles is any better, you're kidding yourself.. it's not even a city; more a collection of suburbs. Have fun with your BIG freeways and joke of a skyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.93.253 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

so it seems right to consider that the criteria are stupid, because the size of an airport, the freeways or the skyline are considered more important than the fact that the city is the center of the major religion in the world and the political center of one of the most important countries. Yes and the Coliseum or St. Peter are monuments lesser important or famous than some in Stockholm or Zurich, Boston or Dubai. --94.36.181.118 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All rankings of "importance" of cities, countries, universities etc are essentially pointless and can only be used to give a vague indication. That being said I think the center of Catholicism is technically not Rome but Vatican City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.6.10 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So, how's then Moscow is ranked 19th and Brussels is ranken 9th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.20 (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Brussels is the seat of the European Union, which is the only supranational organisation with regulatory powers over its member states and obviously draws a lot of traffic to it. You wouldn't believe the amount of lobbyists, advocacy groups, etc. coming here. Second, it is also the home to other major international organisations, NATO amongst them. Third, it may be a small city of a small country, but it's still a very wealthy country, plus it's geographic location is very good. Belgium is a country that has a lot of transit through it. Moscow is undeniably an important city, but I don't think it more important than Brussels, I'm sorry to say. Especially today when Russia is evolving into a pariah state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickstick (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You consider Stockholm, Vienna, Boston and Dubai middle-sized cities?? Vienna has a population of 1.8 million and Dubai has a population of 2.2 million (all within just the city limits alone and not including their metros which are even larger). Stockholm has a population bordering on 1 million people within city limits. Boston has a population of over half a million and over 5 million in its metro.2602:306:CC42:8340:D6E:C98B:B44F:4185 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic World's Most Economically Powerful Cities

In 2012, The Atlantic compiled a ranking of the world's most economically powerful cities. New York placed first, followed by London and Tokyo. Caristocrat (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No Edits???

All I wanna do is make it clear what gwac stands for, Globalization and World Cities Research Network. Also, as the entry below mentioned, seems pretty arbitrary/West-biased (1st impression). Will be outdated soon, I think, even if its 'legit'. NoWikiFeedbackLoops (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Accra, Ghana?

This is hilarious! Accra in the gamma category. its nowhere near even in the top 100. This is a made up list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.197.17 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing Important Cities!

I reside in Ahmedabad, India and it is a little astonishing that Ahmedabad is not covered in the Index!

The city has a population of over 5.5 million, a significant contribution to the country's GDP, houses a stock market index, increasing number of expatriates, one of the best quality of life index among Indian cities, Le Corbusier designed galleries and institutions, an international cricket stadium, strong presence of influential media companies, renowned universities and institutions of international repute, increasing tourism, an extensive BRT mass transit system, expressway and national highways connectivity, extensive railway connectivity, a busy international airport, extensive Wi-Fi and cell-phone coverage networks, hospitals, health-care facilities and research labs, parks and promenades, etc.

Having included cities like Hyderabad and smaller cities like Pune, One would expect a city like Ahmedabad which fares well on a lot of, if not all criteria to be included.

--Khemchandani (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A little under 4.7 million passengers over a year for an international airport I wouldn't call exactly a busy airport. In terms of passenger traffic it ranks 7th in India. 49 billion in GDP out more than 1 trillion in total GDP I wouldn't call a significant contribution to India's GDP. According to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, it is ranked 105th worldwide in terms of GDP. Elockid ^(Talk) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

216.79.153.1 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Excuse me please. I have brief question, if I may be allowed time to politely ask: May there be found any given reason why Toronto, the largest metropolis and 3rd closest to the United States, which houses the General Secretariat's office of the world's largest Intergovernmental Organization, is not on the gamma list of international cities? 216.79.153.1 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Toronto is on the more important alpha list. A city can only be on one of the lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

i think all these rankings are garbage

they are heavily western biased as london and new york always tend to be number 1s. Its so obvious these lists are made by westerners for westerners. Just look especially how Moscow is underrated in some rankings its under Budapest or Lisbon lolmao??? I cant believe it, the only reliable sources to measure tows are the last lists in this article, which are simple basic facts.

most proper people = no new york (cuz new jersey is counted out), no paris, no lodnon, ahh yeah moscow is as its the only european city at 5th place. And if you account urban areas moscow has most people in europe. most expensive city moscow second, most billionaires moscow first, cost of living moscow 4th and city by gdp if you click at the actual article you can see moscow is 5th above london. Most metro user moscow second. While paris and london are not in any of these statistics. And another example which is missing are skyscrapers moscow has the most and the tallest in europe. http://www.glassguides.com/index.php/archives/3078

And now people come with culture blabla which is ridiculous we all know moscow has more culture than overrated london and paris. This city built an global empire, saved europe from mongols, hitler and napoleon. It ruled half of the world and brought communism which gave a huge impact to the world. Its more and more obviously now that moscow is the true capital of europe like it always have been before the collapse of the SU.--Shokioto22 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Complement London and New York?

Alpha + cities do not complement New York and London. Alpha + cities do their own thing and are not on Earth to complement New York and London. That's an absurd statement to make in the article and really should be removed. If I make 100,000 a year and my neighbor down the block makes $80,000 a year, is he doing that to complement me? All the other cities do not turn their money over to New York and London becuase those two cities couldn't fill a niche well. Every city, from the 1st on the list to the 1000th on the list, keeps whatever money it makes; their GDP is not to complement New York City's or London's. Stop insulting every city in the world by stating what they are doing is for New York or they are not living in a proper place if they are not in New York or London. It's the kind of statement from someone who has been brainwashed by the New York City media into thinking that if they are not living in NYC then something is wrong. I've been to New York several times, and there are plenty of other cities I enjoyed better; Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. You've already stated the category New York and London fall in on Global Cities. No need to mention them in the other categories.

THERE'S NO ANY GLOBAL CITY IN THE WORLD! IT'S AN INCORRECT TERM!

Closed: This article uses the term 'global city' in the sense intended by the sources cited - as a city of global economic significance etc. There is no reason not to use the term, in that its intended meaning is entirely clear. Further discussion is unnecessary and disruptive.21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Global is one of the most misused and abused English words (adjectives) in the world! In the strict sense of the word as defined by good dictionaries, global means: worldwide; involving or extending throughout the entire world; pertaining to or happening to the whole world; covering, influencing, or relating to the whole world; of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; comprehensive; total; so pervasive and all-inclusive as to exist in or affect the whole world; universal. There is NO such a global (worldwide) city in the world. Every and all cities (political/governmental units) are located within a province, region, or a country/nation only. Though all cities can transact international businesses, geographically, any city of any country can never be global nor worldwide. Thus, there is NO any global city in the world. And it's wrong to call any community or any city a global city. --Jim Lopez (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Lopez (talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC) You've heard of metaphor, yes? As the article notes, the term isn't literal , it's more of a descriptor. Rhowryn (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) So if global is used as a metaphor, what is your precise and exact METAPHORICAL definition or meaning of the descriptive word global as used in the term "global city"? --Jim Lopez (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC) It's explained in the article, and supported by reliable sources. It isn't Wikipedia's purpose do decide for the world how to use language, only to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC) The "reliable sources" that you're saying are only verbose and rhetorical. They do not give the CLEAR METAPHORICAL meaning of global. It's a must that ALL article writers in the world (on any significant subjects) for/in Wikipedia should be CORRECT and CLEAR on how to use the English language so that their ideas, thoughts, messages, infos, etc. would be clearly understood by the readers. The precise and literal dictionary/thesaurus meanings of global are already given above. But Rhowryn said that global is used as a metaphor. Like her, your reply is vague, too. It did not answer the question: If global is a metaphor, what is the precise/exact METAPHORICAL meaning of global in the term "global city"? I repeat, global means worldwide. In REALITY, geographically, there is NO any worldwide city, NO any global city. Every and ALL cities are located within a province, region, or country/nation only. NEVER global.--Jim Lopez (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC) This is semantic tomfoolery, really. It has been explained to you, you do not agree. That's it. I daresay you will not find much support for your intended change to the article. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC) I am only showing the realistic reality. The imaginative symbolism of metaphor for the descriptive word global is incorrect. There is NO any global city in the world.--Jim Lopez (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC) You say your name is Jim Lopez? You talk a lot like George Lopez! On a more serious note, your point is nonsense, for the reasons already noted by Lectonar. Sounds like you've never studied philosophy at the college level. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Of course, you can never talk and express all your thoughts in just a short one sentence. You can be able to say/explain them in sentences or in a paragraph/s. To reiterate, the reasons ("reliable sources") noted by Lectonar are unreliable as they are only verbose and rhetorical. They do not give the CLEAR METAPHORICAL meaning of global. Your point is the one that is nonsensical. Philosophy has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. I am just asking for the precise and clear metaphorical meaning of global. There may be a globally powerful (influential) city in terms of business, trade, finance, economy but, in realistic reality, geographically, there is NO any global nor worldwide city. People should realize that reality. The term "global city" is incorrect.--Jim Lopez (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I urge you to knock off this semantic nonsense. We understand you don't agree or understand - whichever the case, consensus is clearly againt changing the article. Time to drop it, the horse is dead, move along to other interests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Semantics is the study or science of meaning in language; or the meaning or the interpretation of a word, phrase, sentence, or other language form. Semantics is very important for it is through language that people and nations understand each other. If global city is a semantic nonsense, then why bother use the term? Do not use it! Global city is NOT a reality.--Jim Lopez (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, let me try again, a little more directly. Disruptively trolling can result in your account being blocked. Move along now, enough of this nonsensical waste of community effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I am definitely not disrupting this talk page nor trolling. When I am only focused on the topic/subject and only asking for the precise and clear (direct-to-the-point) metaphorical sense or meaning of global in the term global city, you people are already getting presumptuous and PERSONAL in your comments or remarks (that I never studied Philosophy in college. Yes, coolcaesar, you are all-knowing! That-I-am-trolling assertion, That-my-account-will-be-blocked threat, etc.) Barek, I am not persistent. Be focused on the topic/subject. If you cannot do it, you should be the one who should stop posting personal comments concerning me here, okay?--Jim Lopez (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Dear Jim Lopez, London is an English city because it's located in England, a British city because it's located in Britain; and if Britain (and therefore, London) is located within Europe, especially the European Union, then London should be a European city, right? And right now, Europe is located on planet earth, also known as the "globe", right? So wouldn't you agree that a European city is also a "global" city? If you do, then wouldn't you agree that London should also be a "global" city? I hope I've been logical and clear enough, because that's the best I can do.Ujongbakuto (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with flags

Under the GaWC study, Cambodia's flag is displayed next to Douala's. It should be Cameroon's.

Also, Cote d'Ivoire's flag seems to be missing next to Abidjan.

EDIT: Also Cali. Should have Colombia's flag but has Comoros'.

Also Labuan. It's in Malaysia and has a Wikipedia page about it, but here it's shown as it's in Indonesia and isn't linked to the proper page.

Also Arhus/Aarhus. It's in Denmark but has Netherlands's flag listed next to it.

Also Dhaka. Doesn't have it's flag listed.

Smells like vandalism to me :S Could someone fix these? 78.191.52.41 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to remove the flagfest altogether. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

support removal of flags - good lord can you get any more busy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. If a source is a long list, we don't have to slavishly copy every line of it then turn it into an table and fill it with coloured boxes and little flag pictures. How does that benefit readers? This is suppoed to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, people keep on adding it back into the article. Why? bobrayner (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person with a problem with the list. What are you actually objecting to, is it just the pictures of flags, or the list as a whole? Dergraaf (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the editors above, you mean? Meanwhile I see you've restored lots more content which isn't supported by sources. That's a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong city

In the "high sufficiency" Hamilton Canada is listed, whereas it is meant to be Hamilton, Bermuda. Also, Quebec city is on the list, but not on wikipedia's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.37.23 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

5.54.7.209 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Athens is in A- check this ok!:)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated U.S. territory, meaning that it is NOT part of the United States. The islanders do not pay federal income taxes or vote in federal elections. When the Census is taken every years, the island's population is not counted in the overall U.S. population. Furthermore, not a single star on the U.S. flag represents the island. After all the country is called the United States of America and it is composed of 50 incorporated states and the District of Columbia. The U.S. Supreme Court Cases Balzac v. Porto Rico determined that certain aspects of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to unincorporated territories. Therefore, the flag of Puerto Rico should be utilized. They have international recognition in many international organizations such as the IOC, INTERPOL, and CARICOM. If the flag of Hong Kong which is an incorporated territory of the People's Republic of China is utilized in this article, why is Puerto Rico's flag being shortchanged? Please discuss only on this page and not on my talk page. Thank you.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with User: XLR8TION on this issue. It is obvious that the user who continues to remove the flag of Puerto Rico from this article has little or no knowledge at all of the legal relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Puerto Rico can not be compared with Hong Kong which is part of China. Why the heck do think that the Olympic delegation from Puerto Rico participates and parades with their own flag? Do you see New York do that? However do not take my word for it, take the word from the United States Government which states the following:

  "Puerto Rico is a self-governing, unincorporated territory of the United States located in the Caribbean, approximately 1,280 miles (2,000 km) southeast of Florida. Its territory is an archipielago composed of the main island (Puerto Rico, which the indigenous Taíno people also refer to as Borikén), and a number of lesser islands and cays. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. possession since 1898. It became a commonwealth in 1952. Puerto Rican citizens became U.S. citizens in 1917.

  This is from a US Government site:Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico End of story. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetize

Someone added the "High Sufficiency" and "Sufficiency" catagories. It looks weird that they are not alphabetized like the other catagories. I'd do this myself but it's semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryesview (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did one better and put all the other cities in the correct order; i.e., the order seen here. As it does rank rather than simply classify cities, order is important. --Xenocidius (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentina

I suggest change "Cordoba" by "Rosario" ( Argentina )in the Sufficiency list considering that Rosario is the second citie by GDP of Argentina. Rosario is more competitive than Cordoba because has more international companies presence and more real state developments ( tallest buildings, financial district, etc...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panchoculo (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We base our content on what the reliable sources have determined, not what we think is the more competitive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Credibility of concept

Hi,

I believe that what is currently said in this article must not be that NPOV if it doesn't even include anything about the Four Asian Tigers and probably some other economic centers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.0.246 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic Power Index

This ranking is not a study but the author's "own Global Economic Power index" (this is the exact terms used in his article). In addition the methodology consists in a meaningless addition of the ranks of 5 different (real) studies (and only partially), which brings huge distorsions : the (real) Global Economic Power Index, the Global city competitiveness study (included in our article), the Global cities index (included in our article), the Global financial centers index, and the McKinsey study about cities GDP (in 2025 incidentally). For these reasons I don't think it should be included in this article. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

typo in a city in Poland

• Wroclaw → Wrocław (based on that you are spelling Kraków and not Krakow or Cracow)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

In the first paragraph there is inconsistency in the use of quotations around the phrase "world city". Thank you. 130.76.96.157 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am usually hesitant to add quotation marks to these sort of terms because of WP:ALLEGED, but the paragraph describes usage of terms, so I think quotation marks are appropriate here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

List of cities

Is there any particular order that the cities within each category are in? Shouldn't they be in alphabetical order or something? Hgrosser (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a particular order. See Talk:Global city/Archive 6#Alphabetize. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Saskia Sassen's use of the term

I think there's a slight inconsistency between the use of "global city" in this article and Saskia Sassen's use of the term. Sassen has explicitly made a distinction between "global city" and "world city" - a global city isn't about size or anything else, it's about cities that perform a certain function in global markets (they're the "bridges between global markets and national economies"). Now I understand that the term has then been taken on and referred to in a more general sense, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere that Sassen herself is not really writing about the kind of global cities described in this article. Her theory is basically about modern processes of globalisation and the term "global city" is supposed to make a distinction between new globalised cities like modern day London/New York and the old "world cities" of previous eras. Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be really good to build more content based on Sassen's work (and a couple of related pieces). The Economist revisited it recently. However, that means writing informative prose, for the benefit of readers, rather than just editing lists of cities. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is very questionable
because of no clear ranking scheme

The neutrality of this article is very questionable. Although it is clear that some cities are more important than others in political or economical terms, there are no clear criterias for an relative ranking. Why is Washington DC less important than New York? In economical terms yes, but in political terms not. Also there are not clear criterias for classifying a certain city in the alpha, beta or gamma category. Why is Munich in Germany an alpha-city and Hamburg a beta-city? This doesn´t make any sense? Therefore this city ranking is very subjective.--MBelzer (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect - you're missing the whole point. The article is not stating that particular cities ARE the greatest or most important, but rather that authoritative, well-executed analyses have come to certain conclusions. This article does a relatively good job in allowing the readers to then arrive at their own conclusions, based upon the varying studies. And it's "economic", not "economical", which carries a whole different meaning.

Castncoot (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn´t change the critic. Yes, there are some criterias for the classification of a certain city in a particular category, but they are not always objective. How do you weight a World Heritage Site in comparison with a Skyscaper Skyline? What is more important Economy or Policy? Therefore the ranking is very subjective. It depends on how you weigh your individual criterias in your list. I doubt you get an "objective" ranking. This can be seen clearly when you compare some of the Alpha Minus Cities with the Beta Plus Cities. Berlin or Rome Beta Plus? But Miami, Dublin and Melbourne Alpha Minus? Come on. This is clearly not the case. Therefore this ranking is very subjective! --MBelzer (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the article. All it is doing, and all it is intended to do, is to show how 'Global City' rankings are arrived at by the sources we cite. We aren't stating that any of them are 'objective'. That is for the reader to decide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013

Ssspace123 (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Above form contains no request. Meclee (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Economist

Why is there a section listing the results of the Economist's "Global City Competitiveness Index"? It looks like an editor just googled for something - anything - which used the phrase "Global city" and then diligently copied it into the article without understanding it. The economist's report does not discuss the concept of a "global city". They're not mentioned at all in the body of the report. It just so happens that the report considered cities around the world, so the title became "Benchmarking global city competitiveness".

• Here is one of many sources discussing "global wheat production", global wheat prices, &c. Obviously global wheat is a real thing. Should we write an article about global wheat?
• Here are some sources discussing global Nissan Leaf sales. [5] [6] Let's copy and paste them into a new article called Global Nissan Leaf! bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've removed the section directly, since the source isn't actually about "global cities".

A lot of the "Criteria" section suffered from the same problem - lots of criteria plucked from thin air, plus sources that discussed that criterion without mentioning global cities. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, are you implying that because articles about "global wheat" and "Global Nissan Leaf" should not exist, therefore this article about global cities also should not exist? - Ujongbakuto (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly: Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - about the Economist list. The title of the Economist source is "Benchmarking global city competitiveness" because it benchmarks the competitiveness of many cities around the world. It does not actually discuss "global cities". Have you read it? bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it, and I think you are quibbling. What exact kind of "discussion" do you require from a source? The report by the EIU does "discuss" global cities in over 30 pages, besides simply listing a bunch of cities. If you require the term "global city" to appear many times or whatever number of times that satisfies you, then I think you are really quibbling. In any case, on page 11 of the pdf file, there's this sentence: "While it is many of the world’s most prominent global cities that rank highest overall—New York, London, Singapore, Paris and Hong Kong—this research highlights the new challengers seeking to compete with them in the decade ahead." Although that's the only time "global cities" appears in a sentence, the report does discuss the various "indicators" of a global city, which is also what is discussed in the sources for any of the other lists in this wiki article; otherwise, there would not be any good reason for any list of global cities to exist. As for the word "competitiveness" in "Global City Competitiveness Index", it's just a word used to distinguish this list from other lists (which don't have the word "competitiveness" in their titles), simply because ALL these different lists of global cities are rankings (not alphabetical listings) of different global cities, i.e. there's competition in ALL these different lists. Therefore, the EIU's "Global City Competitiveness Index", which has been included in this wiki article for over a year without any objection from any reader/editor until you came along, is indeed a list of "global cities" with its own set of criteria, just like any other list. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, every city in the globe/world is a "global city" in a certain sense, i.e. it is a city that is globalized to a certain extent. Even if a city has zero relations with any other city/country outside the country that the city is located in, it can technically still be ranked on any "global city" list, i.e. it would be ranked last with a score of zero. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondly: Thanks for the original research. If you can get your ideas published in a reliable source they might then be incorporated into this article. Not until then. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you were referring to my statement about "a city that is globalized to a certain extent", I hope you have read the opening paragraph of the wiki article: "...rests on the idea that globalization can be understood as...", which was not written by me. Besides, isn't it common sense that a "global city" is simply a "globalized" city, and different cities are globalized to different extents? I wonder why you have to consider that as "original research". - Ujongbakuto (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you reinserted the content again. Why? That source is obviously not discussing the concept of a "global city". bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? Since you have finally asked again, here's another reason - even Richard Florida, who is the author of the source for Global city#Global Economic Power Index.5B12.5D.5B13.5D (a list which you have NOT removed), considers the EIU's "Global City Competitiveness Index" to be one of the "five recent comprehensive rankings of global cities". - Ujongbakuto (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

New GaWC data release

I have noticed that GaWC updated their city classifications (from the 2010 data to the 2012 data) on the 14th of January 2014. This needs updating onto this wikipedia page. the link can be found here. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.93.10 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated the list. I don't know how to change the map though. Hypertall (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The importance of stock exchanges in the GaWC study

The GaWC study looks at accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law. This means that a city gets a big boost if it has several important firms in those areas based there. It also means that having a stock exchange is very important. The World Federation of Exchanges Monthly Reports list 54 exchanges and readily explain why Ljubljana, Slovenia and Muscat, Oman (both gamma) outrank Salt Lake City, UT and Austin, TX.

The criteria near the top of the page already list the importance of having a stock exchange. But people wondering why their city is ranked lower than, say, Nicosia, Cyprus, should consider that GaWC status is very strongly correlated with the presence of a large stock exchange. While most cities with very strong financial sectors do have a large stock exchange, some do not, for political, geographic or other reasons.

Roches (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Cities Index 2014 Update

A.T. Kearney releases an updated Global Cities index each year. The 2014 Global Cities Index is available here The latest index was covered in Bloomberg Sarathesaj (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Macau flag

Why Macau has a Chinese flag, while it has its own? Hong Kong which has the same administrative status as Macau is presented with its own flag, so please fix Macau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.201.176 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

under heading:

1. Criteria
 1.1 Characteristics

The word subject is written twice in the first sentence:

"Although what constitutes a world city is still subject subject to debate, standard characteristics of world cities are:" Porky1989 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Poorly aligned table

The table containing the cities is aligned in such a way that the names of cities in one column are cut off by the next column. Cities like Moscow and Sydney are displayed as Mos and Syd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrinord (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

please change back the flags of both HKSAR and Macau, both cities are special administrative regions, which is not under CHINA Chanwl2704 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: How are they not under Chinese sovereignty? see Special administrative region Cannolis (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky one - most others use the country, but then London, New York... etc don't use their own flags regularly. Hong Kong and Macau are both clearly different in many respects to "normal" cities... in fact, much of their "World City" status comes from the fact that they weren't part of China. Audigex (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping tables

A recent edit has caused tables in the Global City Competitiveness Index subsection to overlap and render as unreadable data. I'd attempt to troubleshoot and correct the issue myself but page-editing of this article appears to be locked. 142.68.150.64 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

Because my original edit request (above) has still gone unnoticed, I am just now realizing that I should have applied an edit request template to this talk page thread... which I'm attempting to rectify with this post. My apologies are in order for misunderstanding procedures and applying the template out of sequence. 142.68.150.64 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks for pointing it out! --ElHef (Meep?) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt response and satisfactory fix. 142.68.150.64 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Warsaw

I wanna update Warsaw's photo cos its ancient and ugly. How I do that if page is protected??? - this one is new, or this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.249.216 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

Reillyjmay (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)According to Forbes. The number 1 global city is New York City, not London. I would like to correct my mistake.

{{Not done]] we have six different tables, giving different results depending on their criteria, but none of them are based on Forbes. - Arjayay (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

Double mention of Frankfurt in the Wealth Report. Although there are two cities by that name in Germany it is questionable the 'other' one can be deemed 'global' or even 'wealthy'. The latter one in the list (no. 24) should be swapped to Munich - according to the reference. Dankeschön! Wicked Pedia File (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Done You're right, the source actually says Munich for #24. Seems like someone made a mistake when transcribing the table to Wikipedia. Stickee (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles contradiction

The section with pictures lists Los Angeles as Alpha+, the main list lists it as Alpha76.99.233.63 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, the image was moved in April without explanation. I have moved it back. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Content of lists

The actual content of the various lists is copyrighted, as they are based on subjective criteria and not simple facts such as population. A such, including them here is a copyright violation. See WP:CIL for more. Crow ^Caw 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

gallery

it needs to be made clear that the gallery is incomplete; & it also needs to be made clear ON WHAT BASIS the gallery-rankings are being made.

just for one example; Berlin is nowhere to be found(!?) even though other, smaller German cities are mentioned, as well as other, smaller EU cities.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Add Two Cities: Seoul and Prague

Can you please add Seoul and Prague to the Alpha- List? They are included on the list but omitted on the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.10.1 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

The Actual GaWC table should be included in the document

Because of the number of cities on the list there should be the original table which shows all the cities. Here is a link: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.91 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 

The list was originally present on this page (See the 06:36, 9 October 2015 version) but was removed citing copyright (Re: Copyrights in lists). While this list looks as though it would fall under a potential copyright based on the descriptions explained in the CIL page, it's not clear if the actual compiled GaWC list is actually copyrighted. 204.148.29.50 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

Athens needs to be added in alpha- check your sources http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html 93.109.203.19 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done If you look at the 2012 list here, rather than the 2008 list you cited, Athens is Beta - Arjayay (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery section

I cut this gallery of 44 city photos just now as seeming uninformative to the reader - it doesn't seem to illustrate anything other than the fact that global cities all have lots of tall buildings and are (from downtown skyline shots) broadly indistinguishable. Realising that this left the article without images, I looked at the history to put some back in, only to realise I'd cut the same gallery last month, replacing it with a couple of thumbnails, for the same reason (plus the fact that the gallery seemed to be arbitrarily overemphasising the GaWC study).

User:Chronus did a flat revert of all this with no edit summary last month, restoring the gallery and the article's misformatted "Source:" referencing.

Does the article need a gallery of the 44 cities that GaWC considers to be "Alpha" global cities? --McGeddon (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global city. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100107184223/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/story/cms.php?story_id=4509 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)