Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 13 January 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

This article was nominated for deletion on October 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
1: through to Sep 2005 2: through to Jul 2006 3: through to Apr 2007 4: through to Dec 2009 5: through to Dec 2010 6: through to Dec 2011

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 Misplaced Pages'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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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!

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 Misplaced Pages 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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#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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. 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[REDACTED] 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

1. http://www.atkwebstage.com/public-sector/ideas-insights/featured-article/-/asset_publisher/4rTTGHNzeaaK/content/global-cities-present-and-future-gci-2014/10192
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-13/beijing-breaks-into-top-ten-in-rankings-by-a-t-kearney.html

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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

1. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Gallery of images

I have removed the gallery section in this edit. It seems to have been recently added. Does anybody think it is required here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Haute qualite pe, I see that you are adding images. It would be helpful if you discuss here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020223227/http://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/dfedfc4c-8a62-4162-90e5-2a3f14f0da3a to http://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/dfedfc4c-8a62-4162-90e5-2a3f14f0da3a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709133545/http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Hot%20Spots.pdf to http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Hot%20Spots.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Globalization articles
• High-importance Globalization articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Urban studies and planning articles
• Mid-importance Urban studies and planning articles
• C-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• C-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles