Talk:Global city

Archives
1: through to Sep 2005 2: through to Jul 2006 3: through to Apr 2007 4: through to Jun 2009

What's the point of this entry

This is just a list someone made up. So what? Can I make up a list, get it published in a magazine and get a Wikipeida article? Since it's all subjective anyway, what's the point of the article other than to give a link to a site that makes up this list? I think the whole thing should be justified or deleted. And why quote it in city articles. Could I say "Chicago is a Marge list A city." Who'd care. I wouldn't. This whole list is just something someone made up using their own criteria and doesn't belong in an encylopedia 99.149.195.153 (talk) 20:11, 22 July

I agree to it. I dont understand why so much importance is given to one publication from an unknown universirty intenationally. There are no references to internatioanl publication or even studies made by UN or UN funded organizations. These are more like studies based on parameters which any one can build and his/her city as best. Its not meant to be in wikipedia. We can better have cities ranked on 1 parameter which is already there like based on population or economy or something else. There is no point mixing all up and coming up with lists which are essentially debatable.

--Sandyiit (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But it has a lot more (or has that only happened since you wrote that comment?). Plus Loughborough is pretty well known, although admittedly mainly for it's sporting ability. I mean I could barely name a handful of US universities, so I don';t think the fact it's not famous means the research shouldn't be interesting. As to why there aren't any other reports, surely that's because, as the article says, there aren't many other reports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.249.214 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like these people just add these "so and so" class world cities to every frikin article about a city on wikipedia. If I make a list can I add my site to every city on wikipedia as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.165.89 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Gross Regional Product

I highly recommend to remove this column, as the data provided by PWC is very complicated, significantly outdated and does not provide a full scope of correct modern situation. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Düsseldorf

The city's name is Düsseldorf, named after the river of Düssel, not Dusseldorf (which would mean as much as Fools' Village). please correct that. I would do so myself, but the site is closed --131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why this doesn't show up on the page... --131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Power City Index

How about this ? [1] It is another study of world cities. Friedrichshainer (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source as PDF [2] Friedrichshainer (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rank	City	Score	Best category (position)
1	New York City	330.4
2	London	322.3
3	Paris	317.8
4	Tokyo	305.6
5	Singapore	274.4
6	Berlin	259.3
7	Vienna	255.1
8	Amsterdam	250.5
9	Zürich	242.5
10	Hong Kong	242.5
11	Madrid	242.5
12	Seoul	242.1
13	Los Angeles	240
14	Sydney	237.3
15	Toronto	234.6
16	Frankfurt	232.9
17	Copenhagen	231.7
18	Brussels	229.9
19	Geneva	229.7
20	Boston	226.2
21	Shanghai	2
22	Chicago	2
23	Vancouver	2
24	San Franciso	2
25	Osaka	2
26	Beijing	2
27	Kuala Lumpur	2
28	Milan	2
29	Bangkok	2
30	Fukuoka	2
31	Taipei	2
32	Moscow	2
33	Sao Paulo	2
34	Mumbai	2
35	Cairo	2

There are many similar lists done by different organizations. This study is done by an organization named Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori Memorial Foundation in Tokyo, which there isn't many information available on them. This article has a study done by Loughborough University and a study by Foreign Policy already; is this relevant enough? --Balthazarduju (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju, I also know many city studies, but very few seem to have a comprehensive approach. The new one from Tokio has 69 different catogories and provides a broad perspective. IMHO it has similar quality to the one from Foreign policy magazine. The article in general looks not very developed, so I´d say it is better to add another study rather than having only few profound lists. Friedrichshainer (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the source, there are 35 cities reviewed right ? What about the 15 missing cities ? KJohansson (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just thought you might want to know that sockmaster Lear 21 (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked. Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a suspected sock and KJohansson (talk · contribs) is another confirmed egregious puppet who has edited these same articles and needlessly wasted so much of our time. I would suggest that you all keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since many of you probably know of some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Berlin

I don't understand how Berlin, ranked no. 6 on the list above, can be tied with Boston (no. 20) and Dallas (not ranked) as a Beta World City. Berlin has world-class opera and symphony, an internationally important film festival, and some of the world's leading museums. It has hosted the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup final. It has three major research universities, plus other smaller universities. How can that compare to Dallas? Okay, Dallas has DFW Airport and Berlin's airport is pathetic. But surely two two cities aren't equivalent. Boston is notably more cosmopolitan and culturally significant than Dallas, but the same level as Berlin? Poldy Bloom (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• berlin is the most powerfull city in the european union with brussels, london and paris/amsterdam/milano/madrid/etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Dallas and Berlin

Dallas and the surrounding cities in its metro area compare favorably to Berlin in many aspects. Dallas also has world-class opera and symphony. Dallas has many quality universities including Southern Methodist, and University of Texas campuses at both Dallas and Arlington, both very large - plus several others. DFW Airport is just an indication of the economy of the area, including headquarters of what is by several measures the largest company in the world, Exxon Mobil. Other household names headquartered around Dallas: AT&T, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Seven-Eleven and Kimberly-Clark. The gross metropolitan product of the Dallas-FtWorth area is almost 400 billion US, about twice that of Berlin.

The reality is that it is difficult to rank cities around the globe in a single scale, and all published examples I have come across, especially the one in this article, are failures. Many of them are simply full of bias, even if contributors are geographically dispersed. My preferred scale is nominal (not PPP) gross metropolitan product, because I am often looking at the potential to consume goods that have similar prices across borders. The GaWC list is simply terrible and I would hope wikipedia would agree on deletion. There is a PWC list of metropolitan GDPs available online, but it is PPP, and contains several innacuracies and omissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.56.131 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• it´s americocentrism..

• Dallas is also home to, what, four major professional sports organizations, including the second-most valuable sports franchise (the Dallas Cowboys) in the world. Between the Cowboys, Texas Rangers, Dallas Mavericks, and Dallas Stars (they also have an MLS team, but I'm not sure of the name), there are a lot of sporting opportunities, not just the traditional cultural opportunities, such as the Opera or the Symphony. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.15.11 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse Me!Attention!

Hey! I creaed a really beautiful table, to show the 2008 Roster of global cities. But there was a loss of session data!! I want to know WHO DID THIS?? Respond on my talk page.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the last time I clicked the page it was completely messed up probably thats why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.7.130 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the section back to older version. The table is not "done" along with sections that are left empty! More importantly, it is best not to include extraneous information in the table, and simply just list the cities themselves. Please no flag icons and extraneous columns, just list the cities like the GaWC rosters themselves.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the country columns and flag icons. The GaWC roster itself did not emphasize on national origin; if the source itself listed in that way, then the country columns and icons might be necessary.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Airports again

I re-ordered the airport listing by total traffic -- London, NYC and Tokyo shouldn't be penalized for having more traffic than would fit on a single airport. So I re-ranked using traffic for the five international London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City), the three airports serving NYC (JFK, Newark, LaGuardia), and the two airports in Greater Tokyo (Tokyo and Narita) and Paris (CDG and Orly). -- Marcika (talk) (talk) (original comment 6 Sept 2009)

Detroit

Detroit or at least the Detroit Metro Area which could include Ann Arbor should be counted as a Beta World City, it's no less important than Atlanta and consider it's metro area and city which are larger in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.109.140 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• detroit = decadence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Text needed !

The article has surely been cleaned up massively, but the new sections need desperately written texts. KJohansson (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Friedrichshainer (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

Within the same table Sao Paulo is written in two different ways. Please, decide for one!--Fischy (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All written appropriately as São Paulo. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Gamma Cities List - Please Fix

I can't correct this myself because the article is locked.

The Gamma World Cities list omits Calcutta. I'm not lobbying or saying anything about the importance of Calcutta. I'm just saying that it is listed by the GaWC as being a Gamma World City, according to the reference listed in the footnote (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html). I checked all the other cities in all the other lists, and everything else matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwag (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Calcutta/Kolkata added to its appropriate section. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix vandalism

Some vandal added Mumbay to the list of alpha++ Could someone fix it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.60 (talk • contribs)

Vandal reverted. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh has been inexplicably removed from the Global Cities Gamma Minus list, despite it being clearly present in the source. It has therefore been duly restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.219.158 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Flags?

May I ask why the flags were removed? I wasn't the one who added them, but they have always seemed quite useful when I've referred to this article. They serve as a shortcut to understand distribution of these cities and also to find the ones you are looking for—if I'm only looking for global cities in the U.S., it takes about a second to scan the flags to find them. I see only advantage to having them. --Peter ^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I for one would suggest replacing them. . . --71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GaWC 2004 Results

This page appears to indicate that in the GaWC 2004 study, Sydney was classified as an 'Alpha +' city. I have just been reviewing the GaWC city study and it appears be classified as 'Alpha', not 'Alpha +'.

Is someone able to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.244.34 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tehran

Is Tehran ever considered for a position among these studies? I mean, it surely must have more international importance than at least some of the following which are Gamma or higher world cities: San Salvador, Vilnius, Portland, Ljuljana, Santo Domingo, Bratislava. This isn't a nationalist rant--I'm not Iranian. --71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• tehran is the most richest city in the middle eastern..superior than tel aviv.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo

Label of Shanghai image should read:

Skyscrapers in Shanghai

Not:

Skysrapers in Shanghai—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.158.161 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Typo?

The date in the sentence near the top, "Patrick Geddes also used the term "world city" later in 1915" seems to be wrong. Possibly it should be 1995 instead. This just from the context and the citation.

Pictures

There are 4 pictures in the criteria section. One picture for each characteristic subsection. This is to prevent image crowding with people trying to add multiple pictures of from many cities. Pictures should only be of something which is most revelant to the characteristic subsection. Pictures of such things as just skylines are not relevant to the characteristic subsection. Currently, there is one picture for the economic characteristics subsection, which is of the New York Stock Exchange, one picture for the political characteristics subsection, which is of the Palace of Westminster, one picture for the cultural characterstics subsection, which is of the Louvre, and one picture for the infrastructure subsection, which is of Tokyo Station with a Shinkansen. These 4 pictures are the most relevant and iconic for each characteristic subsection and are from the 4 cities which are always ranked as the top 4. Bambuway (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Text would be nice

The Criteria part could need more fluent text I believe.Globalistum (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories needed ?

Is the table of Categories really important to this issue here? It looks like a very loose collection of information. Globalistum (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is an Alpha World City

Los Angeles is ranked an Alpha World City (-) according to these charts: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008c.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html Please update this Wikipedia page, as well as the Los Angeles main page (to indicate that LA is an Alpha World City). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.44 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• alpha?alpha is ny..los angeles is a beta city..chicago is a gama with houston, miami, atlanta, seattle, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicago is an alpha city; do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Santiago

The link is not clear; it gives many Santiagos, thus being possible a source of confusion for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.198.33 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maribor

I think that Maribor should be in the gamma cities beacouse he will be the European capital of culture!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariborčan (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The "following positions" list is pure boosterism

Some users desperately try to include their country into the table, but since their country is not in the top 20, they created a extended list showing the "following positions" of the countries that are not in the top 20.

The boosterism is so obvious that in the first table they chose to show 15 more countries, and in the second one, they listed 20 more countries, so just that the cities of their country would get listed.

That is wrong and is a practice of boosterism. I've deleted the "following positions" list from the tables. The tables are suppoused to show the relevant top 20. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not boosterism. The following cities are part of the studies. Only because of space restrictions these cities have been kept outside the main table. Please re-include the important parts ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.148.89 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

São Paulo

São Paulo Our world is made of marketing; that´s why english speaking cities and eventual, up-to-date, historical or business connections make some cities more familiar or prize them as the top ones instead of others. Due to this, it´s really ridiculous to see São Paulo under, for example, Mumbai. The levels of overall development in almost all different fields beetwen these cities are so wide that this can only be a joke. Just because Mumbai holds call centers for USA and UK or have strong commerce today? São Paulo wasn´t colonized or made by english culture, like USA, India or even Hong Kong and Singapore, so it´s very badly known worldwide, even in universities. In fact, all Brazil is badly known. São Paulo (althoug speaking portuguese and also half a century after NY), in the beginning of the 20th century started much like the big apple, with immigrants from Japan to Italy who came to Brazil to make "America". Yes, America. South America is also America. Since the 70´s, SP has also been receiving people from all parts of Brazil, mainly from the very different northeasten Brazil, making it, today, a city of very mixed, very diverse, concious and deep culture. São Paulo is not only one of biggest cities of the world (the macrometropolitan area and its population are only smaller than Tokyo), the first city for number of buildings with 20 to 35 floors (in fact, I don´t like this Pacific sea-like sea of buildings, I would prefer towers with 100 floors and much wider low construction areas) or one of the world´s most important financial cities (the third stock market value). It´s a place of much heritage histoty from all over the world, inside 20 million souls joined in only one century and still very connected to outside. Buenos Aires? Buenos Aires is a beautiful and proud city (São Paulo is not beautiful, for sure, although there are dozens of urbanized Km2 in São Paulo so modern, well done and even so beautifull than any other you may think worldwide), but it have been, for a long long time, a less "world" or "alpha" city, whatever it may means, than São Paulo. Even Shanghai and Beijing are still wrong ranked if compared to São Paulo. Chinese cities are much more polluted, aren´t in a free country (based on western standards), people have to live with less money, services are poorer and way of life is very regional, except for making business. Milan is very far from the diversity, strenght and energy of São Paulo. Sydney is beautifull, has very high quality of life and is proportionally full of money, but both lack the scale of São Paulo, so everything good you may quantify in Milan or Sydney are also i SP (unfortunatelly, the worst things too). And Brussels is a more a town wich eventually is a meeting point, but not exactly a world city. The two big big problems of São Paulo are the inequality (distribution of income per capita), weak urban planning and poor urban improvements (I mean appearence), wich makes the city less touristic than its real capacity (easily foundable behind its doors and inside its buildings) and potencial (about this point, Seoul has becoming really better than SP, since its Olympic Games, alhough today there are more and more improvements on SP parks, visual, subway and trains systems and virtual communication), due to political and country reazons, thinghs often seen widely in Brazil (although there are strong exceptions, like Curitiba and other medium sized cities). Anyway, 2 decades ago the world used to refer to São Paulo as the "worst of the best" or "the best of the rest", but this has also changed very much indeed. Remenber NY was also down in the 70s and London through the 70s and part of the 80s, but today young people don´t even realize that. Museum, galleries, expositions, theather, film festivals, art, culture, night life (with real joy and life), sports, even universities? Are you kidding? Top night life in the world, and you can find virtually any service, things to do and visit (but in portuguese), goods to buy, fields to explore and study. SP, city of diversity, always looking after mind freedom, holds the biggest gay parade in the world. Do you see this in Moscow, Singapore, Seul, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur etc? The problem of these lists are that the updates for first country cities are much much more and quickly done than to any other ones. Or the updates are made on the fashion cities, generally due to a growing economy, no matter how exploiting or destructive this growing can be. I suppose now that Brazil will have the next World Cup, Olympic Games, will role energy, is pushing to be part of the central countries in economics, political etc, is quickly becaming also fashionable, so SP will be discovered. Even considering this, we see crazy things like Los Angeles aside with some other places with completely different reaches . Also I don´t know what rich but less powerful places like Auckland, Dublin, Warsaw, Lisbon, Zurich, Stockholm, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Athens have to do with SP. SP is head of BraziI, wich is the 8th economy of the world! Is connection only about european finance? What about Caracas, Jacarta, Bangcoc? Petroleum? Third World cities? Ideology? These are completely different from SP, even Caracas has nothing in common with SP when you walk on them to really see and feel. I´m pretty sure almost all people who made this list have never been introduced to São Paulo personally. Cities are much much more than panels and citatons. I have a proposition to everybody: simply read about SP on Wikipedia itself and watch photos to imagine how leading, powerful and connected this city is, regardless of its several problems compared to cities settled on full developed countries. But also don´t forget to reconsider all other cities for another next "glogal hierarchy". I just hope it´s not a competition. Thanks for reading my thoughts. Caio july/10/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaioVinicius (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs some updating

The "Metro systems by route length" bit of the table is out of date. I'm not sure of all the details, so haven't edited, but I believe that the Shanghai Metro is now the longest system in the world, having overtaken London. Loganberry (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai seems presently to be at the top in the route length column of the table. I removed the please update template from the "Cities ranked by category" section. - Metarhyme (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Osaka

How come Osaka is omitted from this list?? Its Metropolitan area is in the 10 biggest in the world and its GDP its 7th in the World Behind just Tokyo, NY, LA, Chicago, Paris and London, I know its relative proximity to Tokyo may count against its global importance, but only Tokyo, Paris, Beijing, New York, London, Seoul and Madrid have more global 500 companies. It is also a World famous city for food. So please tell me how is it possible that places like Porto, Guayaquil, Calgary, Almaty, Columbus, Port Louis, Portland, Ljubjana, Amman, San Jose and Brisbane all make it on to the roster and Osaka doesnt?? To me this just highlights that this list is incomplete, especially missing Asian cities such as Tehran, Chongqing and Chengdu...I think Osaka should be at least Beta level... please explain or fix...who made this list anyway?? Seems very subjective to say the least.....Im from Ireland and can only laugh that Dublin has more importance than Washington DC!!! I mean seriously Auckland is ranked higher than Berlin in global importance?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.228.115 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• tokyo is a alpha city, osaka a beta/gama.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New Index

The Global Cities Index by the American journal Foreign Policy, in conjunction with consulting firm A.T. Kearney and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs published a new ranking - [3] that can be added to this article. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Uber crowds (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Washington *D.C,*

The proper name of the city listed under Criteria > Political characteristics, and Studies > GaWC studies > Beta + world cities is Washington, D.C. The city name is inconsistent throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.211.146 (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The city's name is Washington; it lies in the District of Columbia, of which it shares the same boundaries. At one time Georgetown was also a separate city inside the District of Columbia; Georgetown, DC. So when one is writing, say, Chicago, Denver, Miami, etc, it's ok to just write Washington, because that is the city's name. When one is writing Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; or Miami, FL, then one would write Washington, DC, to also refer to the state, or district in this case, in which Washington lies. On some ocassions DC or Washington, DC is written or said when one wants to avoid confusion with the State of Washington. But since this is an article about cities, there was no need to throw the DC moniker after the name Washington because you surely know this isn't an article where the state of Washington would be listed in the rankings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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 [4]). 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 [5], 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 [6] 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 [7]. 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)

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)

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)

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)