Jump to content

Talk:List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
СЛУЖБА (talk | contribs)
Shokioto22 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 93: Line 93:


Moreover, Russia and Belorussia consider themselves parts of the [[Union State]]. So, Russia and Belorussia are actually first-level. [[User:СЛУЖБА|СЛУЖБА]] ([[User talk:СЛУЖБА|talk]]) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, Russia and Belorussia consider themselves parts of the [[Union State]]. So, Russia and Belorussia are actually first-level. [[User:СЛУЖБА|СЛУЖБА]] ([[User talk:СЛУЖБА|talk]]) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

==Russian subjects should be replaced with federal districts==
the destricts have governours too and capitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia

i will add them as kind of a benchmark to mess but not numbered, i will use this list below of gdp per capita x times the population which will be the total gdp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_subjects_by_GRP#Per_capita --[[User:Shokioto22|Shokioto22]] ([[User talk:Shokioto22|talk]]) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:04, 23 October 2012

WikiProject iconCountries List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEconomics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I apologize for my English but not speak it very well that England aparese being richer than Britain when England is one of the four kingdom of that nation

England???

If England can really be named a country subdivision? If it has regional parliament, government, budget? Their priority in the rating seems to be fictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.44.140 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Scotland is included, as it is, England should be too.

England should definitely be included. It is a subnational entity, distinct from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish MSPs, Welsh AMs, and Northern Irish MLAs cannot vote on issues affecting England in their respective legislatures, and there is a clear border between English counties and Welsh and Scottish ones.Cjsk (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


England is recognised as a sub-national entity within the United Kingdom, a Constituent nation of the United Kingdom and so yes, I believe it should be included here. England is split into regions, but is also a sub-national entity of the UK in its own right, with the English regions being sub-national entities of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentynet (talkcontribs) 10:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picked up from Talk:England that the figure given for England here is wrong - it is actually the figure for United Kingdom. Would be grateful for any source information that shows reasonably current GDP data for England, Scotland and Wales. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are up-to-date figures produced by the ONS, but accessing them isn't as easy as it might be. First you'd need to download the Navidata app here, 32-bit windows only. Then you can get the data sets starting from here. Alternatively there are ghastly text files which could be fed into a spreadsheet or database. Having said that, I'm quite sure that ONS figures don't match the ones from the Scottish Govt that I just added to the Scotland article. Since the authors were good enough to show their working here, it would in theory be possible to repeat the exercise using other years, and to apply comparable corrections to ONS figures for England, Wales and N. Ireland. But that would surely cross the line from simple arithmetic into original research territory, a very bad thing.
Rather than aiming for up-to-date numbers, it might be best to pick the year for which the most accurate data is available, which is 2006 as noted. A good-enough result would be to use the ONS 2006 calendar year figures for NI and Wales, the variant with per capita extra-regio apportionment, the SES geographical share number for Scotland, and to calculate the English value by subtracting the first three from the UK total. Simple arithmetic doesn't raise as many questions as more complex exercises. The largest distortion would be in the NI and Wales numbers, but they don't appear on this list, and the understatement in English GDP seems likely to be small in comparison with the possible margins of error in apportioning the extra-regio component. An idea anyway, but not necessarily a good one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul and Gyeonggi

Where are Seoul and Gyeonggi?

GDP of seoul or Gyeonggi exceeds 200 bil dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.145.190.9 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And other important subdivisions?

Where are other important subdivisions of powers like India, Russia, South africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Poland, Pakistan, Indonesia... and of course South Korea. I can´t believe this regions and states´s GSP haven`t more hundred of billions $!

Use of flag icons without country name...

... is not appropriate per MOS:FLAG. Anyone interested in cleaning it up? Plus it looks really weird to have a country flag next to a subdivision name. Most of these entities have their own flags in fact, e.g.  England. So, either we add the country names or remove the flags altogether.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding?

Call me daft, but what does the grey background mean? —Felix the Cassowary 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland vs Catalonia

Is this list real? Why is Scotland richer than Catalonia? This doesn't make sense. 90.171.122.196 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend this article to be deleted

This page should be deleted by editors for the following reasons:

1. Lack of clear definition on what constitutes a country's 'sub-division'

Other editors have already pointed out the problem with classifying England as a sub-national division. That's only the tip of the iceberg. 'East China', the top region on the table, is not an administrative division of the People's Republic of China, and it is not even clear what 'East China' is supposed to include - is it actually the eastern half of China, divided right in the middle, or does it refer to the eastern seaboard regions? If it is the latter, on what grounds can those regions be bundled together? What are the criteria?

A complete lack of definition on the meaning of sub-national divisions should have made this article a no-go to begin with.

2. Lack of informativeness

There really is no information content in this page. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has too many sub-national region GDP figures for its own good, most of them not particularly relevant or up to standard. Comparison across sub-national divisions adds no value either, because of a lack of clarification on how those divisions are defined - as stated above.

This article is clearly being abused for nationalist chest-thumping by editors from various parts of the world, and is not useful to anyone. I recommend this article for deletion. (99.254.173.63 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I don't agree this article should be deleted. Information here is very useful for regional microeconomics (GSP/GRP). We have cities by GDP, why can't we have a list of 1st-level subnational units by GDP here at Wikipedia? Perhaps, it'd be more appropriate to move this page to "List of first-level administrative country subdivisions by GDP (over 100 billion US dollars)". What do you think? 90.169.39.158 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles:
90.169.39.158 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance and suggestions to improve the article:
  1. Delete data without sources.
  2. Delete unofficial sub-national units. (East China, etc.)
  3. Delete sub-national entities that are not a 1st-level subdivision. (Greater London, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.39.158 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollarsList of first-level administrative country subdivisions by GDP (over 100 US dollars). The level of the subdivisions listed should be specified. 90.171.144.51 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Washington, D.C. or District of Columbia?

Is there a reason why there is Washington D.C., and District of Columbia? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia.

The "Subjects of the Federation" of Russia are second-level, not first-level. The Federal Districts are first-level.

Moreover, Russia and Belorussia consider themselves parts of the Union State. So, Russia and Belorussia are actually first-level. СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian subjects should be replaced with federal districts

the destricts have governours too and capitals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia

i will add them as kind of a benchmark to mess but not numbered, i will use this list below of gdp per capita x times the population which will be the total gdp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_subjects_by_GRP#Per_capita --Shokioto22 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]