Talk:List of cities by GDP/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roll-back to 8 January proposed

Most, or perhaps all of the edits made since revision 1132434025 of 21:36, 8 January 2023 appear to be unsourced, and I am planning to roll the article back to that version, if the information changed or added to the article since then remains unsourced. User:李双能, many of these changes are from a series of edits you made starting on 15 January, and continuing since then. I'll give you some time to find sources for the data you have added or changed; would a week be sufficient? If you need help on how to cite sources, you can ask below, or at your Talk page using the {{Help me}} template, or you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What kind of sources are needed to quote? Local government statistics bureaus or state media statistics?How should the source of the annual average exchange rate be cited? For example, the average exchange rate of RMB against the US dollar in 2022 is 6.7261 and the average exchange rate of RMB against the international US dollar in 2022 is 4.19, is it necessary to cite the source of the exchange rate? Or treat it as simple financial common sense? 李双能 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I have another problem, which is that China's administrative divisions are too large compared to other countries. Chongqing, for example, covers 82,400 square kilometers, which is much larger than the Chicago metropolitan area. Can I edit my data within the scope of Chongqing recognized by the Chinese people? But this data will be fragmented because it is a patchwork of data from multiple regions.I can only make sure it's the same time of data. Beyond what many people realize, if the concept of a foreign metropolis is followed, the largest cities in China are Shenzhen and Guangzhou, but because of the administrative divisions, it leads to an unfair ranking. Well, let me put it bluntly, is the city scope based on existing administrative divisions or is it a custom and reasonable range by the organizers? 李双能 (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are two questions here, one concerning the quality of the source to be cited, and the other concerning currency conversion. With respect to the first question: please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. In my opinion, both examples you mentioned are probably reliable sources, but if you have any doubts, you may pose a question at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to get more feedback about a particular source you are unsure of. (Or, search their archives for previous discussions about the source.)

With respect to the conversion question, Wikipedia has templates which will calculate the correct conversion for you, given the currency name, and the year; see Template:To USD, and Template:To USD round.

It's late in my time zone, and I will have to respond to your remaining questions tomorrow. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to respond more generally to the questions in your second comment. Overall, it is important to understand that our role as Wikipedia editors is limited to finding information already published in reliable, secondary sources, and in the case of text content, summarizing it in our own words, and including it in the article, along with citations that make it possible for any interested reader to verify that the content is not just something we invented, but represents actual, reliable, content. In the case of non-creative content (such as population figures), we can copy numbers from tables that are generally available and fit Wikipedia's standards of a reliable source. The opposite of sourcing your data, is putting your own knowledge, opinion, or figures based on calculations you have made into an article; this is called "original research" and is strictly forbidden. A corollary of the key policy of WP:No original research is WP:SYNTH, which forbids original analysis made by an editor using a combination of two or more sources, even if they are highly reliable sources. In your question about the different types of administrative divisions, and the patchwork of data, this is understandable, and if you were a demographer or a scientist writing a report, then one task you would have to address is how to deal with all these different systems, and you might find some way to align all the source data so they could be directly compared. However, as a Wikipedia editor, you cannot do this, because that would be a synthesis of different sources made by you, and you (and me, and everybody at Wikipedia) are not a reliable source; we cannot add your streamlined, comparable data, along with a citation containing your name on it. (But, if you do that work, adjusting the data to make it directly comparable across administrative divisions, and get a reliable journal in China to publish your new information, then you *can* add it to the article, along with a citation to your published paper.) Does this make sense to you? Think of it this way: *everything* must be traceable to a reliable source, so that any reader of Wikipedia can assure themselves by following a footnote, that the information was published somewhere before, and is not original work by some random Wikipedia editor.

The flip side of this, is this: if you find an article that lacks citations for assertions in the article, you are free to remove that content from the article, even if that results in reducing an article of 185kb, 25 sections, and fifteen tables to a single sentence. (I don't recommend that in practice, because courtesy would suggest raising it on the Talk page first, and allowing interested editors some time to source the content, rather than have it suddenly removed, even if removal is correct, according to policy.) In this article, as in many demographic articles about GDP, HDI, population, etc., one convention is to add the source in a citation in each column header of a table, for all figures in that column. As long as every figure in that column is traceable to the source indicated in the column header citation, that is satisfactory.

Given the general level of this reply, does this give you enough to go on, now? If you still have more specific questions, please ask and I'll try to address them individually. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So I have a simple question, for example, Chongqing's 82,400-square-kilometer area is a "prefecture-level city". It also has several range concepts, such as "urban area", which has an area of 43,200 square kilometers, and "main city 21 districts", which has an area of 28,700 square kilometers, of course, the most recognized is the "main city nine districts", an area of 4,779 square kilometers, in addition to which people have also proposed a "main city eleven districts", which range of data should be used to be reasonable? 李双能 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, 李双能. Regarding your sample city, I think you may be asking the wrong question. I found Chongqing in two tables: § Major metropolitan areas (PPP)} (where it is #17) and § Full List (Nominal) (#26); are you asking about one of these tables, or both? The first table claims sourcing by Visual Capitalist (in the section header for column six)—if true, that's a good thing, and then there is no SYNTH problem. I checked the VC source, where Chongqing is listed as 407,562 (millions of USD), and that matches our article, so the value in our article for Chongqing is verified by the given source. On the other hand, we list Chongqing as #17 (below Guangzhou, #16) and the VC source lists it as #24 in the Metropolitan Areas column (above Guangzhou, #25), so why is that? That seems problematic, and something must be wrong, somewhere. (That wasn't your question, but it identifies a different problem, and it should be addressed.)

So, I said you might be asking the wrong question above. What I meant was, when you ask about "prefecture-level" versus "urban area" or "main city districts", it sounds like you are talking about either something you know professionally, or something you learned from another source, that is, a source that is *not* the VC source cited in column six, as the VC source never mentions any of these, and therefore, you cannot use any of them in the article, and your question doesn't make sense in this context. You could ask that question in a different context, and propose that some other source (other than the VC source) be used instead, because your theoretical other source knows about these distinctions, and then as long as this other source has Chongqing, and all the other world cities we would like to report on, in theory you could throw out the current table based on VC entirely, and start from zero with a new table based on your other source. From a practical point of view, this would probably meet with opposition, as you'd have to provide some reason why it was worth spending the effort to do this, when we already have a table which seems okay, and properly sourced. It's not impossible, so if you really want to try this, raise another discussion below and propose it, giving your reasons why the VC-based table should be replaced by another one.

If we keep the current, VC-based table, then the answer to your question is that we cannot use any of the other city/prefecture/urban/main types you speak of, because the VC source we are using doesn't have them. Adding any of them yourself based on your own knowledge, analysis, derivation, or calculation would be prohibited WP:Original research. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sir, it was me, not you, who answered you this time. According to the data of the prefecture-level Chongqing city, in 2022, Chongqing's official GDP exceeded 290 million yuan, while Guangzhou's 289 million yuan, surpassed by Chongqing, and Chongqing's ranking higher than Guangzhou is correct, which is the situation in 2022.The standards of "Chongqing urban area" and "Chongqing main city 21 district" and "main city 9 district" mentioned to you earlier were not created by me, but were designed by Chongqing's official design. The "21st District of the Main City" is often used to compare other cities in China. Say something interesting and you may not believe it.In addition to "prefecture-level cities", China has also developed a "Chinese version of metropolitan areas" in recent years. Except for Chongqing, all of these metropolitan areas are larger than their own prefecture-level administrative divisions. Because Chongqing is so big that it can't be considered a city at all.Of course, if you feel that Chongqing's super-large jurisdiction does not affect the ranking of other cities, then you can do so, and I want to say that the data of visual capitalists is only a prediction, and the actual data should prevail, rather than the use of visual capitalists' data, the predicted data is meaningless

If you find it difficult to check the official data, then I can provide you with China's social platforms. The following website is also very simple to use, for example, if you enter "Yongzhou Development Bulletin" (please translate it into Chinese first), you can see the communiqué data released by the official media below. Then you convert according to the annual average exchange rate.It's that simple, it's not dragging on at all, and you can look up GDP data for Chinese cities on this platform.Of course, I personally usually use the data provided by the official website of the local statistical bureau or the "City GDP Ranking" mini program, but unfortunately it is difficult to provide links to the outside world because of the firewall.

www.toutiao.com 李双能 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Roll back to revision 1132434025 of 21:36, 8 January 2023 completed. If you believe I have inadvertently removed an edit of yours since then, please provide the revision id, or the exact timestamp of the edit and the source that verifies it, and I will restore it for you. Alternatively, if you prefer, you can restore your edit. Please do not add unsourced material to this article, they will just be reverted, and may result in warnings on your Talk page. As always, changes backed by citations to a reliable source are welcome; please feel free to add them.

This rollback may not have been sufficient to guarantee verifiability of the remaining figures in the article, and a further rollback may be required. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, further edits have been made in good faith, but combining (sourced) figures from two different years and performing arithmetic on them to deduce the per-capita GDP. This results in a meaningless value, and these edits have been removed. (The question of further rollbacks has not been addressed yet, and is still pending. Besides requiring reliable sources, please pay attention to WP:SYNTH, and that data is logically consistent and corresponds to the correct year. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the GDP of Chinese cities in 2021 was updated (adjusted) again at the end of last year, but I don't have all the information yet.Thank you for your patience, but our government did not release all the data adjustments in a timely manner. If you want, you can search for economic data on Chinese cities on Chinese website (these are not adjusted for last year). Cheers! 李双能 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Wikiuser552 has been working diligently to update the table and put it on a sound footing, including use of the templates {{to USD}} and {{per capita}}, which should reduce the risk of errors. So let's see where things end up after their round of changes. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)