Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 3

About the notice saying the article needs to be updated

I don't know who put it there (I guess I could figure that out) but I assume it's because there is updated data available from the IMF. I don't have time, but someone should update the data from here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weoselgr.aspx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.72.27 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A fret and jealousy of an American and a European person

In the place that there is as well as a list in EU, I feel a fret of a European person. The world center became Asia again. Population of ASEAN will increase a lot from EU to 770,000,000 with 570,000,000 people in the future now and will exceed far EU. U.S.A. and Europe will become the world country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.7.130 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 March 2007

Qui? Matchrthom 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to the triumphalism of an Asian person? In any case why do you seem to think that mere numbers (of people) guarantees power? It hardly worked that way when the U.K. subjugated the Indian sub-continent. Historian932 (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that listing the EU is a political choice. If the EU is listed then the countries that make it up should not be. Otherwise California should then be listed as #10 above some EU countries. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Update now!

This article is need to update immediately the data especially to 2006 List by the International Monetary Fund because the data is now outdated and needed to update and the Spanish version of this article is updated and latest. Thank you.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No，i don't think so because the data of 2007 list by the International Monetary Fund are IMF staff estimates, and not the real informations. Thank you. --User:Yxy191(talk) 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SINCE WHEN DID THE EU BECOME A COUNTRY??? YOU ARE COUNTING EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TWICE WITH THE EU THERE.

The only reason the CIA mentions the EU is because the US needs this data if it decides to attack Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.104.95 (talk • contribs) !21:53, 7 May 2007

You are insane. --giandrea 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just put the EU in a list where it belongs..... under "TRADE UNIONS" The BBC even referred to it as one ( trade union ).

Note 3?

'Note 3: Sum of United States, Canada and Mexico. '

I assume this was pointing to NAFTA which seems to be gone, so the note can presumably be removed? --86.128.252.182 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on to 2006?

We are well into 2007, and the data is still only for 2005. Can we update to 2006 data? For IMF this would mean relying on "IMF staff estimates" in more cases than now, but that's the best data available so I don't think that would be so bad. The World Bank doesn't have 2006 data though, as far as I can tell, so that would make it problematic to keep both datasets. What do you guys think?

Luxenburg is not number 64 on the list!

Please do not "update" the figures as IMF has this notorious habit of publishing revaluations of GDP every six months. So, the data for 2005 itself is not quite accurate, as of May 2007, today. Anwar 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blank page

Am I the only one that doesn't see anything on the article page? CoolGuy 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

tables

I find it frustrating that the tables aren't aligned to each other -- that is, that the first list of GDP has two items before the first numbered item, and the other only has one. Is there a way to change the tables so that the numbers are side-by-side and can be more easily compared? Sten for the win 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Country name :China (instead of the longer People's Republic of China)

I don't understand why not just use the name "China". If full name is what people want to go for, France should be called "French Republic", Russia should be called "Russian Federation", United States should be called "United States of America". (For your information, I got these full names from the UN). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.180.36 (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I think the current name is fine consider it would be quite confusing otherwise with Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are parts of "China" depending on who you ask. 24.89.245.62 07:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two Chinas around the world. People's Republic of China and Republic of China. With two countries having one main word it's usually full name is being used. As of Russia, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, Point 2 of Constitution of Russia says The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" are equal. Elk Salmon 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar saadat's irrelevant picture.

Anwar saadat, please stop adding this irrelevant picture. It's poorly designed and does not based on IMF nor WB data. Elk Salmon 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article. This map is a replacement based on IMF (not CIA) source. Next time, you will be reported.Anwar 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider WP:VAN and WP:NPA before making such accusations. We have WP:SB for any test. If you want to test yourself on making maps - post them there.

On the topic. Map should be informative and without any political preferences. If you want to stress on how big is USA economy comparing to other countries - it's not a right place. You can post you picture in the Economy of the United States article. There is going to be relevant. But here we have an international list and pictures to it should be made without any political preferences. And all countries that have data for them should be drawn on the map. Elk Salmon 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WAI. This is not a America-centric map. Colour-coded maps are fit for per capita statistics only (not for aggregate stats). Anwar 11:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar saadat. Made by you does mean automatically better. The previous map is well designed and fully complete. Elk Salmon 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The old map is much better in my opinion than Anwar's. It is more complete. --giandrea 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The "bubble map" is simply a lousy idea for conveying country information. The thumbnail leaves me wondering why New York City has its own GDP, and I have to go to the full-size version of the standalone image to read the legend. Accessibility is nice (although assumptions that people don't have color monitors is carrying it way too far), but not at the expense of good content. — Lomn 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any wider discussion on the merits of these bubble maps? I'd seen one a while ago, and then saw the one on Sesame#Cultivation, and am not convinced it's a very good style of graphic.

Certainly it all depends on the type of data being represented, and a map of GDP by country, or a map of a binary quality by state, of course, would best be served by a map that shows a single boundaried region as a single color. (A map like Image:Gdp nominal and ppp 2005 world map single colour.png addresses the color coding issues just fine, by the way.)

But a map of income by location would be much more informative (showing how poor regions in the US compare to other countries, for instance), and would be better served by a continuous contour map, like Image:Global_Cooling_Map.png. I'm not sure what type of information the bubble map is best suited for, if any. — Omegatron 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Do you have a hate-America complex? Why would anyone want to compare our poorest regions to other countries? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a list of GDPs by country in their own currency

, from their own national statistical agencies and bureaus.

China at the end of 2006, 20.9407 trillion yuan http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-01/25/content_792311.htm Conversion at 7.66 yuan or whatever is current

Canada C$1,494,976,000,000 Q1 2007 http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gdps02a.htm US$1.42 trillion at 0.95 exchange rate.

then someone could just take the figure supplied by each countries statistical source and multiply the actual current currency conversion to get an up to date nominal GDP.

I wanted to vet this here so that I or someone else does not go to a lot of work making this only to see it deleted by those who feel they control the GDP nominal and GDP PPP tables.

I know that I had made some GDP PPP tables on a new page a year or two ago and saw that page deleted and replaced with the current GDP 2006, 2007, 2008 page.

Jonnyboy5: Given Wikipedia's international perspective, this is even more important. It should be possible to include some calculation - Euros, for example, are used for comparison much more within Europe, and let's face it - it's a bit annoying to read about your own country's GDP expressed in US dollars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyboy5 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Colombia's GDP

Because of the re-evaluation of the dollar, Colombia's Nominal GDP is $173 billion.

that is of no relevance, the dollar is currently in permanent fall, so the changes apply to all countries worldwide. This article just reflects a momentum, not the current status--194.203.215.254 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's China (PRC)?

It's not even listed!71.222.201.184 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

IS THIS TRUE???

NA IT'S SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.95.164 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WB entries being updated

I have updated till entry # 79 of the WB list based on the new ICP listings, more to come.Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire list on the left is 2005 data, with a 2006 sum, thats why it doesn't match the one on the right. 71.117.93.116 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007