Talk:Global cities

What's the point of this article?

What's the point of this article? What makes a city "global"? We already have Wikivoyage:World cities and Wikivoyage:World cities/Large. What does this article add that makes it worthwhile and not a good candidate for deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally it would be a prime merge or deletion candidate (it does have a lovely banner - if nothing else).

However, Wikivoyage:World cities and Wikivoyage:World cities/Large are both in WV namespace and intended for editors, so perhaps material from both could be brought here?

Somebody might also want to bring in some material about the relative living costs for expatriates and trials and tribulations? A definition of a Global city featuring their international connections might also be germane.

It's a very new article so Ischa1 may have great plans for it. Perhaps you could pose the question at User talk:Ischa1 just in case it's not automatically been added to their watchlist? --W. Frank^email_talk 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like part of this was an attempt to re-create something like the map found on the Dutch WP article on "global cities", using a weird hybrid of Dutch words and en:Wikipedia's Location map template, which doesn't exist here. Texugo (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I originally wrote this article for the Dutch Wikivoyage and originally programmed that map for that version. Then I also wrote an English version with a similar design as the UNESCO World Heritage List and I thought the location map template would've also worked on the English Wikivoyage if I just would've copied and pasted it from the Dutch one. It didn't however... Ischa1 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Criteria?

How is it being, & how should it be, decided which cities go in here? Taking North America as an example, why are places like Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans or Vancouver not listed? Personally, I'd put any of them ahead of Houston, but personal opinions are worth almost nothing here. In Asia, why Delhi & Mumbai but not Kolkata or Chennai? Why not Osaka? In Europe, why not St Petersberg or Marseille? etc, etc.

Are there objective criteria and data we can use to decide one place is a world city and another isn't? Without that, I cannot see this page becoming useful.

Some data is at Wikivoyage:World_cities/Large; I am not sure if it is enough or how it might apply here. Pashley (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pagebanner

What city is that a photo of? If this article ends up being deleted or redirected, it would be good to use that pagebanner in another article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Clicking on the banner I see it is from Doha, which already has a banner. Pashley (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

However, Wikivoyage:World cities and Wikivoyage:World cities/Large have no banners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Global cities

Swept in from the pub

Check. Ischa1 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Check what? Please look at Talk:Global cities and comment. It's not clear to me what the purpose of the page is. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Resurrect?

This article was deleted & discussion archived at: Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2013#Global_cities.

I have just encountered w:Globalization and World Cities Research Network which links to the network's website. This appears to have some specific lists based on solid research. Should we resurrect this article using their material?

I'd say yes. Such an article might do a better job of what I was aiming at in creating Wikivoyage:World cities/Large — providing an index based on objective measures of what might be the most important articles here — and it would do it in main article space rather than Wikivoyage: space so it would be more likely to benefit readers as well as editors. Also, it would have a large number of internal wikilinks and those are beneficial for search engine ranking.

On the other hand, I am not volunteering for the work, or at least not anytime soon. Pashley (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This list and the explanation of its terms seem highly technical and encyclopedic, rather than obviously travel-related. Unless someone is willing to put these things in terms that are readily understandable to lay readers interested in travel, I have doubts about the travel-related justification for resurrecting this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I support ressurection. A couple of other Wikivoyages have a global city article as well, so I was actually very surprised that the English version I wrote was deleted! Ischa1 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would do it by moving the table at Wikivoyage:World cities/Large here, removing all the columns under "Wikivoyage" except article status, adding a column under "City" for the GaWC ranking, adding new city rows if required, and altering the text to fit that configuration. Comments? Pashley (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Large cities" is easily understandable; "global cities" is not. Why is the name "global cities" preferable, and if it is, how are you going to explain the technical bases for classification in an easily understandable, travel-relevant way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See User:Pashley/Table for my version.

I do not think the name is remarkably important. For linking, it is always possible to use whatever text fits in the context of the source article so the destination name is not critical. For searches, the name matters more but we can add redirects as required.

"Global cities" is not a name I chose, but I can see an argument for it. Size matters, but some travellers may find cities of 20-odd million (top ten on our list) distinctly intimidating. However, any of the top ten on the GaWC list look interesting to me, even Amsterdam with its relatively small population but GaWC rank Alpha. I'd choose it as a destination over someplace like Karachi, far larger but GaWC rank Beta, although I'd like to visit both.Pashley (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's no problem to add the GaWC to the chart, with the very brief explanation you give of their criteria, but I don't like the ambiguous expression "global cities," and the problem with supplanting Wikivoyage:World cities/Large is that the "Districts?" tab is useful as reference for editors, whereas you wouldn't use it in an article intended for any reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite what I said above, having seen how much change there was in developing the new table I would not have it supplant World cities/Large. Leave it in place and move the other version here. The two tables are different & serve different purposes. Pashley (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It's just so extra-hierarchical and so non-specific that I don't think it should be resurrected. Unless it was an itinerary, it's just not specific enough. What city? Where city? Selfie City (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, not travel-relevant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)