Template talk:Most active regional blocs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Things that need to be done or are desirable to have done 1.1 Data inconsistencies 1.2 Minor but important changes 1.3 Data is old 1.4 Trade Blocks to be Included 1.5 Reference Countries and Note 2 1.6 Sorting by Member States doesn't work 1.7 Summary of the table 1.8 GDP of a nominal standard? 2 Trade Blocks to be Included 2.1 GAFTA needs to be Added 2.2 Add East Asia community 2.3 AU 3 Reference Countries and Note 2 3.1 Canada? 3.2 Ordering changed; Indonesia added to the list of reference countries 3.3 Note 2 and what to include in the list of reference countries 4 2007 update 5 PARTA = Pacific Islands Forum? 6 ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization)

[edit] Things that need to be done or are desirable to have done

[edit] Data inconsistencies

here it goes

Regional bloc1	Area		Population	GDP ($US)				Member states1
	km²	sq mi		in millions (PPP)	in millions (nominal)	per capita (PPP)	per capita (nominal)
SAARC	5,136,740	1,983,306	1,467,255,669	4,074,031	N/A	2,777	N/A	8
India (2007 estimate)	3,287,590	1,269,346	1,120,000,000	4,726,000	1,089,000	4,182	1,004	35

i believe ;) India is a part of SAARC.
Oh! the rest of SAARC might have negative GDP.

Don't be angry on me, have some humour in your work.

We need to make sure tables are modified only all at one go. Only then can someone vouch for correctness. If small modifications are made individually, its difficult to retain accuracy. Atif.hussain (talk)

Likewise for Russia and EurAsEC.... Causantin (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor but important changes

The sq mi, in millions (nominal), and per capita (nominal) columns need their greens and yellows (for highs and lows) added. 12.208.107.116 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The grey box at the bottom should extend to the edge of the template, not just the edge of the in millions (nominal) column. 12.208.107.116 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Data is old

2004 data is quite old, when 2006/7 data is available. Someone should update it. Especially the fast changing GDP part, although PPP figures for developing nations should not increase as fast as nominal GDP.

What really needs to be done is for Wikipedia. to have a single source for each data point, that way it would simply be possible for one change to be made when the new year comes round rather than hunt down every reference and change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Blocks to be Included

Which trade block are to be include must always keep being resolved. See below for more. 12.208.107.116 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Countries and Note 2

Which countries are to be used as references must be resolved, and note 2 must be kept accurate. See below for more. 12.208.107.116 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting by Member States doesn't work

It treats it like text, not numbers -- i.e "(10, 27, 3, 4)". Probably because of the entries like CARICOM "(14+1)".

[edit] Summary of the table

Hello, I'm working on the Wikipedia:Accessibility project, and I've just some changes to this data table to reflect its structure (namely adding a table caption for the title, and tagging each column & row header with the adequate table syntax, instead of relying only on presentation syntax).

An good addition to improve the web accessibility of a data table is to add the attribute "summary", explaining the contents of said table. I've looking at Trade bloc#Most active regional blocs for some description of the contents, but I haven't found any summary of the table, and I don't know anything about this topic to made one myself. Can anyone provide one? A good description should list not only the headers, but extract the most important information of the raw data. Thanks a lot. --surueña 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDP of a nominal standard?

Why is it that I do not mention GDP of a nominal standard?

I strongly agree. Wikipedia in general mentions PPP values (without mentioning nominal values) far too often. This is very misleading to those that haven't encountered PPP much before. Anyway, the nominal values are very important, and should be added. 12.208.107.116 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Too true, plus PPP measurements have been shown to be rather unreliable - see the way the PPP GDP of China was slashed 40% last year due to previous errors in measurement. It also has the effect of making poor countries look richer than they are (even measured by purchasing power), whilst underestimating the GDP of rich countries. Also, this is an article on trade - surely the most important figure is what the GDP of a country can buy on the international market, not what it buys at home. FOARP (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to add in some nominal figures, but it was very hard to find sources so for some I just had to sum the member state nominal GDPs on the 2006 IMF chart, this is tricky as there are some states for which the figures are dubious (i.e., Iraq) or which simply don't exist (Kosovo), so any help on this would be very melcome. Worst of all is the PPP and nominal figures for the US don't match - but they should be equal. Also I don't know how to centre the bottom box - some help? FOARP (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Blocks to be Included

[edit] GAFTA needs to be Added

The Agadir treaty is now a sub-treaty in the GAFTA (Greater Arab Free Trade Area) under the Arab League, i think it is about time to upgrade the knowledge and remove Agadir treaty from the list to be replaced with the GAFTA, or Arab League, with the population, GDP income , etc...

Arab League User (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Replaced Agadir with GAFTA, using data obtained from 2005 world factbook from University of Missouri–St. Louis archive: http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2005/index.html - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add East Asia community

The 21st century in the days of a thing of East Asia.You should add East Asia community(EAc) and APEC and East Asia summit.I am opposed at a member nation. A Chinese and Malaysian plan： ASEAN / China / Japan /Korea. Japanes and Indonesian / Australian plan： ASEAN / China / Japan / Korea / India / Australia / New Zealand.

Those are only plans, there is nothing even remotely approaching a trade bloc in East Asia yet. —Nightstallion (?) 23:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AU

Love this template. Shouldn't we include the African Union? Also, why are Macau and Hong Kong excluded from the China figures? --AndrewRT 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Macau and Hong Kong are excluded from mainland China GDP and other figures in most statistical sources - they are counted separetly because of their specific economic features, etc. AU is not present in the table, because its "trade policy" is not yet coherent and fully developed (AEC is expected to be in force sometime in the next decade) - instead of the AU there are multiple african economic and trade organizations in the table. Alinor 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone could find a consolidated source for China+HK+Macau maybe then the table can be changed... Alinor 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Countries and Note 2

[edit] Canada?

Why is Canada included in the 'Reference blocs and countries' section? It's population and GDP and political influence in the world is minute and is certainly not up to par with USA, India, Russia or China at any category. I feel it should be excluded from the list since there there are more fitting candidates, i.e. Japan or Germany. - Sohailstyle July 9, 2006, 15:46 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The reference countries are the top two in population (India and PRC), area (Canada and Russia) and GDP (PRC and USA). Unless you've got very good reasons to change that, I'd advocate leaving it like that. —Nightstallion (?) 11:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering changed; Indonesia added to the list of reference countries

Note 2 says "The first five states in the World by area, population and GDP (PPP)". The top five countries in area and GDP (PPP) are on the list of reference blocs and countries (to which note 2 applies), but, of the top five countries in population, Indonesia is missing. Please add it, or change the note to something that would clearly apply only to the currently listed countries. 12.201.81.155 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to care, so I added it myself. I just wanted to let people know, and have them say anything they wanted about this. I also rearranged the (previously apparently arbitrary) order of the reference blocs and countries (although not any blocs) according to the totals of their ranks in the three categories (area, population and GDP (PPP)), in descending order (meaning that more highly ranked countries are towards the bottom). I arbitrarily placed the USA after China (PRC) because it outranks China (PRC) in two of three categories on the list (although China (PRC) actually administers more area), and because this also neatly keeps BRIC together. 12.201.81.155 09:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also rearranged the order of the regional blocs according to the totals of their ranks in the categories area, population, GDP (PPP), and member states, in ascending order (meaning that more highly ranked regional blocs are towards the top). This change puts the more meaningful and commonly known regional blocs at the top of the list. 12.201.81.155 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does Indonesia (and now Germany) keep being removed? I understand if you (the general editing public) think Indonesia is meaningless, but the note clearly states "Including the largest five countries by area, population and GDP (PPP)." This is a lie. Indonesia is fourth in population, and Germany is fifth in GDP (PPP). It simply *must* be chosen whether the note will be edited to match reality, or Indonesia and Germany will be added. I do understand making the list alphabetical, though (for ease of comparing the article's versions in its history and to find less important blocs more quickly). 12.208.107.116 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 2 and what to include in the list of reference countries

As I mentioned before, note 2 is inaccurate. I have fixed this for now (by changing the note, this time), but it should be discussed which countries deserve to be added. Going to a top three for all categories mentioned would drop Brazil (from the current list of Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, the PR China, Russia, and the USA), a top four would drop Brazil but add Indonesia, a top five would add Indonesia and Germany, and a top six would add Indonesia, Germany, Australia, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. 12.208.107.116 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you sum the rankings of each country's area, population, and GDP (PPP) (using the CIA's ordering, as the template appears to), and divide by three (to show an approximate rank), you get (I only went through all countries that were in the top ten in at least one category, though. This means that only rankings under eleven are surely accurate, although I doubt there are many under twenty that were missed. I've put an empty line after the first seven because that's how many nations are currently being included.):

02.2 PRC

02.5 USA

04.3 India

06.3 Russia

06.7 Brazil

11.7 Indonesia

16.7 Canada

19.3 Argentina

22.7 Pakistan

24.7 France

25.0 Japan

25.3 Australia

27.3 Germany

29.0 Nigeria

34.0 Italy

34.0 Sudan

35.7 UK

42.0 Kazakhstan

44.0 Bangladesh

The top seven replaces Japan (small area) with Indonesia (large population).

Using the square root of the area rankings gives:

01.6 PRC

02.0 USA

02.9 India

05.7 Brazil

06.3 Russia

07.0 Japan

07.7 Indonesia

09.0 Germany

11.0 France

12.3 UK

12.7 Pakistan

13.1 Italy

15.9 Bangladesh

16.5 Canada

17.6 Argentina

20.2 Nigeria

24.1 Australia

31.7 Sudan

40.0 Kazakhstan

The top seven replaces Canada (small population) with Indonesia (large population and nearly as large of a GDP (PPP)). Indonesia and Germany, which people don't like to include as much, are on the edge.

Not using the area rankings and instead dividing the sums by two gives:

01.5 PRC

02.0 USA

03.0 India

06.5 Japan

07.5 Brazil

09.0 Russia

09.5 Indonesia, Germany

13.0 France

14.0 UK

15.5 Italy

16.0 Pakistan

19.0 Bangladesh

24.0 Canada

25.0 Argentina

27.5 Nigeria

35.0 Australia

46.0 Sudan

58.5 Kazakhstan

The top seven/eight once again replaces Canada. Again, Indonesia and Germany, which people don't like to include as much, are on the edge.

It may seem like too many (eleven) nations, but I suggest including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, the PR China, Russia, the USA, and the UK. Canada would be kept because it has a large area, and people probably don't want it to go. I know that the European countries are statistically similar, but this list would include all major powers in the world, and thus could perhaps not be edit-argued over anymore. 12.208.107.116 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice from the history that nations in the top three have been used at times. This would be Canada, India, Japan, the PR China, Russia, and the USA, only removing Brazil from the current group. This may be preferable. 12.208.107.116 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Things only became clunkier after GDP (nominal) was added (no, it shouldn't be removed). There are three ways to go about this. Either the top five is rigidly used, which will include several countries with no hope of being greater than a great power over the next 50 years, the top three is used, which is mostly countries with great power or even superpower potential, or only superpowers and potential superpowers (over the next 50 years, in theory) could be used. Those countries would be the US, China, India, and the EU (when it was federalist enough to be accepted as one country). If no one cares after a while I will switch things back to the top three and note 2 can finally be normal again. 12.208.107.116 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 update

Since the article is rather outdated, I started to update it to 2007 which is the most recent year for which I could find reliable information. I already updated the reference countries, and indicated the year in parentheses. Once all the info is updated, we can remove the year after each entity and change it in the center. Any questions, let me know. (Einstein00 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] PARTA = Pacific Islands Forum?

Are PARTA and Pacific Islands Forum the same thing? I checked the Pacific Islands Forum article and found no reference to the term PARTA. I even googled it and couldn't find the terms used together. So are they the same thing or should we change the name? Is it a made up acronym? Valley2city 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the population of the pacific islands forum based on wikipedias population data.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization)

a very important Economic Organization in Central Asia and Turkey, pretty old, and works more or less like the European Union, ASEAN and Arab League, i think it needs to be put up their. especially since future integration achievments in this region is more then between Central Asia and Russia and East Europe in the CIS.

i think the region needs to be included their... dont you think?

--Arab League User (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)