Talk:City quality of life indices

More than one survey

According to the Melbourne article:

Melbourne has twice ranked first in a survey by The Economist of The World's Most Livable Cities on the basis of its cultural attributes, climate, cost of living, and social conditions such as crime rates and health care, once in 2002 [1], and again in 2004 – a year in which the Economist truly took a shine to Australian cities, with the five largest cities in Australia given rankings of 6 or better. In 2005, however, it was ranked 2nd, behind Vancouver, Canada.

Thus it appears that there is more than one reputable survey entitled to be called the World's Most Livable Cities. I suggest that verifiable sources be provided for both, with specific references. The article then needs to be expanded to accomodate both surveys (if not more).--Couttsie 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilatus, before my edits there were no verifiable references whatsoever for this article. In addition, it was seriously incomplete and biased, favouring a relatively obscure Mercer Human Resource Management survey over a world renowned survey by the EIU team from The Economist.

I suggest that you read the newspaper references that I have now provided, remove the copyright voliation tag. Also, note my earlier post to this discussion page. Wikipedia already references the EIU information on the Melbourne article (and no doubt elsewhere). --Couttsie 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue on your talk page. Pilatus 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious?

Saying this about Melbourne: "strengthening the idea that Australia is a desirable destination", sounds fine and objective, but then: "which further proves Canada is one of the greatest and most desirable places to live in or visit"... Seriously, proves and then 2 superlatives? I changing it. Electriceel 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the link to the definition of "living conditions" go to a Buffy reference?203.110.137.114 07:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to say... they say that Vancouver is one of the best place to live, cuz of low crime....what about the drug use? Vancouver has the highest drug rate in Canada....some places are known to have tons of stonned people taking drugs on the side walk. i thing that should be considered...ChrisDVD

Hi,

I removed a sentence at the end of one of the paragraphs that basically said, Scotland had a surprise with Glasgow... words to that effect. I just took it away because it was so poorly worded, not in a reference text style, and was pretty demeaning to say that Scotland and Glasgow were surprising places to be in the top 10. Marc 81.99.10.116 (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisDVD Dude i live in vancouver there are two parts downtown all the drugs and the rest literally no noise durng nighttime and most of the day 22:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.44.117 (talk)

A point of code/grammar (or something related)

I have a question for the Wiki gurus... why is there a link "Mercer Quality of Living Survey" that leads from this page to this page? Seems like a circular waste of time and needlessly obfuscatory. Angelsy1 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Angelsy1[reply]

You're right, it shouldn't be like that, so I've just fixed it. Don't forget though, it's generally ok to fix things like this yourself or make changes as you see fit without asking permission first... one of Wikipedia's mottos is "Be bold" :-) Easel3 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 13 Cities said to be in the top 10.

Discuss.

It actually says 11, but it's still a problem... In fact, looking at it, this whole article needs an overhaul. It's out of date (only showing the 2005 results) and pretty poorly set out. Anybody should add good links and things if they find them. Electriceel [ə.lɛk.tʃɹɪk il] 02:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.........++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.97.81 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercer Quality of Living 2009 table is incorrect or has been vandalised. Glasgow is not in the top 10. Sydney was rated 10th on the list. Table corrected.--Simonmetcalf (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top ten table is incorrect or has been vandalized - Sydney, Australia was not first, it was Vienna, Austria. The score is correct. Table corrected.

Urrrgh

In my "Modern" skin this page is a horrible mess, with the black lines separating the sections cutting across the table. LukeSurl^{t c} 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places Rated Almanac

Is this article titled Most liveable cities in the US? NO

So why, why, why is this in here?? I delete this section but some one puts it back. WHY are you doing this? Do you have a commprehension problem with the title of the article? If you want this on Wikipedia so badly, please put it on an appropriate page!

Liveability rankings

The Monocle's 2009 liveability rankings
	City	Country
1	Zürich	Switzerland
2	Copenhagen	Denmark
3	Tokyo	Japan
4	Munich	Germany
5	Helsinki	Finland
6	Stockholm	Sweden
7	Vienna	Austria
8	Paris	France
9	Melbourne	Australia
10	Berlin	Germany
11	Honolulu	United States
12	Madrid	Spain
13	Sydney	Australia
14	Vancouver	Canada
15	Barcelona	Spain
16	Fukuoka	Japan
17	Oslo	Norway
18	Singapore	Singapore
19	Montreal	Canada
20	Auckland	New Zealand
21	Amsterdam	Netherlands
22	Kyoto	Japan
23	Hamburg	Germany
24	Geneva	Switzerland
25	Lisbon	Portugal

Spelling

The list itself spells it liveability:

http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report&page=noads

why is this wiki page different leaving out the "e"? SeanMack (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

Information should be updated to reflect changes in the list brought by Mercer's 2009 report (http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving). 64.254.251.144 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles in Austria?

Fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.217.93.220 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism. Everyone knows LA is a hellhole. 219.73.28.229 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you've never been to LA.

India not in top 10 for Mercer. Why is Ahmedabad listed as no. 1?

The page seems to have been vandalised. Ahmedabad in India is listed as the world;s most liveable city in the Mercer list. This is incorrect. I think it score less than 100 due to environment alone. Can somebody please update this to Vienna. Regards Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.92.177 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try refreshing. I already reverted and blocked the vandal from editing the page. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to provide the full Economist list?

I suspect the Economist Intelligence Unit is reluctant to share its entire list of 140 cities, but it would be interesting to see. Also, what are the criteria to be included in the rankings at all? (e.g. minimum population.) Are the rankings done purely on the basis of statistical data? I find it amusing that Detroit and Boston are ranked almost the same. Anyone who has actually visited those two cities would reach a very different conclusion.Tetsuo (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better title

Hi. At the moment, this article's title is World's most livable cities. Some editors have commented adversely in the past on this title, and I would on the whole agree with their thinking. I would therefore like to start a poll of editors' views on a possible better title.

My grouses are:

Livable (or liveable) cities to me means you can live cities. You can't, though. You can live in cities, however, so they could be liveable-in cities. Yes, I know you see liv(e)able in many places, but it still jars, to my eyes/ears.
However, English (I've over a half-century of native English usage) has a seemingly ready-made alternative: habitable. Perfectly respectable, more used, and free of transitive/intransitive concerns. (Yes, I'm something of a linguist.)
Livable to me should in any case have an e before the~able.

Google hits confirm my thoughts:

[1] finds 26 million hits for habitable
[2] finds 19 million hits for liveable
[3] finds 8 million hits for livable

I therefore would see the following options for proceeding with name change, in my own suggested order of preference:

Option 1 - World's most habitable cities

Option 2 - World's most liveable-in cities

Option 3 - World's most livable-in cities

Option 4 - World's most livable cities

i.e. keep the title as it is now.

Please give your own thoughts below this line - thanks. Trafford09 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5 - World's most liveable cities ? SeanMack (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I've no overly strong preference though. I'm basing my weak preference on the title - "Global liveability report" by the Economist.[reply]

Option 5 - World's most liveable cities indices. The article isn't about the world's most liveable cities (an entirely subjective judgement), it's about lists of the world's most liveable cities. "Liveable" is the word and spelling used by The Economist (and allegedly by Monocle, though I don't see a citation for any of that content), so that's what should be used here. What matters to an encyclopaedia is what it's called, not whether what it's called makes sense. GideonF (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]