BUG: changed io.wb.get_countries URL
Only 50 countries show up for the get_countries() call in io.wb, rather than the 256 that actually exist. Looks like a typo in the [World Bank Documentation](http://data.worldbank.org/node/18). The workaround is to request 1000 countries. Running this change by @vincentarelbundock.

can u add a test which can validate this ?
 Sure, I'll add a test to check if 'Zimbabwe' is the last country in the data frame. I'm brand new to this though, so I could use some help with writing the test properly.
 Just push your changes to this branch and then we'll take a look. There's a few notes [here](https://github.com/pydata/pandas/wiki/Testing) that should help you get started, specifically the section on tests that need [network connectivity](https://github.com/pydata/pandas/wiki/Testing#handling-tests-requiring-network-connectivity).
 is your master update to date?

```
git fetch upstream/master
git rebase -i upstream/master
```
 Master is updated. I copied from the other tests in the `test_wb.py` - they all had `raise nose.SkipTest` as the first line. Looks like they all fail now when I run `nosetests pandas`:

```
AssertionError: u'GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$)' != u'GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)'
-------------------- >> begin captured stdout << ---------------------
Failed: AssertionError("u'GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$)' != u'GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)'",)

--------------------- >> end captured stdout << ----------------------
```
 I'll take a look at some other test modules and see if I can rewrite these.
 just delete the raise nose.SkipTest lines entirely
 can you also add a release note in 0.13.1 (reference this PR), about this bugfix
 can you rebase, add release notes and remove those SkipTest lines?

thanks
 Yes. Should I do this before the tests are passing though?
 yes always should write the first to make sure that they in fact fail (otherwise could have a bogus test)
 Makes sense! I'll make the change tonight.
 This rebase catastrophe is getting out of hand. I don't think we should require
contributors to have that much git fu. It's unpleasent to them and a constant nuisance to us.
 @y-p Should we just take care of it ourselves? I distinctly remember admonishment from you about learning git ... not that it wasn't completely warranted, but I think it's important to learn about rebase if you're going to contribute to OSS using git. That said, for a DBC it's probably a little much
 Your PRs showed that you were substantially invested in writing code _and_ you made
a truely collosal mess of your PR history at the time, so it seemed right to push you 
towards learning the tools. At this point, you probably know git better then me.

If you'll recall, I did not teach you git (except on specific points you asked about).
What I suggested is that if you're not comfortable with git that you leave it to the 
maintainers to sort out, which I did. It really is less work often, and less stressful
on well-intentioned contributors who are otherwise made to run the git gauntlet.

The amount of impromptu git tutorials that span more comments then the actual discussion
on the substance of the PR is really high here. Not every typo fix PR mandates that the submitter 
have an in-depth understanding of the git merge-model. Leave'em alone.

If someone really screws up, admonish. if someone starts submitting lots of good PRs
marred only by bad git fu, by all means walk them through it and reciprocate their efforts.
Otherwise, pull-fix-push-close (while maintaining authorship). I've often done that in the past.

You do this because you're truely nice, generous people who like to share knowledge
and help out others. But sometimes, it's just too much.

And I sincerly hope you've learned to shrug off my admonishments. It's just a thing.
 Fair enough.
 btw, the rebase+force push is kind of unique to pandas. Many (most?) projects are actually -1 on 
rebase+force pushing, as is GH [itself](https://help.github.com/articles/why-are-my-commits-in-the-wrong-order).
 Good to know. I'm not sure I agree with no rebases ATB ... but that's a discussion for another point in the space time continuum.
 My 2 cents- I found a tiny bug that was trivial to correct. Just wanted to
point it out and give back a bit to the software I use. Probably would have
been better to do this in a bug report as my knowledge of Git and testing
is minimal.

If you could point me to a resource to learn more about Git and Testing
from the ground up I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Clark

On Saturday, January 25, 2014, Phillip Cloud notifications@github.com
wrote:

> Good to know. I'm not sure I agree with no rebases ATB ... but that's a
> discussion for another point in the space time continuum.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/pydata/pandas/pull/6008#issuecomment-33296370
> .
 @clarkfitzg , thanks for the report and the fix. We appreciate both and just to make it clear:
that whole rant was really not about you or this PR :)

I've neatened your PR and pushed to master as 70b1ad4. It'll be part of the soon-to-be-released
0.13.1.

Re git tutorials, I've found http://pcottle.github.io/learnGitBranching/ to be a useful resource for
git newcomers. You should remember that absolutely everyone finds git difficult at some point
but most find it indispensable once over the hump.
 The pandas GH wiki also has some git sections: https://github.com/pydata/pandas/wiki
 @y-p That's a nice tutorial. Very co-worker friendly :)
 @cpcloud maybe add a link in the pandas github page to that one?
 done
 @y-p, @cpcloud, and @jreback, I very much appreciate the follow up and the hand holding. Must be a tremendous amount of effort on your parts to organize all these different contributions. 

This was my first attempt at contributing to OSS, and now I have a better idea of how to go about it. Next time I'll bring more git-fu to the game. 
 Np happy to help

On Saturday, January 25, 2014, Clark Fitzgerald notifications@github.com
wrote:

> @y-p https://github.com/y-p, @cpcloud https://github.com/cpcloud, and
> @jreback https://github.com/jreback, I very much appreciate the follow
> up and the hand holding. Must be a tremendous amount of effort on your
> parts to organize all these different contributions.
> 
> This was my first attempt at contributing to OSS, and now I have a better
> idea of how to go about it. Next time I'll bring more git-fu to the game.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/pydata/pandas/pull/6008#issuecomment-33308253
> .

## 

## 

Best,
Phillip Cloud
