Wikipedia

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 7

< Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Mindmatrix in topic Edits by IPs 2a01:598...
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove Palestine or fix the numbering problem I noted above, that nobody has bothered to respond to.

110.22.123.142 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: I've had a look and I see what you mean with regards to the numbering problem. Palestine isn't recognised as an official state so it is therefore not given a number, but it is still reflected in the table as is other disputed states. st170etalk 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Population of Portugal needs update. According to the last official estimate numbers (18/12/2015), total resident population is 10 374 822 [1] Thank you PedroFerrer (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  Not done for now: I'm seeing a number of different possibilities here. The official estimate is what's currently used. The annual average resident population is 10358067. The Resident population (Long series, start 1970 - No.) by Sex and Age; Annual matches the current table. The table you give (also seen here) says it's an estimate for 2014 though. The numbers are all relatively close... don't see an need to change them especially when the year for the link you provide is 2014. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Official Statistical Data updated december 18, 2015

Unsourced additions and original research

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The population table in this article is being edited daily, usually several times by different editors, changes being unsourced and devoid of edit summaries, except for those made by well established editors, and data templates are still being replaced by manual calculations. I have notified all related WikiProjects and requested page protection for this article as, without any sourcing or explanations for these changes, very few of the populations can be considered to be accurate. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, this article should be in a protection mode 24/7, 12 months a year.Ernio48 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Elsewhere you mentioned templates like [1], I'd ask who maintains data for those templates? The problem of unreferenced numbers in infoboxes etc. is a big one, and having reliable templates would be useful for places like country infoboxes, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I generally maintain the Australian one, but anyone can. Keeping those templates up to date means consistency between multiple articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Has a consensus been established that populations calculated using these templates do not constitute WP:OR? For Australia or the US (which I maintain) this might be OK since an official population clock exists; but most countries don't have one (even in cases where this list says they do, e.g. China.) Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

France's Population currently not including Overseas Regions

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

France is listed with the note " Excluding French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion." While it's logical not to count those of the French Overseas Collectivities which are dependencies, the above regions aren't; they're full parts of France. If we're going to list apart all countries regions and subtract the shares from each countries total, it will just be a list of Regional entities and dependencies by population. If we're not, why only for France?

If it's because they're overseas, why is Hawaii, for example, included in the US total? Either Hawaii is included, and the five french regions are as well, either they're both listed apart and their population deduced from the US and France respectively. What is the logic otherwise?

Going with the same country's example, Puerto Rico and Guam are listed as dependencies, as they're not fully part of the US. It's the same with French Polynesia or New Caledonia. But Hawaii, fully part of the US, isn't a dependencies. So are the five above mentioned regions. They should be included in France's total. --Aréat (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"Can we exchange on the Talk Page? I've opened a discussion on this matter." It's what you should have done in the first place, especially when making big changes. I am assuming you are 88.187.211.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but that really doesn't matter. Kleuske (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Kleuske for making the point I was trying to make at the same time!
Thank you Aréat/various IP warriors for stopping the dynamic IP nonsense and coming to the talkpage. Bonaire and other Dutch similar political entities, and Greenland for Denmark, are also separated on this chart. The information is more useful separate. I've undone your removal due to your previous IP edit-warring, this should have been the first place you came. I do not support your specious argument. I do support taking this to WP:3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I started by only correcting France's population number. It do seems like I indeed should have created a discussion before doing the other changes, excuse me. You should notice that calling the other party a "noob" didn't improve the situation, though.
Now, I don't see the reasons for refusing the edit. The page of the article itself describe in the "method" part that "Areas that form integral parts of sovereign states, such as the countries of the United Kingdom, are counted as part of the sovereign states concerned." Hence the edit to include the five overseas french regions in France's number, as they fit this very description.
On the other hand, with your example, neither Bonaire nor Greenland fit the description, they're not full part of the Netherland and Denmark respectively, but dependencies. I can totally see the usefulness of including all these regional parts of countries in the list, without a number, even if they're not dependencies, but then their population shouldn't be removed from the country they're a part of. That seems to me to be something that goes directly against the usefulness of the list on the first place, and something which could led to further counter intuitive situation.--Aréat (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution requires thorough talk page discussion — not just discussion through edit summaries — before seeking assistance. Discussion here is barely begun. After the matter has been thoroughly discussed, feel free to refile for dispute resolution if the matter cannot be worked out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you for your intervention.
If we have to discuss more thoroughly, so be it. I will start : the article state that "Areas that form integral parts of sovereign states [...] are counted as part of the sovereign states concerned.". It is thus necessary to edit France's number to include the populations of aeras of France which fit this description.--Aréat (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Aréat is now persistently adding data for Hawaii, which is neither a country nor a dependency.[2][3][4] I reverted the addition twice, pointing out that Hawaii is a US state, and then left a note on his/her talk page,[5] to which the reply was I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information". If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.--Aréat (talk) 7:11 pm, Today (UTC+11),[6] making it clear that Hawaii is only being added because Aréat cannot remove French dependencies. Looking at the individual articles for the 5 entries that are being removed I see
I do not understand how France actually treats these "overseas regions", however, overseas region would seem to indicate that they are similar to states and territories of the United States and Australia, and so should probably be incorporated into the figures for France, as US and Australian states are for those countries. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
We agree, then. My edit of these french regions have been reverted in the past few days on the ground that they were useful informations. The case of Hawaii show clearly that aeras being full parts of a country shouldn't be shown apart nor their population substracted from the country they're a part of.
The five French Regions above are full parts of France, and their data is included on France's page. I propose the following edit : France's data on the list to include them as shown on its own linked source. The [note 5] to instead mention Excluding Overseas Collectivity, as French Polynesia, New Caledonia, etc, are indeed dependencies. The five regions, French Guyane, Reunion, Mayotte, Guadeloupe and Martinique to be removed from the list.--Aréat (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
You came to my talk page and accused me of modifying something that I didn't modify and now you're accusing me of saying something that I didn't say. I have said that Hawaii IS a state multiple times now,[7][8] including on this page when I said I reverted the addition twice, pointing out that Hawaii is a US state. Please note that, with very few exceptions, any Wikipedian is free to participate in any discussion, and I will continue to do so, especially when editors are editing disruptively. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you said so yourself: "I do not understand how France actually treats these "overseas regions". I should think it is a given that someone understand fully the status of data before correcting another wikipedian's edit (which was correct, although a little clumsy).
Besides, to go back to the real subject of this thread, France's data excludes some of its own territory (recognised by the UN and the EU) while Russia's data includes Crimea and Sevastopol, which are not recognised internationally as being actually part of Russia... if we are to follow this logic, then other national (official, non-disputed) territories should, at least, be included for the case of France. (see Note on the list page) Wisi eu (talk • contribs) 07:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This reasoning looks right to me. I will remove the French overseas regions from the list if nobody else raises any objections here. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see User:Aréat has gone ahead and made the changes. I'll note that this contradicts the opening statement that the list is "primarily based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." I have no problem with us doing that (like I said, I think it's the right thing to do), but we should either remove this line about the ISO standard (but then we have to explain why our treatment of the UK differs from our treatment of the Netherlands) or qualify it with this exception. Cobblet (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

United States tribal jurisdictions

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should the note on "United States" be amended to read "50 states, District of Columbia and tribal jurisdictions"? As far as I understand, they are considered sovereign nations and not part of their surrounding states. I assume they are part of the same population count though.--occono (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why "citation needed"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am questioning the "citation needed" tag for this para: The population figures do not reflect the practice of countries that report significantly different populations of citizens domestically and overall. Some countries, notably Thailand, do not report total population, exclusively counting citizens; for total populations an international agency must issue an estimate.[citation needed] If a country does not report the data, then who would have reliable information if not "an international agency". Does that sentence really need verification? --Hlphowell (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I do not really care if the number for Ukraine is given including or excluding Crimea and Sevastopol, as long as it is clearly stated in a note, but I suggest that the numbers for Crimea and Sevastopol are given in the note, so that people can do their own addition or subtraction if they want toe. My concern is really about which numbers to take from the source. The source gives two tables, one for the present population and one for the resident populations. It is the second one that is most relevant here, so the numbers for 1 april will be 45,197,226 and 42,853,396 including/exluding. Please continue to use the resident population numbers in future updates, too. And please do not forget to put the same number into the formula for the percentage calculation. Regards! --T*U (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You made a mistake. The quantity of available population - 1.05.2014 - 43 009 258 (excluding Crimea and Sevastopol). You write that permanent population - 1.05.2014 - 42 839 621. But statistics gives an available population, as well as it is here resulted to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.34.221 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What you call the "available" population is in English called "present population", the number of people being at a specific place at a specific time. This number will include people being there on holiday, people working there away from home, people visiting friends and family there, etc., and it excludes people being away on holiday from the place, people being away to work other places, people being away to visit friends and family, etc. This may be an interesting number for example for planning purposes, but it is not the number that is of interest for Wikipedia population presentations. In Wikipedia we need to use the number for the "resident population", the number of people actually living in a specific place. This is the number that compare to what is presented for most other countries. --T*U (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should the population of Ukraine be without Crimea? There are very few countries that have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea as legal. On the contrary, The International Criminal Court (ICC) has described Russia's annexation as an illegal occupation…!!! Bjjobe (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Correction - Countries and dependencies by population - IRAN

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a contradiction between the two sources used to state the population of Iran by the pages of: Iran, and this article (List of countries and dependencies by population). The page of Iran uses the CIA World Facebook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) which estimates the population to be: 82,801,633, as of July 2016. This article, however, uses the official statistics provided by Statistic Centre of Iran (https://www.amar.org.ir/english/). Although, I was not able to find a link to the 79,880,300 (as of 2nd February 2017) that is claimed by the reference.

The two citations are inherently contradictory, especially the one that is used in this article, as it suggests that between 2016 and 2017, Iran has had a population decline of almost 3,000,000 million. This claim is without foundation and corroboration. Moreover, the figure that is used here also contradicts with the population of Iran in 2016 and the country's estimated rate of population growth. The difference in the two citations is not a matter of accuracy. One of them is wrong.

For the sake of accuracy and consistency, as stipulated by the various subpages of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, I strongly recommend changing the reference used from Statistic Centre of Iran (https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) to the CIA World Facebook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) and making the appropriate alternations. It is also questionable if using the Statistic Centre of Iran (https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) as a point of reference would be in violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Thanks, NuturalObserver (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Numbered list

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Occasionally there has been minor fights about which countries/areas to include and which not, about which countries/areas to be numbered and which not etc. in this list. The last change was made by removing the numbering from Palestine. Earlier conflicts have included Kosovo and several other entities with disputed or uncertain status. The problem seems to be that there is not any inclusion criteria (or numbering criteria) in the article. In many other similar articles, the lede gives a clear indication of the inclusion criteria, like in List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. In essence, this is the same categorization as in the "mother" article List of sovereign states and several similar articles. My opinion is to follow the criteria from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and possibly include the criteria in the text of the article.Therefore I will reinstate the numbering for Palestine and remove the numbering from Taiwan. In any case, why should we include Taiwan (not UN recognized and recognized by 21 countries) in the numbering, when Kosovo (not UN recognized and recognized by 111 countries) and Palestine (UN observer state and recognized by 136 UN members)? Whatever criteria, Palestine should come first, Kosovo second and Taiwan third. The next question is: Should we include text explaining the criteria in the article? --T*U (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving the article without discussion and changing the lead to match

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

We have an editor who is moving the article with no discussion. He wants to move it to "List of sovereign states and dependencies by population." The thing is some of these entities are countries NOT sovereign states (Taiwan for instance), so the article listings would be in error or the offending countries would need to be removed. I thought this merited discussion before moving and changing the lead so I'm opening this thread. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a controversial move at all, therefore a discussion wasn't deemed necessary. The definition of country is well defined in its own article. It includes sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries. Both Scotland and Taiwan are countries, but not universally recognised sovereign states, especially the former. The current title of the article would be confusing to some readers, as the term "country" already includes dependent territories. A more acceptable title would be "List of countries by population" (just get rid of the word "dependencies"), but I reckon the title format should align with other similar articles in Wikipedia, such as "List of sovereign states and dependencies by area," so a title called "List of sovereign states and dependencies by population" should be considered as the better choice here. Bobbie73 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have an article title about Sovereign States and dependencies, and the list includes places that are not sovereign states or dependencies, then something must change. Either the name of the article or the list. And once someone reverts your move it IS controversial and should have been brought to the talk page. I had to do it instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, the current list uses exactly the same inclusion criteria as the article "List of sovereign states and dependencies by area". Just as I said before, the current article title is very confusing, it would be better if we change the title to "List of countries by population", but again, if we do that, we should probably consider adding Scotland and Wales etc. to the list as they are also qualified as "countries". Bobbie73 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The current article does not seem to be confusing. I don't agree with moving this page from this title. User:Fyunck makes a compelling argument with the example of Taiwan. To do a wholesale page move to the other title would render some information inaccurate. This would not be acceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the current article title is indeed confusing. The term "country" is defined in its own article as below:
A country is a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.
Therefore, sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries (political entities like Scotland and Wales) are all considered countries. We can find more supporting evidence in other articles such as "Countries of the United Kingdom".
If we change the article title to "List of countries by population" or stick with the current title (which is worse), we should consider adding Scotland and Wales etc. to the list as they do qualify as countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbie73 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
As for the inclusion criteria, the current population list uses exactly the same inclusion criteria as the article "List of sovereign states and dependencies by area", which states that:
This is a list of the world's sovereign states and their dependent territories by area, ranked by total area.
Entries in this list, include, but are not limited to, those in the ISO standard 3166-1, which includes sovereign states and dependent territories. Largely unrecognised states not in ISO 3166-1 are included in the list in ranked order, but are not actually given a rank number.
As for Taiwan's political status, it's clearly defined in the article "List of sovereign states". It is considered as a largely unrecognised state but was given a rank number in the article because the country has been included in ISO 3166-1. Another largely unrecognised state that was also given a rank number in the article is Palestine, which is also included in ISO 3166-1.
Overall, it's pretty obvious that "List of sovereign states and dependencies by area" is a well written article with its inclusion criteria carefully stated and explained. Since we are using the same inclusion criteria for the population list here, why wouldn't we just use the most justified title instead of a confusing and potentially misleading title? Bobbie73 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, including Taiwan in that other article is dead wrong. But one doesn't go changing that title either without discussing it on its own talk page. And Taiwan's own article is very careful NOT to call it a sovereign state, because it isn't. It is a State, it is a Country. It should not be in any list of Sovereign States or it will be confusing to readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
My dear friend, everyone has their own political views. If you want to discuss whether Taiwan is a sovereign state, then you are in deep trouble because I guarantee that there will be a lot of people disagree with you. The same thing can be said of Palestine, Kosovo or Somaliland. The best thing to do here is to follow the most careful arranged article format, which is the one stated in the article "List of sovereign states and dependencies by area", not the current title, which is obviously much worse. Bobbie73 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
My good buddy, I don't really don't care what your views are, but the article on Taiwan is very specific and has consensus... it is not a sovereign state. So argue over there. It is not obviously worse, it is worse the way you changed it. But if you can get lots of editors agreeing with you then i have no issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Say what? Taiwan is not a sovereign state and it's a consensus? Are you serious? People from mainland China are the only ones that strongly refuse to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. Please note that there is a significant difference between an UN member state and a sovereign state. Taiwan is obviously not an UN member state, but it's quite commonly recognised as a sovereign state by people from outside of mainland China. If you still have doubts about this issue, you can refer to wiki articles Sovereign state and List of sovereign states for detailed clarifications. There are also resources from external websites which further discuss about issues in regard to Taiwan's statehood. As Bobbie73 have pointed out before, the current article title is poorly worded and a rewording of the title does seem necessary. 101.186.32.62 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Your premise is incorrect. See List of states with limited recognition. See also - Taipei Times, the USA, etc... I know it's a complicated situation. But before we start moving articles titles such as this it should be discussed here. That was my main issue with the move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Fyunck is correct. If Bobbie73 still disagrees I also suggest he-she take the argument over to the Taiwan talk page. Believe it or not, your views on Taiwan are clearly outside the mainstream. For example, the U.S. recognizes only the People's Republic as a sovereign state - and not Taiwan - since the mid or late 1970's. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I reckon both you and Fyunck are incorrect. The U.S. also doesn't recognise Palestine, which is now a UN observer state. The U.S. also recognises Kosovo which a lot of the UN member states do not recognise. The U.S. Department of State recognises 195 countries around the world as sovereign states, but this list only reflects the political agenda of the United States of America and some of its allies. However, the U.S. is just a single sovereign state, its political attitude do not represent the whole world's attitude. There are eight internationally accepted criteria used to determine whether a region is a sovereign state, Matt Rosenberg has written a good article about whether Taiwan is an independent country which certainly worth a read: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/taiwancountry.htm
Futhermore, I think we have all been dragged too far in discussing Taiwan's statehood. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the current title is appropriate for the article, which I think it's not. Bobbie73 has put up a rational explanation for his move request, which I am happy to support. 103.228.188.122 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No one said Taiwan wasn't a State... even that article you mentioned. It's just not a Sovereign State. I still find it very questionable to move the article. My only beef at the time was that this is a debatable move and therefore should not have been done without discussion. As long as it's discussed, and consensus is reached, I have no problem with the outcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I support Bobbie73's proposal for a name change. The term "country" is too ambiguous. Bobbie73 made several good points in his posts and I also think that we should follow the format and inclusion criteria used in List of sovereign states and dependencies by area. 103.14.185.11 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out, this is a list of countries not sovereign states by population, evident by the fact that whole sovereign states are not included which are nominally not considered one country. Eg the French Republic ("France" here only includes regions, not other less integrated overseas areas), the Kingdom of Denmark ("Denmark" here only includes Denmark proper, not other countries in the kingdom) or the Kingdom of the Netherlands ("Netherlands" here only includes the Netherlands, not other countries in the kingdom). Anyway, proper procedure is RM, this discussion can't conclude whether the page is moved. Reverted similar moved at a list by population density. Would be nice if all lists of countries used the same title format though. Rob984 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I also think the title should be moved. List of sovereign states and dependencies by area also doesn't include the whole sovereign states as single entries. They list the main parts and their dependencies separately, but the article has a clearly defined inclusion criteria. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the same layout here. 222.243.211.145 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MAP COLOURS

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The colours for Czechia, Slovakia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Slovenia on the world map are all wrong. I hope this was the right place to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.133.226 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC) The latter two still have the wrong colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.251.66 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The formatting of the note in the Cyprus entry caught my eye. I looked at the item cited as a WP:EL there, thinking that I might Ref-ize it. I saw that it is in Turkish, is from 2011, and (according to Google Translate) is of questionable b[earing on the population of Cyprus, so I just removed the note. The note which I removed mentions a figure of 294,396. The EL in the removed note says something about that on page 11. Google Translate can translate it from Turkish, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it.

Then, I looked at the Official Estimate item cited for Cyprus ([9]). I saw nothing there to support the population assertion of 848,300 (December 31, 2015), but following links there eventually led me to this report dated November 2015, which says on page 11 that the population of Cyprus was estimated at 938,400 at the end of 2014. I changed the article assertion re the population of Cyprus to match this.

Revise or improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

July 1, 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We haven't had this date yet. Please remove data calculated for the future. --188.99.140.215 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine: what do the population numbers actually measure?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I realize this is a political hornet's nest to wade into, but here goes. I don't have any particular beef with listing Israel and Palestine separately and putting a number on Palestine like the other UN states, but given the confused geography of the area under control of various contending parties I think we need some explanatory footnotes like the kind indicating that Serbia's numbers don't include Kosovo, Russia includes Crimea, etc. So, for instance: Does the Israeli population figure include official and/or unofficial settlements of Israeli citizens in the West Bank? Does the Palestine figure include Arab residents of East Jerusalem, or perhaps all residents? These are not marginal questions: Israeli settlers make up more than 10% of the West Bank's population. I know this is a thicket where even seemingly simple demographic questions are weaponized, but we want to provide at least some guidance on where these numbers are coming from, and also make sure we aren't double-counting people in both line items.

(I'm assuming here that the Gaza Strip's population is also under Palestine, which is in my opinion the best way to approach it, but there should probably be a note to that effect, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are effectively under separate government.)

The Golan Heights poses a similar question, though it's simpler -- I'm guessing that its population is all listed under Israel and not Syria? Though perhaps the Druze who haven't accepted Israeli citizenship are still listed in the Syrian numbers? Either way, there should probably be a footnote on this as well. Again, I'm not proposing that Wikipedia take some stand on any of these disputes, just that we should be clear what the numbers we're presenting from these contested parts of the world actually represent. --Jfruh (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good questions @Jfruh: I just had a look at the list, and I got to the same questions. Apparently the population of Israel on the Israel population clock includes the Israeli population of the West Bank (which they call Judea and Samaria), and maybe the Golan Heights too, see the 2014 population of the districts : the total without Judea and Samaria is 7,93 millions Districts_of_Israel. On a different matter, the population of Ukraine given by the Ukrainian statistics office includes millions of Ukrainians living abroad (mainly Russia and Poland) and the current population is probably no more than 36 millions, see for example https://regnum.ru/news/society/2168685.html (and the Polish and Russian figures about Ukrainian immigration in recent years, absolutely not reflected in Ukrainian estimates). So I agree with you, there should be notes to clarify what the figures mean. --Н Француз (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have just restored content for Morocco and Saudi Arabia that was recently deleted.[10] There are far too many of this type of unexplained edits in the article. This particular edit also removed one of the data templates. For the record, as of now, the following data templates are being used in this article:

As explained in the page editnotice, these should not be replaced with a manual calculation in this article. Instead the data template should be updated correctly. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole French overseas regions issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While I get the distinction between regular overseas territories and overseas, but integral territories, I also understand why someone would expect to see them separated here. Perhaps the issue could be solved with explaining the issue in the Notes section. Right now the note at the France entry only mentions the excluded territories, but it could just as well mention the included territories and list their populations and Metropolitan France's population in the comment.H2ppyme (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a sentence similar than the ones used for others countries.--Aréat (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Table: could it also show geographic percentage

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It may be nice if the table could show geographic percentage as well. Such as ... I don't know... China, 20% world population and 15% geographic (surface) percentage or so. This could be obtained automatically perhaps from other data stored in wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

mexico

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

mexico very renctly became the 10th most populus country — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

August

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

instead to add " own projections of organisations" why not add national statistic that are more realistic ?.AlfaRocket (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There ara other countries without internatonally recognise, for example Taiwan Rollerman (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, you are;

saba sint euestis and bonaire

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

there NOT dependent territories there 3 special municipalitys (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this (talk • contribs) 03:51, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. See Caribbean Netherlands and Public body (Netherlands). They are public bodies, and as such they are Danish territory, not dependent territories. See Administrative division Meters (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Dutch ;) but agreed, they are included already in the figure for the Netherlands. Rob984 (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops! Meters (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Meters really? Come on now! I always thought your user name pointed at Dutchness... Drmies (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Nope, actually Canuckistan, and the "er" spelling rather than "re" is because I was thinking of measurement gauges rather than the unit of length, although I did eventually usurp User:Metres as a doppelgänger. I really do know better than to call the Dutch Danes. Meters (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

File:WorldPopulationPercentage is wrong

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an inconcistency between the table and the pie chart of percentages at the top right of the page. For instance, Brazil and Pakistan are in reverse order in the pie chart, which I presume is out of date rather than the article itself.

So do we remove the chart, or does some kindly soul recreate the image?

Thanks.Silentcontributor (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ranks

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please fix the ranks. This is a common mistake, but it is a mistake.

The rank tells how many are above, not how many categories are above.

If I tell you that a guy finished a competition with two people ahead of him and ask you for his rank you will say 'third'. What you won't do is ask if the top two tied, and say if they tied he came in second.

I want to see what is the median population, but I can't readily find it because the ranks are screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.112.226 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to the United Nations, this country has much more inhabitants. Propositum (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth adding that we have significant differences regarding China, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Afghanistan. Propositum (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan population is wrong / unsourced

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Somebody changed the order by putting Pakistan ahead of Brazil, but the source given does not corroborate the change. Actually, the source given does not present a full number for the population of Pakistan - it only leads to the census 2017, which in the end found out Pakistan had 207 million people: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1490674/57-increase-pakistans-population-19-years-shows-new-census/

Brazil, on the other hand, has 208 million people, as the source indicated corretly points out. It needs fixing, then. 195.25.191.145 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The population clock at http://www.pwd.punjab.gov.pk/ says that the current population is a little shy of 200 million. {{Data Pakistan}} hasn't been updated since August last year. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Somalia and dependent territories

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article seems to favour de facto rather than de jure rankings, in light of this why is Somaliland not listed as a separate entity? I have quite an issue with any definition of dependent territory as well, why aren't the constituent republics of Russia for example, treated as different autonomous regions, and therefore having their own ranking? How many countries have autonomous regions? Why does it seem only Western territories are included in this definition, with the exception of previous Western 'colonies' like Hong Kong and Macau.

2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Alas Somaliland has not so far been recognized by any other state. qv List of states with limited recognition.
Which dependent territories / autonomous regions do have issue with? Batternut (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article detailing the foreign relations of Somaliland states it has political contacts with many countries, although you are right its international recognition is limited. It seems the door has been opened by the inclusion of other states with limited recognition. My objection is not because I wish to see Somaliland ranked, but rather the ranked Somalia entry should exclude Somaliland from its population figures so it is consistent with other states that have limited recognition. For more detail see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Somaliland

The article also states that Somaliland passports are accepted by eight countries, none of which have limited recognition.

As for the dependent territories I question why they are even listed. It seems every country in the world has regions with varying degrees of autonomy, yet we wouldn't list every single US state or UK county council.

2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan vs Kosovo

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, can anyone tell me why Taiwan is ranked in this list while the much more well-recognised Kosovo is not? Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:4186:47C4:72C7:DB9D (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to add Kosovo. Batternut (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Taiwan shouldn't be ranked, so does Kosovo. Only the 193 UN member states plus the two UN observer states are universally recognised as sovereign states. Taiwan, Kosovo and several other states have only received limited recognition from the international community.
Alternatively, we could rank all the entities regardless of their political status. Kenwick (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
We are not some new-state-recognition-police. Listing the six limited-recognition states listed as "States recognised by at least one UN member state" in List of states with limited recognition#States that are neither UN members nor UN observers would be a reasonable line to draw. If usable data exists for them, that is. Batternut (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I reckon that totally we should rank 201 entities and this rule should be viewed as a guidance for other similar articles in Wikipedia. 2001:8003:862E:1200:5F2:8160:E907:8EAC (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Worldbank population counts

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I collected population counts via WorldBank API from 2016 and compared with this page. Many population counts are reasonably close between these two sources, but there are exceptions. If you're interested, the comparison is in this Excel file.

Some of the outliers, at both extremes:

CountryWikipediaWorld BankWp:WB
Cyprus854800117012573.1%
Afghanistan297243233465603285.8%
Mauritania3806719430101888.5%
...
Pakistan212082000193203476109.8%
Guam184200162896113.1%
Eritrea50688314474690113.3%

Erik Zachte (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The World Bank uses UN estimates/projections, which are already listed at List of countries by population (United Nations). Pristino (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan official clock population.

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Editors, please just check the official population clock of Pakistan on the bottom of offical page above: https://pwd.punjab.gov.pk

As you can see the estime of population is 201MI, no 212MI as this article of Wikipedia shows. It’s not acceptable use Wikipedia for political purposes and/or propaganda. I already tried edit the article and fix this error, but always one editor undo. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mr. Guye: he is right, the population of Pakistan in Wikipedia is wrong - according to offices data it is about 207 million, therefore still less than Brazil and still 6th, not 5th, most populous country. Can you help by editing it? It says we cannot edit this article but must edit the “Pakistan population template”, but I have no idea what it is and how to do it...92.184.116.219 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

UN's Estimate merge

Latest comment: 6 years ago37 comments11 people in discussion

This article must be merge with the UN's Estimate article, as it basically the same. 174.112.50.125 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Merged with which article? Can you be a bit more specific, and provide us with a link? Batternut (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The IP means List of countries by population (United Nations). Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of course, these articles are not the same. This article is an attempt to list the latest population estimates from any reliable source of "countries" as recognized by Wikipedia; while the other is an attempt to list the UN Statistical Division's latest population estimates of "countries" that the UNSD itself recognizes, as of one normalized date. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Functionally they are the same, aren't they? We could easily merge in an extra column or two. Batternut (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you couldn't, at least not easily: the two lists do not contain the same entities, and some cases they define the entities differently. For example, this list does not separate France's overseas departments from metropolitan France, but it does contain many of the entities indicated in the notes to the UN list. Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Dealing with France, both lists link the same entity (ie France), they just use different criteria for their figures. This list has a footnote explaining the figure - in a combined list that footnote would attach to the figure rather than the country name. Batternut (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For entities that appear on one list only, eg Transnistria, the UN cell can just be left empty. Batternut (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
If I am reading you correctly, you are suggesting that we list the UN figure for metropolitan France alongside the INSEE figure for what France considers its integral territory. That is misleading and WP:ORSYNTH even if it is explained with footnotes. Ditto with every other instance where the UN's view political situation is different from Wikipedia's view of the de facto situation. The population change and proportion columns are also going to have to specify whether they refer to the "self-reported" data or the UN data, adding an additional layer of opaqueness and potential confusion. Cobblet (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Both figures are already linked to France, in this article or the other. Noting your synth complaint (below) re this article, how does merging create any extra ORSYNTH? Batternut (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The synthesis has nothing to do with the wikilink – that's a different issue, and feel free to change the link on the UN page to Metropolitan France if it suits you (I've added a footnote). The improper synthesis is in the juxtaposition of figures that refer to two different entities with the implication that they refer to the same entity and are comparable, when they are in fact not. When you put an INSEE population figure for "France" next to a UNSD population figure for "France" you are inviting the reader to make a false comparison. Just because you can explain the difference between France entière and metropolitan France in a footnote does not make it right to juxtapose those figures. Explaining that we're comparing apples to oranges does not make it right to compare apples and oranges. Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, given the pain of integrating the UN table and its templates with this one, I will definitely no longer be updating the UN data (which had not been updated in three years before I decided to take on the task) if this merge is carried out. Are you prepared to do that yourself? Cobblet (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The UN table is linked far less than this one. Merging would raise its visibility and with over double the traffic the interest in keeping it up-to-date would be greater. Batternut (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
So would the rate of vandalism. In my experience there is no correlation between data quality and article traffic. But likelihood of data maintenance does correlate with user-friendliness. The difference in data quality between the two current articles is proof enough of that. Merging them makes it inordinately difficult for me to refresh the UN data every year. Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
More vandalism, you'd be right there. More monitors and cleaners too I'd reckon. Could you explain why maintaining the UN data would be more difficult with other columns in the table? Batternut (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Because I generate the UN table by converting an Excel table to wikitext. It becomes a pain to do that if I have to then insert all the other stuff from this table as well, including extra entities not on the UN table, explanatory notes, etc. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Oooh, neat! I have toyed with similar ideas myself. Thinks... Batternut (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Fundamentally I do not agree that the two lists are "functionally" the same. This one attempts to present each country's own view as to its political definition and demographic trajectory (although its data mixes census results, estimates and projections, and happens to be blatantly made up in some cases). The other is free from issues of poor sourcing, ORSYNTH and lack of date normalization but is limited to giving only the projections of one international organization. I do not see how it helps anyone to mash the two lists together, present different data points with reference dates that differ by as much as six years side by side, and pretend that they are somehow comparable. Cobblet (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that articles like this are problematic, with variable dates and methods. The benefit of having the two side-by-side would be to show the contrast. Currently United Kingdom article says its population is the world's 22nd highest, but the UN reckons 21st. If merged I think the default order should be according to the UN's latest figures. Batternut (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Even if your only motivation was to "show the contrast", I'd still ask, "What's the point?" But in fact you want to go further: after showing them the contrast, you want to impose a default on the reader. How is that reconcilable with NPOV? Why do we need to make them accept your interpretation of the data, especially when it is connected to numerous politically sensitive issues? Why not just keep the articles apart, refrain from comparing apples to oranges, and let our readers use their intelligence? Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This list is "missing" rank numbers because it is only trying to rank what Wikipedia considers sovereign states. The UNSD does not distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign entities: to it they are all just statistical entities. Again, there is a reason why the two lists do things differently. Cobblet (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Your selective reading of that one sentence of the lead ignores the structure of the entire WP:CFORK guideline, which distinguishes between unacceptable and acceptable types of forking. Yes, WP:POVFORK says POV forks are unacceptable when they are attempts to avoid consensus building between article contributors. However, WP:SUBPOV says that "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." The latter is exactly what the article on UN estimates is. It is not an attempt to subvert a consensus-building process between contributors (e.g. on the one true value of the population of France) but a neutrally presented point of view on a subject which, as you recognized, experts may legitimately have different points of view. Cobblet (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Ultimately it is up to us editors to decide which is best, a single article covering both views, or a forked articles. Examples of articles combining views are List of countries by proven oil reserves and List of countries by military expenditures. I think, when dealing with varying opinions, there is an added value in combining articles - "experts disagree". That added value is the ease with which the reader can compare the views of the experts. Batternut (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't reconcile your assertion of "added value" with your earlier comments about merging "an extra column or two". Both lists contain more columns than that. Can you explain precisely what column headings you would include in the merged table? Cobblet (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Noramiao: Your edits are problematic and have been reverted:

  • Putting Hong Kong, Puerto Rico etc. into the numbered order, but leaving all the other dependent territories without number, is inconsistent. If you want to change the current numbering system, you should start a discussion in the talk page in order to gain consensus.
  • As described in the introduction to the article, this list uses official population data from each country. Sources like CIA World Factbook (for Slovakia) and BBC (for Abkhazia) should not be used.
  • Your changes of numbers for several countries in the lower part of the list are unexplained and unsourced.
  • Please also use edit summaries to explain your edits, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.

If you want to continue working for your suggested changes, you should use the talk page before trying to re-add them. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD about how Wikipedia works. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I note that you only reverted to my earlier version.[11] Preoblematic edits occurred before that,[12] so you could feel comfortable reverting much further. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanx, AussieLegend! Now done. --T*U (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

1. T*U, you interrupted the process not just Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, but the rest to be numbered too, if you are not helping at least do not interrupt.

2. You said that CIA and BBC "should not be used". Why not? Why ignore two of the most updated sources ?

3. If you use critical thinking, you would realize the importance to work with the latest data.

4. If you have any decency, while I'm updating the population change, then you would jump and help with the numbering and the sources.

5. You should contribute to update, not to waste time lecturing, when it's beyond obvious that you are wrong.

6. With all due respect, look at the "contribution/consensus rules" first.

Noramiao (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Noramiao: Thank you for coming to the talk page, which is the proper venue for discussing changes and possible improvements to the article. I will try to answer in detail, so this post will be rather long, but I hope you will read it carefully and accept it as written in good faith. After all, I have been around in Wikipedia for a while and have both general experience and specific experience for this article.
  1. You seem to take for granted that you have the right unilaterally to change the numbering system from the current one to a system where all entries are numbered. Actually that was how the list was some years ago, but in November 2015, this was changed (not by me) to the current system, with only sovereign states numbered. No-one objected then, and no-one has challenged it since, so that is the current consensus. This has since also been implemented in the text just above the table: "Note: All dependent territories or constituent countries that are parts of sovereign states are shown in italics and not assigned a numbered rank" (my bolding). Please also note that there are not two, but three different categories of entities presented here: Sovereign states, dependent territories and disputed areas/"states with limited recognition".
    Consensus can change, but no editor has the right to override a consensus singlehanded. A consensus can only be overridden by a new consensus, and that consensus will normally have to be created through a discussion in the article talk page. What you could do, is to make a new section below, where you present your suggestion. That will hopefully bring other editors into the discussion, and eventually, it may (or may not) end up with a new consensus. Then it is time to change the numbering – or not, depending on the result.
    One problem with a discussion like that is that it often takes time, even long time, and it may be difficult to know when the discussion has come to an end. I have experienced this myself, and it is a bit frustrating that nothing seems to happen. I often think it is better to use a "Request for comments", which you can read about at WP:RfC. This is a more formalised discussion, and the good thing is that is usually has a time limit of one month. Then the discussion is concluded, and we know the result.
  2. It has been established from this article was started that its scope is to present the newest official numbers from each separate entity. In the few cases where national census authorities do not provide us with data, we use UN estimates. This has been stated explicitly in the article since 2007, and as far as I have found out, it has never been challenged, so there is no doubt about the consensus here. If you want to try to create a new consensus, you have the same choices as above.
  3. Latest data, yes, but latest official data (until the scope of the article is changed). Please also not that the CIA numbers you have presented, are not from 30 August 2018 (as you claim), but are estimates for July 2017. Most of the official national data for at least the larger countries are newer.
  4. About decency, I pass.
  5. Again pass.
  6. Yes, you should definitely look at the "contribution/consensus rules", which you will find at WP:CONSENSUS.
Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll add, Noramiao please read WP:Assume good faith. Don't be a condescending arse to someone simply because they reverted your well intentioned contributions. If you're going to be WP:BOLD and make major changes to an article without consulting other editors, that's on you. You are not at all justified in being uncivil to another editor, and it wont help you in the slightest to gain consensus for your proposed change. Rob984 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


1. Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensus. The confirmation is that the CIA website as well as the Spanish, French, Russian, etc. versions of the article are the way I said it that it should be here too.

2. I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rules, yes someone can change it after me, but I have the right to do exactly what I think it's proper.

3. CIA data might say that it is from July, but the CIA is updated TWICE a month, and it's shown on the top of the the website ( not where you are looking on the side). Which means that that when I changed the date to August, this is because I want everyone to know when was the lastest update for the information, not the latest date for the census.

4. I will repeat myself about two things again. First it's crucial to work with the latest data and second if you are not helping to update at least do not interrupt. Updating is a longer process. You can not update everything with one edit. You should look what hasn't been updated and simply update what's not updated instead being rude and instead of interrupting.

5. I was never uncivil, anyone implying the opposite is not a clever person.

6. Worldometers is using data directly from the UN. Projections are not relevant. Its crucial to work with the latest data, not just for this article but in general.

7. You said you'll pass. Then pass and don't interefere for no reason by interrupting. If I completed what I was doing, everything would look more simplyfied, pleasant, reliable and making more sense. Everything is numbered and you said it was numbered by 2015, it should be numbered even now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Noramiao: It may not be much point asking you again to learn how to use indentation in talk page discussions, but I will make a last try: Please read the help page section WP:THREAD. In the guideline WP:TPG it is stated in the section "Ignoring comments": "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards."
Regarding your last posting here above, your comment Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensus indicates that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS states that "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals—i.e., to achieve the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote. Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Your personal interpretation of "common sense" and "critical thinking" can never "dictate" a presentation unless there is a consensus with other editors.
Your other comment I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rules also shows that you have not understood what the 5th pillar is about. When it says "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time", it means that policies and guidelines may change over time. It does not give anyone carte blanche for breaking the policies and guidelines. In a certain sense you "have the right to change it", since in principle everyone has the "right" to edit Wikipedia. But if you consistently and repeatedly ignore the rules of Wikipedia with your edits, this "right" may be taken away from you for a shorter or longer period.
Your best chance of having a future in Wikipedia is to learn how Wikipedia works by studying relevant policies and guidelines, especially those you are pointed to by experienced editors. If you continue to make your own rules, you will end up being blocked again. Your choice! --T*U (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

India

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link for India goes to worldpopulationclock, which is a source that should not be used in this article per section "Method". Taking a closer look, the data in the table do not conform to that site, so that is OK if we remove the link. But where do the numbers from? The description in the template {{Data India}} confirms that the popclock numbers in the template are not based on any official population clock. According to the methodology of this article, we should probably not use the Data India numbers at all, and it should certainly not be sourced as an "Official population clock". I have not even been able to find any official national estimates or projections, but they may of course exist – somewhere. If not, we should probably use UN numbers for India. Pinging regular contributors Eric car, AussieLegend, Sokndal, MIHAIL for input. --T*U (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean territory

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why there is not included the British Indian Ocean territory in the list?

Because it has no population. 101.186.159.114 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Peru

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikiperuvian: Your change of the entry for Peru does superficially look like giving a newer estimate, but it is not. The census from October 2017 is (obviously) from 2017. The estimate for 2018 is from the publication Perú: Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Total, por Años Calendario y Edades Simples, 1950-2050, dated "Lima, setiembre 2009". Even if it is an estimate for the year 2018, the estimate itself is nine years old and is based on the census of 2007. I am not certain that this fills the criterium "the most up to date estimate or projections". The census number 31,237,385 is significantly lower than the Estimaciones number for 2017 (31,826,018) and even lower than the 2016 number (31,488,625). Also, the INEI website presents the projection numbers from the Estimaciones in a graphic presentation called "Población Proyectada", but they only give the numbers up to 2017. My suggestion is that we use the 2017 census result (which, after all, is fairly new) until the INEI comes up with new projections/estimates based on this newest census.

Just a small detail: The graphic presentation in the INEI website states that the numbers are "Estimación oficial de la población, al 30 de junio de cada año", so they are midyear projections, which is the most common way of giving yearly estimates. For now, I will correct the date, but am hoping you will agree to changing back to the census. --T*U (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of non-countries

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Per discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_2#European_Union_entry it was "apparently" decided not to include the European Union on the list, even though several people have stated its usefulness in statistics.

If the EU is not to be included on the list because "it is not recognized as a soverign nation" then logically neither shall Hong Kong nor Macau. They are not sovereign nations, but are semi-autonomous regions and part of People's Republic of China. Attempted statements otherwise can be seen as attempted separatist movements, which does not belong on this page. - Foorack (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The EU is a supernational entity which is a conglomerate of sovereign states, while Hong Kong and Macau are semi-autonomous dependencies of a sovereign country, as you mentioned. Therefore they are listed but not numbered. - Eric Car (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.253.254 (talk)
Why is Taiwan ranked? Kenwick (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Good question. IMHO it shouldn't. --T*U (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Why not? It has been a sovereign country since the end of WWII, even if it is not a member of the UN. OTOH, why is Palestine ranked? This entity was never a sovereign state and is not a member of the UN (its status is "non-member observer"). Eric car (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Palestine should be ranked while Taiwan shouldn't. Only the universally recognised UN member states and observers should be ranked. I noticed that Kosovo is not ranked, which is a correct move. We should have some standard criteria for inclusion, otherwise people is going to put in all sorts of controversial entries such as Scotland, Tibet and Sikkim etc. This article needs some serious moderation. Xindeho (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Moderation-wise it would be easiest to restrict this list to UN-members only, to prevent addition of controversial and non-sovereign entries. Or make it more useful and include areas which people would find statistical interest in having included. If Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Kosovo are on the list but unranked then EU should also be included unranked. This is not a debate whether EU is sovereign or not (it is not) but for the sake of statistical and informational usefulness. It is not a political statement, it is about the content being useful to the reader. Foorack (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it would probably be easiest to use the standard stated in the article, which is to say to use ISO 3166-1 and other entities in the List of sovereign states (which have to be included for neutrality).
If we're including entities for "areas which people would find statistical interest in having included", we should also add all the states of the US, the provinces of China, the states of India, the states and territories of Australia, the provinces and territories of Canada, the regions of France, the states of Germany, the autonomous communities of Spain, the countries and (shoot, why not?) counties of the UK. And so on. And on. And on. And then we should also add the historical population of the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Aztec and Incan civilisations, Aboriginal Australia. And so on.
All stand-alone lists have to have WP:LSC that determine clearly and unambiguously on which entities belong and which do not. This one already has a set of criteria and it should follow them. Kahastok talk 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If we use ISO 3166-1 as the standard criteria for inclusion, then Taiwan definitely shouldn't be ranked. According to their list of current codes, Taiwan has been classified as a province of China and not independent. 2001:8003:8608:2200:D515:65A6:1535:44F6 (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits by IPs 2a01:598...

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can we please put a stop to the constant editing of the Indonesia entry by anonymous editors using IPv6 addresses starting with "2a01:598". Since at least late June 2018, someone has made edits to this page to change the population from 265,015,300 to 265,015,301 and back again in successive edits (13 times in 26 edits since the start of December). These edits are utterly pointless. Mindmatrix 14:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have nay suggestion how that might be achieved? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not really. I'd rather not block the IPs (or range of IPs) for something innocuous but useless, leaving a warning on the IP's user pages won't have any effect as the address changes each time, and protecting this page seems a bit drastic. Then again, I'd also like to stop this nonsense. Aside: the edits are all coming from the IPv6 block 2a01:598:8000::/33, which is assigned to Telekom Deutschland. Mindmatrix 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_7&oldid=1242253594"