Jump to content

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Antarctica is NOT a country

Who uploaded the circular graph of the world's 7 largest countries?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  1. It's called a {{pie chart}}.
  2. I did; you can always check the history to see who did what.
  3. There's no need to undo a chunk of work simply bc you don't agree with a piece of it (WP:REVONLY):

    If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone.

  4. If you think Antarctica shouldn't be numbered on the table, here is how you can remove the numbering (as it's removed from World).
  5. However, if Antarctica is numbered or called a country in the RS, so it should also be on WP (WT:Countries):
  1. Having every entry ... debated and individually subjected to the consensus process on talk results in inconsistent and biased lists.[1]
  2. Where the list is based on a single source, the definition and nomenclature should be based on the source. Where it is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.[2]
  — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 04:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: I see you'd like someone to block me. You've now started an WP:edit war. You've been warned. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Somebody please study this discussion and explain who is being more logical here (somebody besides me and Guarapiranga please.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
There's three comments above, which is not much discussion for anyone to study. From what I can tell, Guarapiranga made some very bold changes, you have undone those very bold changes, and we're now at the D in WP:BRD. Appropriate process, although going forward discussion could focus more on content than on contributors. CMD (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
is not much discussion
Indeed it isn't, Chipmunkdavis. I have indeed attempted to engage with the other editor, and address what I could only have speculated from his concerns, as he didn't say much else other than Antarctica is NOT a country. I have addressed the first issue in my comment above; his only response was to revert again summarising it with: somebody please block this user. So unless the other editor responds to the discussion, we are in WP:DR, not WP:BRD anymore. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 04:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You seemed to be doing a lot of work, and I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm. However, numbering Antarctica and not noticing how such numbering is inconsistent with such as the map caption ("...except Antarctica where there are no countries."), as well as area ranking at possibly many country articles, by itself brings your edits into question (I haven't checked your edits thoroughly). In addition, the pie chart doesn't add much (and includes Antarctica's area) but does force horizontal scrolling on my wide-screen computer. There's also the matter of your having unnecessarily added archive links when most, if not all but one, original links were live. That accounted for ~15% of your added text. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
numbering Antarctica...
Again, (WP:REVONLY):

If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone.

And yet, if Antarctica is numbered in the sources, it ought to be numbered on WP too. Again, (WT:Countries):
  1. Having every entry ... debated and individually subjected to the consensus process on talk results in inconsistent and biased lists.[1]
  2. Where the list is based on a single source, the definition and nomenclature should be based on the source. Where it is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.[2]
... and not noticing how such numbering is inconsistent with such as the map caption ("...except Antarctica where there are no countries.")
The caption refers to the map, not to the table.
as well as area ranking at possibly many country articles
Unclear.
In addition, the pie chart doesn't add much
Subjective. The pie chart makes it easy for readers to visually compare the country area sizes and how much of the total they comprise. The map doesn't, (1) bc it's distorted by the geometric projection, and (2) bc it's hard for humans to visually compare area sizes of figures of different shapes.
but does force horizontal scrolling on my wide-screen computer
You must be at 400% zoom; it fits fine on my 14" laptop (though what matters is not the screen's physical size, but the resolution you're using; mine is at the standard 1920 x 1080).
There's also the matter of your having unnecessarily added archive links when most, if not all but one, original links were live.
Does it hurt? No. It's called backup. It's common practice across WP, and done by a bot (evidently approved to be used on WP).
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
As the main issue raised here was having Antarctica numbered and included in the pie chart, I restored my edit without these (though the CIA World Factbook does number it in its ranking, thus so should WP). Please don't make of this an WP:edit war; it's counterproductive (if not outright lazy) to mass revert a bunch of improvements for disagreeing with only part of them. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 08:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the general thrust of Guarapiranga's editing, we should work with it, not just mass revert it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Selfstudier.
Revert again; please note what regions get numbers and what regions don't; somebody please respond before Guarapiranga does[1]
Please note that WP editors are not at liberty to make up content or unsourced differentiations within it, Georgia guy. Source is king, if a region gets a number in the sources, so it must also on WP. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 10:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
What regions is this list supposed to number?? Is it supposed to number countries or is it supposed to number all the regions in the table?? Until Guarapiranga came along, it was clearly agreed that only the countries were to be numbered, but Guarapiranga changed it. Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead says " All 193 member states of the United Nations plus the 2 observer states are given a rank number." and then says " Largely unrecognised states not in ISO 3166-1 are included in the list in ranked order." so some clarification is needed there. To me, numbering for convenience is not the same thing as rank numbering, the purpose of the latter apparently being to designate some set of "countries".Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Until Guarapiranga came along, it was clearly agreed that only the countries were to be numbered, but Guarapiranga changed it.
  1. I showed you how to remove the numbering from rows on the table here, Georgia guy. It still doesn't justify reverting everything else (WP:REVONLY).
  2. Whatever you clearly agreed on here doesn't supersede the consensus at WT:COUNTRIES, let alone WP:NOR policy.
  — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should List of countries and dependencies by area show area figures from its three cited sources (UN, CIA and Encyclopaedia Britannica) where they differ for each country, or only for the US and China? Additionally, should rank countries any differently from its sources? This is the revision in question. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 09:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What about it? Kahastok talk 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Um, yeah, I'm not too clear what you are asking here?Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll provide a diff that better shows the massive amount of change you're wanting to make to this article. An RfC pings people not ordinarily involved with this page (I encountered two such pings on user talk pages on my watchlist before I got here), and there should be a well thought out and worded proposal as part of such a request. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Guarapiranga: Whilst the RfC statement is definitely brief and decidedly neutral, it tells us nothing about the issue at hand. Please see WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought the above discussion in this very same section was explanatory enough. In summary, yes, I made a number of changes, that were repeatedly reverted by Georgia guy. He expressed disagreement with some of them--the numbering of Antarctica and the inclusion of a pie chart--but mass reverted all proposed changes anyway. He's basically reverting changes without explanation.
massive amount of change you're wanting to make to this article
Yes, is that a problem? I started editing it bc I saw the discussion on the ranking of China and US, and the quoting of different sources for it. I then looked into the sources, and noticed they didn't disagree only on the US, but also on other countries. That's the major change. Other than that, I replaced the manual ranknig with {{static row numbers}} (which permits omitting rows from the ranking, as done for World, so that shouldn't be an issue), and added the pie chart, that I saw in other sources and conveys more information than the coloured map (in which the country colours don't add information to that evident by the country shapes themselves). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You're making a lot of edits for someone apparently so new to the page (first edit on June 14, according to the statistics page). Have you been lurking previous to that? It's usually a good idea to get a sense of the place before rapidly making a large number of changes, as you have done. The RfC can be started as a subsection as you have done, but the issues involved are usually spelled out, so that it is a self-contained unit. Of the unresolved issues, I still object to the massive addition of archive links, which—while encouraged if you are adding them individually, as you created references—are of little use when the original links are still live. They do not effect "back up" and are just so much clutter. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You're making a lot of edits for someone apparently so new to the page

Sometimes in discussions on Wikipedia, one editor's argument may be given more weight over another simply because one has more edits on Wikipedia or one may even be a Wikipedia administrator. Don't fall for it. (WP:SENIORITY)

It's usually a good idea to get a sense of the place before rapidly making a large number of changes, as you have done.
You seem to come from an understanding that a page is a place for a community of editors, whom it reflects. It isn't. Wikipedia pages follow policy, not community traditions.

Policies apply equally to registered or non-registered users, regular or occasional editors, administrators and bureaucrats regardless of tenure, and regardless of 'rank'. (WP:EQUAL)

I still object to the massive addition of archive links

On Wikipedia you can archive sources to prevent link rot. (H:AAS)

I use Cyberpower678's excellent IABotManagementConsole to bulk archive cited sources. You can too. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Emphasizing experience with a particular article, and thus the subject as it's explained on Wikipedia, is not just a matter of ranking editors by total number of edits or time as editors. It is just prudent to take time to gain an understanding of the opinions of others. Wikipedia is indeed a community of editors, who, except in cases of overarching requirements set by the foundation, make the policies, and whom you are now asking to voice their opinions on the present disputed edits. The encouragement to add archive links to prevent link rot is when "each citation is created or updated", which does not imply that it's OK to launch massive additions via a bot. You'll notice that when IABot runs by itself, it only sets archive links when it detects dead originals. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)ww
Being practical... Are you then happy to restore this version prior to the IAbot run, Dhtwiki? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It would be fine to leave off all the archive. However, there might have been some (at least one that I saw where url-status=dead?) that actually should have been added, their original links being dead. But, in the interest of practicality, I would just leave them all off. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
what exactly is the issue for this RFC !? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, I made a number of changes, that were repeatedly reverted by Georgia guy. He expressed disagreement with some of them--the numbering of Antarctica and the inclusion of a pie chart--but mass reverted all proposed changes anyway. He's basically reverting changes without explanation. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Close this RFC and reopen for only the most contentious aspects, then at least we can deal with those hopefully without getting sidetracked.Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't mind, Selfstudier, but at the moment, I'm not even sure how to differentiate, as all changes have been repeatedly mass reverted. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This RfC is premature. A very substantial change to the article was made, and it was reverted. The case for the substantial changes should then be made on the talkpage, so that others can understand the reasoning behind it and so they can be discussed. CMD (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    The case for the substantial changes should then be made on the talkpage
    I can only answer questions that have been raised, and I have done so right above the RfC, and again below it (as you know, Chipmunkdavis, since you've been following this discussion from the start). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    I would recommend explaining what edits you want to make and why, rather than waiting for specific questions. It would make it much easier for other editors to understand the reasoning behind this RfC. CMD (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    So, again, I started editing it bc I saw the discussion on the ranking of China and US, and the quoting of different sources for it. I then looked into the sources, and noticed they didn't disagree only on the US, but also on other countries. That's the major change. Other than that, I replaced the manual ranknig with (which permits omitting rows from the ranking, as done for World, so that shouldn't be an issue), and added the pie chart, that I saw in other sources and conveys more information than the coloured map (in which the country colours don't add information to that evident by the country shapes themselves).
    Now, if people have issues with how I've implemented these changes, I can't really guess how they think it should be otherwise. The issues that have effectively been raised are:
    1. numbering Antarctica (Georgia guy)
    2. pie chart (Georgia guy)
    3. archive links (Dhtwiki)
      — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 13:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    That text does not describe the actual change, which is creating 3 columns for total area, each for a different source (CIA, UN, Britannica). That, along with the other changes, should be stated as part of a brief and neutral statement at the top of the RfC, so responding editors know what they're commenting on. CMD (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for formulating it better than I did above, Chipmunkdavis. May we discuss the matter at hand now? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    A number of people (myself included) have asked you to provide a meaningful RfC statement, yet there still isn't one. Here's the problem: this is how it appears at the RfC listings - somebody seeing that is told precisely nothing about why an RfC is being held. You need to fix your RfC statement (that is to say, the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the next timestamp) so that it is not only neutral and brief but also describes the issue, in accordance with WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    I see. Ok,  Done — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you it's had this effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 3 sources is fine, for me the numbers are a matter of convenience and not a country designation, article title notwithstanding. We should follow the sources absent a very good reason for not doing so.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Ever since this list was created there have been discussions about finding a reliable, consistent, unbiased, and accurate source. Every source has some issue or another, but listing multiple figures just adds to the confusion, in my opinion. I am in favor of picking one source and including footnotes when there are major discrepancies. As for the question about rankings, it is not necessary to use the same criteria as the sources. It makes more sense for this article to have consistency with other Wikipedia articles. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    That's not at editors' discretion, Lasunncty (WP:NPOV):

    All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

    — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's not unusual for list articles to have multiple sources. I find it interesting that you would object to sourced material and support the use of unsourced material, that does not seem in keeping with the usual practice in WP.Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    The three sources you chose do not represent all of the significant views. With ~200 countries there could be 200+ to choose from. I would assume the UN source would be the least biased, but some may disagree with me on that. I'm not opposed to having multiple sources, just showing multiple numbers in the table. And the rankings are not encyclopedic content, so they do not need to be sourced. In fact, the sources don't agree on them, so why would we just pick one? --Lasunncty (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    1. I did not choose the sources; they were already in the article before my edits. But they were used only for select countries, which seemed arbitrary and suprious (read WP:OR). What I did was extend their use to all.
    2. 200+ more significant views that have been published by reliable sources (WP:NPOV)?? I doubt it. Anyhow, this RfC is not about which sources to be deemed reliable for this article.
    3. Are you also opposed to showing multiple numbers in the table in the List of countries by GDP (nominal), the List of countries by GDP (PPP), the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, the List of countries by fertility rate, the List of cities by density...? Showing data from multiple sources is the norm in lists of countries, not the exception (precisely bc WP:NPOV requires it).
    — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 02:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think the sources used are unreliable, but I am merely pointing out that there are two US sources and one international source, which could be seen as biased. I'm sure there are plenty of other countries that have their own versions of this list. In the examples you gave there are multiple international sources, which does not compare here. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    I am merely pointing out that there are two US sources and one international source
    No, what you said is that you oppose showing multiple numbers in the table (whatever they are). What is your issue then: bias or multiplicity? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    Both. BTW, I'm not attacking you, just giving my opinion. You brought up the issue of NPOV, so I stated why I think my suggestion satisfies that. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    (Don't worry, I don't feel attacked.) Yes, as we saw above, WP:NPOV requires representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I'm not opposed to listing other sources too, if their views (in this case, figures) are different, and they are deemed WP:reliable, of course. In fact, WP:policy requires it. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As we work through this, in striving to reach middle ground, I reenabled my proposed revision, without the pie chart, without the archive links and keeping the prior distinctions between ranked and unranked countries (while allowing ranking by any sortable column, which the previous version didn't). Good? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 08:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    You're jumping the gun and you left many archive links in (28 where url-status=live). If your present version meets with approval, I'll just take those archive links out, using regular expressions. I suppose that's easiest, assuming that your other changes meet with approval. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    you left many archive links
    Did I? My bad. I never looked into what IAbot does to the code in much detail, tbh. I just mass removed the {{webarchive}} templates thinking that was all there was to it. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    There are two types. What you removed goes with, IIRC, references where citation templates aren't used. That type doesn't show url-status; so, one has to laboriously check for dead original links, which there might have been. What you didn't remove, and what usually are the more numerous, are parameters tacked onto a properly-filled-out citation template, and show url-status. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment On the first question, area figures should not be separated into per-source columns, assigning each source a column is gives undue prominence to particular sources, is inconsistent with the land/water columns, and adds extra width which makes it harder to read on smaller screens. Notable discrepancies should be covered as suggested, but in notes sections so that these few edge cases do not overwhelm the entire table. On the second question of rankings, only one of the sources appears to do that, and there's no reason to follow that particular source. Not addressed in this RfC is the addition of daggers, which should be removed as both WP:EGGy and as they imply the daggered countries have died. CMD (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    The dagger is from {{flaglist+link}}; it's purpose is precisely MOS:EGG, as linking the country name to the detail article (Geography of, in this case) is inconsistent across pages, and casual WP readers, especially ones using touch devices, precisely those with narrower screens, have no way of knowing beforehand that the country names are linked to detail articles, not the countries' generic page, as in other articles.
    they imply the daggered countries have died
    Really?? So a double dagger ‡ means what; that the daggered have died twice? Or reincarnated? 😂
    No,

    A dagger, obelisk, or obelus † is a typographical symbol that usually indicates a footnote

    — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    About WP:UNDUE... I didn't introduce new sources; UN, CIA and Britannica were already the sources on the page. They were used for some countries and not others. That was inconsistent. I initially added their estimates for all countries without changing the table structure, but that it quickly became evident that was a very confusing way of presenting the information. So I separated them in columns. If that representation is not proportionate to their reliability, that's a worthwhile but separate discussion.
    Notable discrepancies should be covered as suggested, but in notes sections so that these few edge cases do not overwhelm the entire table.
    Now, that is WP:UNDUE. Plenty of list articles on WP representing different sources on separate columns.
    is inconsistent with the land/water columns
    There's only one estimate for land and water bc only one of the sources presents the decomposition (which is cited in the column heading). That's no inconsistency.
    adds extra width which makes it harder to read on smaller screens
    Most of the width on table is currently consumed by the Notes column. I don't mind them, but that is what is usually put in footnotes on WP, not data.
    On the second question of rankings, only one of the sources appears to do that
    You should be able to sort by any of the sources; aren't you? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    MOS:EGG isn't meant to be an aim, it is meant to be a what not to do. The country names link to the article on those countries, that's clear and accessible; nothing else is needed there. I'm also not really following how you're applying undue, which is about reflecting the balance of sources. That the three sources in question were already in the article doesn't give them any particular importance compared to other sources. Giving each source a column ad infinitum is a poor way to present what should be a reasonably simple list. As I noted before, it's also inconsistent with the presentation of the land/water columns, which do not give prominence to the source in question, and raise the question of which total area they apply to. As for rankings, the CIA and UN sources don't have any. CMD (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    As for rankings, the CIA and UN sources don't have any.
    Not sure what you mean... I'm able to rank by any sortable column; aren't you? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    He means that the sources themselves do not have rankings. (The CIA one does, however, if you click the "Country Comparison Ranking" link at the top.) --Lasunncty (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ah thanks, missed that. Comparing that to Britannica shows the differences, for example Vatican City is 223 in Britannica and 257 in the Factbook. So presumably to answer the RfC question, this article has to rank differently from some sources. CMD (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    It does. The rank column is static; readers can see the ranking by any of the sources by simply sorting the table by its corresponding column. Having each source sorted separately, however, as it was, prevents easily comparing figures across sources. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 05:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Giving each source a column ad infinitum is a poor way to present what should be a reasonably simple list.
    Do you have infinite reliable sources for this data? I doubt it. But if your issue is that giving equal prominence to the CIA and Britannica figures as to the UN's is undue, that's a fair concern, but you should express it clearly, not shrouded in MOS questions. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

maybe they wanted to write Australia instead of Antarctica. Australia a country on the Oceania continent 81.157.183.91 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

seem to be forgetting Australia as one of the largest country..

seem to forget that Australia is surely one of the largest .... 81.157.183.91 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Australia is already listed. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

correct I don't know how 8 missed it on the list. i will check on the legend to understand why European Union is listed under what looks like country before making further comments 81.157.183.91 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Area of the Philippines

The area of the Philippines listed in the article is only an estimate, it is not the exact figure. I found two sources which provided an exact figure:

Source 1: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/

Source 2: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-locations/where-is-philippines

According to the sources, the exact area of the Philippines is 342,353 km2. 2001:8003:9008:1301:D022:935E:7C1:571 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

3D Land Surface Area

I would like to suggest an extension to this article, or a separate new article which would complement it.

Data is available for listing countries by their true three-dimensional (3D) land surface area, in addition to the two-dimensional (2D, planimetric) area which is used in the current version of the article.

Complete details are available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355179797

Thanks and best regards.

--WikiRKU (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that someone has calculated this. I would just caution what is mentioned in section 4.1 of that paper: resolution matters. This is basically the 3D version of the coastline paradox. It's also unclear how they handled water areas. But if no one has any objections, I would be ok with adding this to the table. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It should go in another page, its an interesting topic, but adding it to this table gives it a very undue prominence for something that is almost never discussed. CMD (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Coral Sea Islands

To replace the figure for the Coral Sea Islands "⁠<&nbsp;3" with "⁠{{sort|2.99|<&nbsp;3}}" so that the islands can be sorted correctly when the table is sorted by area in reversed order. The same should be done for the Spratlys too. 203.145.95.85 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried your suggestion, but it still didn't sort properly. I discovered that the {{convert}} template creates sort keys based on the base SI unit, which in this case is square meters. So I adjusted them accordingly and now it works! --Lasunncty (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. That seems to have fixed the sorting. I myself tried some solutions without hitting on yours. Adding "answered=yes" parameter. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Lassuncty and Dhtwiki. 203.145.95.98 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong data

This numbers are wrong both France and Portugal should be at the top. Just Portugal id 1.700.000km Not 90.000. Poor research 176.83.12.7 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You have to tell us where you're getting your numbers from or how the article doesn't reflect the sources given. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Percentage format

Why is Canada over China in the percentage for the pie chart, it shows: 

 Russia (11%)
 Canada (6.1%)
 China (6.3%)
 United States (6.1%)
 Brazil (5.6%)
 Australia (5.2%)
 India (2.0%)
 Argentina (1.8%)
 Kazakhstan (1.8%)
 Algeria (1.6%)
 Other (52.5%)

I get why other is a the bottom despite having the largest percentage since it represents no specific country but other than that it should be this: 

 Russia (11%)
 China (6.3%)
 Canada (6.1%)
 United States (6.1%)
 Brazil (5.6%)
 Australia (5.2%)
 India (2.0%)
 Argentina (1.8%)
 Kazakhstan (1.8%)
 Algeria (1.6%)
 Other (52.5%)

Putting Canada over China when the order is highest % to lowest from top to bottom is misleading 2001:569:5405:FF00:F5DF:5FFC:9BA9:4EBC (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

^This is me bwt; i forgot to log in before posting this Faptastique (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The United States is not completely in the Western Hemisphere

The longitude of Attu Island (part of Alaska, and not part of any territory listed separately) is about 172.5°E. Yet, my edit reflecting this was reverted. Grassynoel (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right, a portion of the Aleutian Islands is in the Eastern Hemisphere. Some U.S. territories, such as Guam, are also in the Eastern Hemisphere. 120.16.68.178 (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

In view of the disputed status of Crimea, shouldn't the entries for both Russia and Ukraine have footnotes saying how it is being counted for purposes of the list? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As the article stands, it's not clear whether both countries include it, or just Ukraine. Definitely requires a footnote explaining how it's been handled in the list. --37.60.108.228 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

another issue is that the note for Ukraine says it's the 2nd largest in Europe after Russia yet it is listed lower than France? LICA98 (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Similar to Russia, a lot of France is not in Europe. I suspect the note is referring just to areas in Europe. CMD (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
France is a transcontinental country. 120.16.68.178 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica and Greenland

Why are the ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland count as land instead of water? Ice is essentially water in solid form. According to this website, Greenland only has a land area of 410,450 sq km (about the same size as Sweden): https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/ 120.16.68.178 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The ice areas are mentioned in the notes, but I would argue that they should not be excluded from the land area. If it snows in your city, does it suddenly get excluded from the land area of your country? I know it's not an exact comparison, but to me it's at least closer to being land than it is to being a frozen lake. --Lasunncty (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Greenland not on the map or the list?

Why is Greenland not on the map or the list? 63.224.158.140 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Numbering

China is ranked 2 by percentage. But has 3/4 like the United States. Canada had the 2 on the picture. 2601:645:980:1210:49D9:880:852A:9600 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It may be slightly confusing because the table and the map use total area, but the pie chart uses land area only. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

United States coastal/territorial waters

It doesn't make sense to include coastal and territorial waters for the United States only. The US is the only country on the list with two sets of numbers, which seems to be driven by a quest for a way to claim that it's larger than China. Oooooooseven (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not. China is clearly bigger. China claims the massive South China Sea, if we also include China’s coastal and territorial waters, its total area would be 14.33 million sq km, which is even bigger than Antarctica.
If we exclude all disputed Chinese land and territorial waters claims, i.e. the South China Sea, the portion of the East China Sea disputed with Japan, Taiwan, and South Tibet (aka Arunachal Pradesh), as well as dependency-like Hong Kong and Macau, the total area of China, including its undisputed coastal waters and territorial sea, is approx. 10.5 million sq km, which is still bigger than Canada and way bigger than the United States. 2001:8003:9008:1301:47D:6B1:21FD:777E (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that China is bigger; that was the point of my comment. I'm saying that the article should reflect that reality. Oooooooseven (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of Antarctica

The inclusion of Antarctica is misleading for a number of reasons:

  • No reliable source would describe the entirety of Antarctica as a country or dependency.
  • None of the territorial claims made over Antarctica encompass the entire continent, and many of them overlap with each other.
  • Kind of a separate discussion, but I am not sure why a custom flag is being used to represent the entire continent when none of Antarctica's claimants use it.

The third paragraph also states "Not included in the list are individual country claims to parts of the continent of Antarctica ...", so clearly there was no discussion between the editor(s) who decided on the criteria and the editor(s) who added Antarctica to the list. Also, is it not odd that Antarctica is not listed in similar articles such as Lists of countries and territories and List of countries and dependencies by population? The inclusion of Antarctica seems to be purely aesthetic, solely in the list so it can be prominently displayed at the top with a recently-unveiled custom flag. This is not a list of landmasses by area, after all. Yue🌙 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The criteria and the inclusion are consistent. Antarctica is included for useful context, as all other land is on this list. The flag shouldn't be there, but people keep re-adding it. CMD (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook lists Antarctica as a country. The reason Antarctica isn't included in the List of countries and dependencies by population might be because it has no permanent population. The Antarctic flag is included for consistency purposes, otherwise it just looks odd without a flag while all other entries have a flag. 2001:8003:9007:8201:C83D:84AA:A882:72AF (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Just like "World", Antarctica is listed for reference only. The notes say it is not a country. The flag can easily be removed if desired. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

2/4

2/4 is the fraction 2/4, which reduces to 1/2 and thus makes no sense for it to be used as the rank of a country smaller than Russia because 1/2 is less than 1. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

UK

So, I think that since there's a Metropolitan France and a France, can't we have full and metropolitan? 2A02:C7C:5819:6B00:8468:4CD3:28D0:4855 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

UK is the best so who cares about France? 56645775 people? 2A00:23C8:5213:5801:B9F4:7E01:9E2B:2E1 (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Juan Fernandez

Given that Easter island is put in the list, should Juan Fernandez be added as well? Theyve got the same status as Easter Island Joaco4637 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Теодор Узунов (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Теодор Узунов (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC) My request is to put that Bulgaria is the largest country in the Balkan Peninsula in the notes for Bulgaria

 Done added Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey —Alalch E. 23:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area/Archive_4&oldid=1147775891"