Jump to content

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Population Rank

I believe that only UN member states should be ranked... the rest should not. -- cchow2 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That might be an appropriate modification at Member states of the United Nations#Current members but why would we do that here? -- AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Western Sahara shouldn't be listed with the flag of the SADR. The SADR only controls 20-25% of the territory. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dependent territories?

I see the the issue of including dependent territories has been discussed before ([[1]]). At the time, somebody proposed following the French wikipedia format (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_pays_par_population), where dependent territories are included under their mother country. The drawback to this approach is that dependent territories are not ranked. Frankly, being able to include dependencies in the ranking doesn't seem that useful to me. Currently the article double counts residents of various French dependencies under both France and the dependency itself (although this is noted in a footnote), which seems to be a far bigger problem than not having French Polynesia ranked. I realize the way the statistics are compiled varies from country to country (e.g., Hong Kong population is compiled separately from the rest of China, and UK only includes residents in the British Isles, although I assume Bermudans have UK passports). This article seems to attract a lot of drive-by editors (like myself) who update the population figures without taking full note of what dependencies may or may not be included in the figure. Grouping dependencies under their mother country would highlight situations where double counting might occur and would ensure that populations figures stay accurate without double counting. Is the loss of dependencies from the ranked list really so terrible that we want to leave the door should be open for double counting?Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cuba

Population: 11,163,934. Source: 2012 Census (Cuba). Official data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.170.68 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Graph error

In the graph, Bangladesh is in seventh place and Nigeria is in eighth. But in the list below it, the positions are reversed. I believe the list, not the graph, is correct. The graph is probably outdated.

96.228.5.215 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) treplag

Canada

The entry for Canada lists the official population clock as the source, last retrieved on 29/12/12. Howeve the clock was taken down on 21/12/12. I am not sure how to update this, or what a new, more appropriate source is.

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.174.87 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands

I fixed the Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands for the following reasons.

1. Puerto Rico is a territory NOT A STATE of the United States of America. 2. United States Virgin Islands is a territory NOT A STATE of the United States of America.

Therefore I fixed both sections to show that there are overseen by the United States. And while Puerto Rico did vote for statehood there was some questions about the voting and it may take a long time before anything happens. If you have any questions please email me.

Thanks, Tom991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

EVERYONE PLEASE READ

Everyone last week I fixed the Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands sections to show that they are still part of the USA because they are NOT there own states. I ask that no one please change those. These two island territories are NOT there own country, they are unorganized territories of the United States. Why are people so difficult sometimes! tom991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but perhaps people are "difficult" because the the article itself states that the list is "based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1" and that standard specifically includes both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Although it doesn't affect this argument, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not "unorganized territories", they are "unincorporated organized territories" (cite). "Unincorporated" means that the inhabitants do not necessarily have "all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States", while "organized" means that they have an organized government. Cwelgo (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 re Kosovo

The ISO 3166-1 is useless, as it leaves out whole countries like Kosovo (which I have been trying to include). Kosovo's population is not included under Serbia - which would otherwise be c. 9 million - therefore it must be listed separately. I am thinking of deleting the reference to ISO 3166-1 at the beginning of the article - the ISO standard seems politically motivated. 24.108.61.172 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for Abkhazia, Transistria and a few others entities. Kosovo's final status is undetermined, and until this is solved it could be either merged with Serbia's population count or omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npi2000 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will put in Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. A good compromise can be found at List of countries by area - including debatable countries, but leaving them out of the sequential numbering system. 24.108.61.172 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by population/Archive 5#Excludes. Formally without these territories. This in a footnote. --PlatonPskov (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey has a higher population then Iran now. --108.92.162.111 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The population of Turkey became 75 627 384 on December 31, 2012, but Iran has ranked higher. We need another source to list Iran with a lower population. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote table for Template:Autotable5_big

I have rewritten the table of populations to auto-number the rows, by using quick Template:Autotable5_big which inserts a row number for each 5 parameters, to automatically number the 242 rows (of 280 maximum). To allow an equals sign '=' in the URLs, each URL is wrapped in curly braces now, as {{{|[http:...]}}}, so any http text is passed into {{autotable5_big}} using a blank parameter. The rewrite of all 242 rows took several weeks to streamline (while carefully testing in the talk-page /sandbox version), so some population figures had changed, and the table is still being updated to match the latest numbers. Feel free to keep updating the table, but remember there are no longer any row numbers in the article markup, so search for each nation's name, as added to locate a row when editing, or hunt for the 3-letter cryptic codes ("LCA") which are still in the table markup. As rows are moved, or more added, the row numbers will automatically renumber in proper sequence. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Extensive auto-numbered rewrite was reverted, discarded after 1 day: With no follow-up to ensure quality, the auto-numbered version, which had "magically" renumbered all 242 entries, was instantly discarded to return to the tedious, manual list of hard-coded rank numbers, and the 239 nation names were removed to again have only the cryptic 3-letter nation codes in the huge markup table. Search inside for 235 nation names, and nothing will match to the rows as seen in the formatted page. The page was returned to the primitive search by population number, because all recent 239 nation names were removed from the page. However, eventually some figures were updated, to no longer match the auto-numbered version of the article. Anyway, the rank numbers do not change very often, so the manual ranks are fine, but the 239 nation names should be inside the markup table. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Figures do not add up

If population of India is 1,270,272,105, then its percentage of the world population would be 18.12% not 17%. The former is correct percentage. However, I cannot edit and make the change because I do not know how. The same applies to China. If the population figures are correct, then the Chinese percentage of the world population is 19.31% not what is written in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.22.193 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Population of India in May 2013 is set at 1,210,569,573: Because the population count being used is 60 million lower, the percentage is closer to 17% (rather than 18.12%). The current value for {worldpop} is: 8,143,318,000, and the formula gives: ( 1,210,569,573 / 8143318000 ) * 100 = 14.866%. A count 60 million higher would rank near 18% instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian flag?

That small flag attached to Norway (nr. 118) is definitely not my country's flag. See this page for the correct one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.133.228 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A New Column Showing Current Estimated Growth Rate?

There is a good bit of healthy nitpicking here. But I want to say I am delighted that this page exists and is as clean as it is. To those who have been doing the work, a big THANK YOU! This is essential information. One thing that would be really nice to have is another column indicating current growth rate for each country. I realize that's a sticky wicket, since like population size, estimates are only worth so much and even good estimates can become dated quickly. But still, I think including growth rate would put things in perspective. I don't know the most reliable sources for such data, but I assume those working on this do. So, again, thank you! Eperotao (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Table is a mess and of little use

The article's table is a mess and pretty much useless. We have country population from different dates, different sources and different types of studies (projections, censuses, etc.) which are NOT comparable. The UN has just released its 2012 revision of world population for over 200 world entities from 1950 to 2100. We should just stick to that to make the list comparable to some degree. What do you think? —Pristino (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The table I just looked at, titled "File POP/1-1: Total population (both sexes combined) by major area, region and country, annually for 1950-2100 (thousands)" covered 1950-2010 (not 2100), so it's 3 years out of date already. This article isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Look at the next sheet called "MEDIUM FERTILITY" for 2010-2100 projections. Pristino (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The population figure for 2013 doesn't match the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates, so it's incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The UN makes its own calculations. That it doesn't match the one calculated by a local statistics office doesn't make it incorrect. Pristino (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is the only agency in the world that actually does a physical count of all persons in Australia. At best the UN data is likely to be a derivative work of the ABS data. If it's not, then it's an educated guess. The same can be said for most (all?) other countries. Official counts by a country's official census agency is a far better indication of population than a guess by the UN. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not always, as Equatorial Guinea's highly suspicious population census show. But beyond politically-motivated data manipulation, the UN estimates are using a consistent methodology and definition across countries. For example, the UN uses de facto population on a specific date (1 July); some countries provide de jure population only and possibly on different dates, such as 1 January or 30 June. Pristino (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom

I am curious to know why countries within the United Kingdom are not included on this list, whilst countries such as in the kingdom of Denmark are - Greenland, Denmark and the Faroe islands are all separate but Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales and England are not. 31.53.188.191 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

I would be more useful and much easier to follow the daily updates if everyone editing (the list of countries by population) kindly would specify the subject of their edit in the information box below the editing list, for instance "Update on Cuba". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokndal (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

I'd like to know if the CIA World Factbook could be used to re-do this list. What's the point in having a list with population estimates for 2010 and 2013 together? The world population increased from 6.8 to 7.1 billion, that's a 300 million difference. The article has even a 2008 estimate. Some of these non-updated countries have big populations that can make a big difference (Indonesia and India are good examples of this).

On the other side, Chinese population simply couldn't fall by 5 million people in 6 months (1.354B for 12/31 according to official estimate, 1.349B for 7/1 according to CIA World Factbook), so I'm not sure of the accuracy of this list.

I also found this one, though I don't know if it's reliable enough.

We can make two (or even more) lists, just like we do in the GDP stuff.

Sorry if my English is wrong, and regards.  Roetorm  (talk • contribs)

The CIA's July 2013 estimate for Australia is 22,262,501. Australia's official population clock estimates that right now the population is already 800,000 more than that. As a population guide, the CIA "fact" book is not very factual. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No way to the CIA or rather the US Census Bureau international database (where the CIA gets it's population data from). The CIA World Factbook is a prime example of don't believe everything you read. Elockid (Talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook is not always reliable as, neither is UN estimates. For most countries the population numbers they gives are very crude estimates. In case of some less developed contries, these soursces may be a subsitute for lack of new national official updates.

Most developed countries makes official updates (estimates) every month or every three months (quaterly). The national offices of statistics are the best sources, even if these also sometimes are not 100 % accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.87.135 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

France

About France: Reunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana (Guyane) and Mayotte are "département", subdivisions, part of the country. For a correct list they shall not be in it. (81.56.77.183 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Macedonia

The name of the country number 145 is fyromAntony1979 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), Wikipedia articles should generally use the name "Republic of Macedonia". If there is no risk of confusion with the Greek region (which is the case here, as this is a list of countries), it may be shortened to "Macedonia". "Republic of Macedonia" (not FYROM) is in fact the official name of the country, although not recognized by Greece. SiBr4 (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with rankings

When I click to sort by rank, what comes up is a list with China first, then Japan (which is 10th), then Serbia and Hong Kong (100th and 101th respectively). Shouldn't it show starting with the last on the list (i.e. the Pitcaim Islands (UK))? Yny501 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The column sorted as text instead of numbers because the first cell (the unranked entry for the World) doesn't contain a number. I think it works now. SiBr4 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia %

Malaysia's population % is 10x too small. It should be 0.42% and not 0.04% as reported in the table. However, the code that generates that # is a bit more complicated than most other countries, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on, so I don't want to fix it myself lest I break something. Jamesa7171 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rankings for UN member nations only

I propose that numerical rankings should only be designated to nations that are members of the United Nations, in essence there are 193 members, 2 observers (Vatican City and Palestine), and 2 free association states (Niue and Cook Islands). Dependent territories and the 10 disputed states which are not members of the UN should not be ranked as they are not really countries. If no one objects by 21 September 2013, I will execute the changes. cchow2 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – The ranking is determined by population, not by UN membership. As clearly stated in the lead, "This is a list of independent countries and inhabited dependent territories", so changing the ranking to reflect UN membership would be inappropriate. Such a change might be appropriate in List of UN member countries by population. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: Not all independent states are UN members, and their populations have nothing to do with nations' membership in the United Nations whatsoever. Limiting ranking to only UN states on any list on Wikipedia is downright ridiculous, biased, and nonsensical. — |J~Pæst|  19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Could someone please address the 2.2-fold population difference between 1 622 000 for Equatorial Guinea here and 736 000 in the country's individual Wiki page. I have read there are political reasons for the country to provide inflated figures. JK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.96.219 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Western Sahara

I have addressed this before: I don't see how the flag of the SADR represents the territory. The SADR controls a sparsely populated 20-25% part of Western Sahara. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The SADR is the internationally recognised government of Western Sahara, so its flag is used. Yny501 (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The SADR is recognized by about 50 states (not including withdrawn/frozen recognitions). Most countries (and the UN) recognize neither Sahrawi nor Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. SiBr4 ⚑ 10:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo is not included in the table, yet it also isn't included in the Serbia statistic. I imagine it should be given the same treatment as Western Sahara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.64.2 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The countries/territories that are included in this list are the ones that have country codes in the standard ISO 3166-1. Kosovo is recognized by the United Nations (and 79 UN member states) as part of Serbia and doesn't have a separate code. The UN recognizes neither Moroccan nor Sahrawi sovereignty over Western Sahara, and therefore does have a code for it (representing the geographical region, not specifically the SADR).
I can agree though that it may seem odd that Kosovo is included neither as part of Serbia nor separately. Either the de jure population of Serbia should be listed (including that of Kosovo), or the states with limited recognition should be listed separately without ranking them, as is done in the list of countries by area. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada excessive

The population listed for Canada is excessive. The 2011 census found the population to be only 33,476,000.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A census never captures 100% of a country's population, and also consider that Canada's estimates are still based on the 2006 census. More information here. —Pristino (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.130.37 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I found some other national populations that seem excessive: Mexico, 118 million, compared to 112 million(?) in the 2011 census; Philippines, 98 million compared to a very recent figure of 92 million; Australia, 23.3 million, compared to a 21.5 million in the 2001 census, according to 2011 Census QuickStats: All people - usual residents: Australia. I remember looking at U.S. cities population estimates for 2007, 2008, and 2009; when the 2010 census results came, all the populations of the largest cities dropped. This makes me think that censuses are much more reliable sources of population figures than estimates or population clocks are.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Country" numbered 182 does not exist

Hi, In the article, the number 182 refers to a country named "Northern Cyprus". This country does not exist. As it is mentioned in another article named "Northern Cyprus": "Northern Cyprus is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus".

Since the article refers to countries, you indirectly recognize this illegal "country". In addition, anyone who reads it and is not well informed about the issues in the island would think it is a recognized country.

As IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED by any country other than Turkey (and this is because Turkey invaded Cyprus and illegally created this "country") I ask you to respect the rights of the Republic of Cyprus and the International Community and remove the entry "Northern Cyprus" from the article.

I do understand that the articles can be edited by anyone but I also know that Wikipedia is read by lots of people in the world and I want them to know the truth about the issues on the island of Cyprus. Panayiota.sk (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how Northern Cyprus can be listed here, while other countries with very limited recognition are not listed. States such as the Republic of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Republic of South Ossetia and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus shouldn't be listed here. Edit request is Done! --SilentResident (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

I'm a little bit unsettled by the vast disparity between the figure given here for Equatorial Guinea (1,622,000) and the figure on the Equatorial Guinea page given by the World Bank (736,296). Are the official sources inflated? They seem to be, considering every other source I can find cited on Wikipedia the population as being in the ballpark of 700,000. If so, they should not be used here, right? I want to make sure others agree before going in and changing it. Someone the Person (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

US States

It's a shame that there are no US States on the list. I would like to see them on the list, but I want to see them on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of countries, not states. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's a list of states, but not of states. The populations of the U.S. states can be found at List of U.S. states by population. SiBr4 (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Your wrong, it needs us states. Wanna add US states? Then edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 March 2014‎ (UTC)
No, you're wrong, and not just for the reasons explained. US states are not countries so they don't belong here. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(To the anonymous editor) If you want to, you could start a new article or list similar to these ones, but comparing the populations of the American states with those of the different nations:
However, it may be difficult and tiresome for only one person.
Regards :-)
MaxBech1975 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please make a article of US states and countries by population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

===How about this kiddos, open the article that lists countries in a tab, then open the article that lists states in a tab...and enjoy.70.115.171.96 (talk)

Why should the US deserve special treatment? --2.245.175.56 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

European Union

Hi, I realise this probably comes up a lot, but I was wondering what would be needed for the EU to show up on this list? It's not a country, sure, but it's very relevant as a political entity. It certainly would make referencing statistics a lot easier! --2001:980:A4CB:1:FC02:7A1:37C8:B906 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it would give one a much better overview! --Wrant (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

700 Million South Asian Muslims, 3rd Largest population in the world

There are approximately 700 Million South Asian Muslims.

Pakistan: 200 Million

India: 250 Million (due to continuous under counting of the Muslim population by the Indian government for the past 6 decades, the Muslim population is generally accepted to be more than the official 200 million number. A large majority of Muslims are leaving India and settling in other Muslim countries but are always counted under the same group and always play the foremost role in south Asian Muslim activities).

Bangladesh: 160 Million

Kashmir: 20 Million

Taking into account other variables, its an approximate population of 700 million. The third largest in the world. I propose making another section for world population based on ethnicity in addition to countries. To show which are the biggest population groups in the world. Muslim Army Knives (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See List of religious populations. Mightymights (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That page shows populations for groups as a whole. I am referring to biggest populations based on single ethnic groups. Muslim Army Knives (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes I feel that we should make another heading for South Asian Muslims as they are one of the biggest population groups in the world. You forgot to include Afghanistan as well in South Asia. Afghan Hazara (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see your point. This page is a list of COUNTRIES by population. Not ethnic groups. You may create a new page of list of ethnic groups around the world, possibly with a breakdown by country of residence. I suspect that the data for this page is not as well defined and available as the total populations of countries.
As for South Asian Muslims, I am no expert on this topic but are you sure that they constitute an ethnic group? Simply sharing a religion doesn't make them part of the same ethnic group. On the other hand, members of the same ethnic group can belong to different religion. Eric car (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Eric car. Believing in the same religion is no better reason for classification as an "ethnic group" than having the same favourite colour (in my case these days it's yellow, for the record). —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

Incorrect Muslims of South Asia form one ethnicity with derivations from Arab, Turkish and Persian stocks similar to how hindus form one ethnicity with derivations from dravidian stock. Muslim Army Knives (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar

Its official name is Myanmar, it's been that for awhile, this needs to be changed. (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.141.27 (talk)

This debate is years old. See Talk:Burma. Someone the Person (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Population growth rate

I would like to see an additional column of current population growth rate — unless this is already on another page.
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

List of countries by population growth rate. Someone the Person (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh population

Hi ! There is a population clock on the official Bangladesh website [2]. The population is now 156 million and not 152. Can someone add the population clock please ? Banglabs (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

2 decimal places for China and India

Why is the population percentage for China and India rounded ? It should have 2 decimal places like the other countries. Example : 18.99% instead of 19%. Banglabs (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Greece

Please update the population of Greece from the 2013 census of Eurostat [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polugap (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00001

Population density

I was wondering if it would be possible to adapt this or future tables so that they include population density information. If this were possible then perhaps column titles might read something like:

1

Rank by
Population		 Rank by
Pop.density		 Country
(or dependent territory)		 Population Date % of world
population		 Source area
(km²)		 Pop.density
(#/km²)
Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example

shortened to

2

Rank
(pop)		 Rank
(pd)		 Country
(or dependent territory)		 Population Date world
pop %		 Source area
(km²)		 Pop.den.
(#/km²)
Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example

with an alternate format

3

Rank
(pop)		 Country
(or dependent territory)		 Population Date % of world
population		 Source area
(km²)		 Rank
(pd)		 Pop.density
(#/km²)
Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example

shortened to

4

Rank
(pop)		 Country
(or dependent territory)		 Population Date world
pop %		 Source area
(km²)		 Rank
(pd)		 Pop.den.
(#/km²)
Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example


I think this would add a lot more meaningful data to the content if it could be accomplished.

Gregkaye (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Understood but I would have thought that having a compilation of all the information on a single list would greatly ease a process of cross referencing. It would also mean that anyone coming to make simultaneous reference from the two forms of information would have more assurance that parallel pieces of information were processed at the same time by the same people and with a similar correctness of content. Gregkaye (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that combining the population and population density articles has the advantage of population data needing to be changed in only one article. Though putting both in one table would make updating population density ranks rather difficult if they change. Another option is to exclusively use data templates for both lists, only requiring the ranks to be updated. SiBr4 (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Such an article would also basically remove the need for the separate area list. I think there's a case to combine all three, but I'm undecided about its merits. I would note that per WP:UNITS, any list dealing with population density or area needs to include conversions from square kilometres (or people per square km) to square miles (or people per square mile). Kahastok talk 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo

The entry for Kosovo has been repeatedly removed without explanation by IP editors (probably one editor with different, but similar IPs). Also a note for Serbia that the number does not include Kosovo, is removed. The same editor(s) has also made edits to List of countries by population (United Nations), where a note for Serbia that the number does include Kosovo, is removed. The result is that the two lists present widely diverging numbers for Serbia, without explanation, and all mention of Kosovo is removed. Since the editor does not give edit summaries, nor responds to talk page messages, I keep reinserting the numbers and notes. The question is how to deal with this. The obvious way is to ask for semi-protection. I see, however, that this article actually to a large degree is edited by IP editors, who on the whole seem to give a positive input to updating the article. Semi-protection might actually harm the development of the article. The other way to do it is to ask for the IP to be blocked. I hesitate to ask for this, since blocking of IPs often seems to bring new IPs to the battle field. Any thoughts? Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Kosovo is not a country. Actually, it is an autonomous province within Serbia, and it's name is Kosovo and Metohija. Therefor, removing it from the list of countries is correcting an error. The same goes for the other article mentioned, since when something is a part of something else, that doesn't have to be emphasized or explained. The correcting of the errors will continue, until the reinserting of said errors stops.
Remark on diverging will be corrected as well, with thanks for pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.43.73 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you prepared to do the same with Greenland, Puerto Rico, Pitcairn islands and all the others? -- Real true logic (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oranges and apples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.37.155 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by the majority of the world's nations. It deserves a place on the list. Someone the Person (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The illegally declared independence of Kosovo is not recognized by the majority of world's population. Also, Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations, which under UNSCR 1244 regards it as a part of Serbia temporarily under UN jurisdiction. Thus, it is not an independent country, nor a dependent territory, and can not be in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the citation needed! UNSCR_1244#Observations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read the sources provided at International_recognition_of_Kosovo. That was already pointed out to you so it's time to drop the stick and move on.--McSly (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the sources, but they don't make a difference. The decisions of the governments of individual countries and their recognition of an illegal move don't make that move legal. The UN Security Council's Resolution 1244 is still valid, and it says that Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia, and calls for meaningful autonomy and self-administration, but not for independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm afraid what Materialscientist said is simply not true. The source he cites (International_recognition_of_Kosovo) is irrelevant for this list. Decisions of the individual governments to recognize an illegal move do not make that move legal. However, that source does matter for something else - to show which country is disregarding binding decisions by the United Nations, or to a smaller extent and open to interpretation, which countries are giving in to the pressure by politically and diplomatically stronger countries, accepting to do the same as those stronger ones did, disregarding the UN. But, that is a matter for some other page. For this page, the ultimately relevant document is the United Nations Security Council 1244, (UNSCR_1244#Observations), which reaffirms Serbia's sovereignty on its entire territory, including the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, which is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we stick to the reliable sources (and not so much to the legal decisions from either national or international bodies). The number of people in Serbia is cited from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia giving the number of people as 7,181,505 with the footnote "Without data for AP Kosovo and Metohija". That looks to me as a reliable source. --T*U (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It says "AP", which stands for "Autonomous Province", thus Kosovo can not appear here as an independent country or a dependent territory. And there is a reliable source, which gives the population, with the territory of Kosovo and Metohija included, on (List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)). As a reminder, the AP Kosovo and Metohija has been put under temporary administration of the UN, by the (UNSCR_1244), so getting the statistical data for the territory is under the UN jurisdiction, which doesn't make Kosovo (and Metohija) a separate entity. And the inclusion of the "total population number" was because of your remark that two lists (List_of_countries_by_population and List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)), as you said "... present widely diverging numbers for Serbia, without explanation ...". Now it has been explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

At one point, you suggested in the talk page to add Abkhazia and South Ossetia to he list with a comment that they were "similar examples of partially recognized entities". When they actually were added, you removed your comment, since that would actually be an indirect support of keeping Kosovo in the list. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by four UN member states, Kosovo by 106, by the last count. Please explain why "Abkhazia and South Ossetia deserve a place on the list", as you claimed, while Kosovo does not. Or was it just a desperate attempt that backfired on you? As for consensus, you have so far not had support from any other editors, so please explain how that gives you right to overrule evereyone else with your POV. One last thing: Please learn how to sign your postings, either by four tildes or by using the "signing button". Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have realized that Abkhazia and South Ossetia were mentioned in one of the above Talks, so I removed my comment. As for consensus, it is obvious that it doesn't exist, for either side, so it is up to both sides in this dispute to provide the citations as the support. And that is what gives me the right to correct the incorrect data, providing valid documents to counter the POV done by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That does not explain why you first stated that "Abkhazia and South Ossetia deserve a place on the list", calling them "partially recognized entities [...], like Kosovo" and now denies Kososo a place in the same list. As to your edit summary: "Official doesn't mean correct. It can be biased and malicious. Correcting incorrect, backed by valid citations, is not edit waring". Do you mean that official data from official Serbian statistical sources are biased and malicious? As to consensus, you will need to learn how Wikipedia works. Repeatedly making the same changes to an article without support from any other editors and against several other editors, is almost the working definition of edit warring. In order to avoid being blocked, your best move would be to self revert and start a constructive discussion in this talk page by making a proposal and giving your arguments. You might even get some support. That is how Wikipedia works, not by trying to bully your POV into the article. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki principles like WP:BRD. Wikipedia is a community of co-operating editors, not a battle ground. Since I refuse to participate in edit wars, I will not revert your last edit. I trust others in the community to do that. Finally: Please read WP:SIG and start signing your postings, if not for any other reason than to show that you want to be a Wikipedian. Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kosovo's inclusion in the list is not "incorrect", but controversial at most. Showing Kosovo as an undisputed country is POV, but showing it as undisputedly part of Serbia is the other extreme. I have added the {{Kosovo-note}} template which should explain its status.
Per WP:STATUSQUO an article should be reverted to its status quo revision in case of a dispute between editors. Claiming information is incorrect doesn't give you the right to redo your edit seven times. So yes, you are edit warring. SiBr4 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

T*U, I did not say Serbian official statistical sources are biased and malicious, I said that official doesn't necessarily mean that the source is correct. If you are now using the official Serbian government's data, then here is a link for you. http://www.srbija.gov.rs/cinjenice_o_srbiji/ustav.php It's the Constitution of Serbia, where it says that "... the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the territory of Serbia ...". So, I suppose now you will do the same as I do, and start regarding it as a part of Serbia. Welcome to my side. It is a progress towards reaching the consensus. The source document used here is an official document of the Government of the USA, and it is biased and malicious. The US Government is pushing its own agenda, its own interests, and it is disregarding binding international documents. That is an example of what I said, that official doesn't mean correct. Of course, this claim can be disputed by other editors, but I am ready to back it up with valid documents. It would take a lot of time and space, and extensive analysis in many fields (geopolitical, strategic, economic....), but it can be done, though probably not here. Just to add that the US Government is not the only government in the world that does so, but in this case its document is used as the source.

SiBr4, I am not claiming information is incorrect, I am backing up that with valid citations. It is not my fault that people who keep claiming that they accept valid citations keep rejecting one (the UNSCR_1244 has not been canceled or replaced). Opposed to that, for example, I've been offered a newspapers article as the proof that Serbia has de facto recognized the independence of Kosovo, which is.... well, if I provided a newspapers article stating that submarines can go through ground, I am still not sure it would change the fundamental laws of physics, or their description here on Wikipedia. The {{Kosovo-note}} you added is a useful thing, but it doesn't change the fact that the territory is not an independent country, nor an inhabited dependent territory, and it should not be listed here as an independent entity. I agree with what you said, that it's inclusion in the list is controversial, simply because such an inclusion is incorrect, and regarding its source, based on biased and malicious point of view.
Thank you for undoing the revision, User:PlatonPskov, but I already provided the citation that the official information in the source document is incorrect, and should be corrected, so not much accomplished there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

.... and apologies to T*U, I missed to answer your question about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As I said, there already is a post/section in this Talk page, which mentioned those two territories. In my comment, I used the same argument as for some other territories ("it deserves to be in the list"), but I consider that as a silly argument. I was wondering if someone will intervene about it. And now I see such comments classify as Wikipedia:But it's true!, at least in my view, since it is a personal view, not backed by any valid citation (I emphasize "valid citation").

By using the same method - "They deserve the place in this list", many other regions and/or territories should be in this list, and their "mother countries" accompanied with a fuss-note that the population excludes the population of those regions or territories. The latest examples being Crimea and Sevastopol, which moved from Ukraine to Russia, and Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, which declared independence of Ukraine. There is also Transnistria, Republic of Lakotah.... the list goes on. And that list of "they-deserve-to-be-in-the-list-territories" ends (I suppose) with micronations. In Wikipedia's list I counted 71 of them, though some are listed as not existing any more. They too deserve to be in the list, don't they?
That might actually be a good starting point for a discussion in order to make this list better: Where should we put the limits for representation? And how should we differensiate between different categories of states/areas. The list now looks a bit strange with the unnumbered entries in-between the numbered ones, while the numbered ones include both independent states and dependent areas. Could it be an idea build on the consensus that has been reached in the List of sovereign states, and split this list into three parts, each with separate numbering:
  • UN member states and observer states (following the List of sovereign states)
  • Other states (states with limited recognition etc., also following the List of sovereign states)
  • Dependent territories (the rest of the current numbered list)
There should be notes explaining which areas are included in the population numbers and which are not in the cases where there exists disputed territories, but the discussion of these should be linked to the List of sovereign states and/or to other relevant Wiki pages, so that this list is not cluttered with the eternal debates about de facto, but not universally recognized entities (no names mentioned). Any thoughts? Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good starting point, on how to "reshape" this list. I have to say that I have expected that someone removes the "unnumbered" entities, because they are not countries, but it didn't happen. As long as the list refers to independent countries and dependent territories, for me it would be unacceptable to see Kosovo and Metohija in it. I think your idea is good, and as I see it, it would be a combination between List of countries by population (United Nations) and List of sovereign states. The first part would be numbered, and containing only the UN members (titled "UN members"), then followed by the section titled "Other territories" (my suggestion), where all the other territories would be listed, without numbering, and with their status explained (if they are aiming at independence, are they partially recognized, not recognized, dependent territory, micronation...), and of course the population numbers of entities listed in both parts of the list. Again I am surprised that "unnumbered entities" appear in the List of countries by population (United Nations).

It would be the best if all the population numbers add up to get the total world's population (shown on top of the list, as in List of countries by population (United Nations)), but I don't think that is possible, because of various times of "counting". Even now, there are differences between the lists, for example for Sweden. If there was a "central database", from where all the data for all the individual pages for all the individual territories would be drawn... but I think that would be a huge task.
Also, in my opinion, the population numbers of the UN members should be shown for the entire territory in which "the UN recognizes them". That should help with the "adding up for reaching the total world's population" easier. But, there can be a note, or fussnote, about the "other territories" (and their populations) which that particular UN member "covers", in a sense a "small sized" representation of what is being listed for those territories in the second - "Other territories" section of the list.
I added a small but in my opinion very important thing to List of sovereign states, which explains the basis for Serbia's position over the Kosovo and Metohija issue. I think it should also be included in SiBr4's {{Kosovo-note}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Taking into the account your previous editing history, it is rather easy to guess what you are aiming at with your arguments. I will, however, take your comments at face value and comment on them in general terms. But first: If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, it would be a great help if you would try to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations. For example, look at the way that talk page discussions are usually indented and try to do it in the same way. It makes it much easier to follow the discussion thread. And (as mentioned to you at least twice before) please, please sign your talk page entries with four tildes or with the signature button on top of the editing window to avoid the ugly bot-signature and the cluttering of the page history.
Now to your arguments: I think that your suggestion of grouping all "others" into one lump is not a good idea. The "Other states" of the List of sovereign states differ significantly from the dependent territories in that they are de facto states. They are disputed, but they are not dependent. Also, the linking to the information in the List of sovereign states would be more difficult to organize. I have no strong feelings about whether the "Other states" list and the "Dependent territories" list should be numbered.
There is no reason to expect that the numbers should add up. This list is supposed to consist of the most up-to-date population numbers that can be found for each single country. Some are census results, some are projections, some are estimates, some are population clock countings. The whole point in having this list, is to give the best possible numbers for each country, whereas the List of countries by population (United Nations) probably is the best way for comparing the populations of different countries (and adding them, if wanted) since all numbers are estimated in the same way. Different lists for different purposes.
As for giving population numbers for the entire territory in which "the UN recognizes them", this would in some situations be impractical or impossible, since there may be no valid source to base the numbers on. As an example, the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, which is the most relevant source for Serbia, gives the number "without data for AP Kosovo and Metohija", since they are not in a position to count them. The number for the disputed Republic of Kosovo is counted by another agency at another time and possibly by another methodology, so we can not add the numbers without breaking the WP:synth guideline. Result: We have to use the number without K&M, and we have to tell in a note what the number covers, so any user could do the addition/subtraction him/her-self. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think our starting positions on this are well known. I will emphasize again - Kosovo (and Metohija) is not a country, a state, or anything similar. It is an autonomous province and an integral part of Serbia. International documents support that stance. Individual decisions of some countries are in opposition with that, but they can't have priority over the international ones, especially the binding decisions of the United Nations Security Council. Only the political, economic, military an diplomatic power allows them to do so, but that doesn't make such decisions of those individual countries legal.

Speaking of de facto, there are several obligations the "other side" in the conflict took on itself. Since it hasn't fulfill those obligations, rather abused the post-war agreement, you could say that the territory of Kosovo and Metohija is de facto occupied by NATO, and de facto forcefully and in violation of international obligations, NATO pushed for establishing the provisional interim governing body as a de facto government. Again, such moves stem out of power of those countries, but that doesn't make those moves legal, or valid. Germany made such moves, for example in 1938 with the Suddetenland, and indeed they were accepted, but under pressure and threat of force, and later they and their consequences were annulled. In the case of Kosovo and Metohina, it would be like if I moved into your apartment and beat you up (the NATO aggression in 1999), occupied one of the rooms and agreed with you we'll together find a solution while accepting the room is yours (the UNSCR 1244), and then ignored you when you refuse to give up the room, and have someone from that room declare they do not belong to your apartment anymore (the 2008 declaration of independence), and then I recognize that, with my friends who agree with me, and pressuring into such recognition those who don't agree but can't resist my power.
So, I stick with my suggestion, that de facto means nothing, and de jure means everything, and that should be reflected in the list. This as any other list on Wikipedia. The "Other territories" do differ, but they are not countries or states, and their status can be explain in an additional note or a column, which would be a better option (similar to List of sovereign states). It could even be done by different background color, with an explanation at the end (for example green for micronations, blue for territories under the UN administration, orange for dependent territories). Those whose status is disputed should remain white, and have an explanation of its status written in the column (again similar to List of sovereign states).
I don't think the "population numbers for the entire territory in which the UN recognizes them" for the first part of the proposed new shape of this list, which would contain the UN members only, would be impractical or impossible... those numbers are already there, in the List of countries by population (United Nations). This list should be an extended version of that list, with all the other territories added in a separate section of the list. And on another note, regarding the List of countries by population (United Nations) all the other entities should be removed, leaving only the UN member countries. Otherwise, it's not the list of the UN members any more, it becomes a copy of this page (or the other way around).

188.246.51.142 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post. Next step is to learn how to indent in talk page discussions. As for your arguments: You seem to miss the point that this is not an extension of the United Nations list. This is a list that tries to give the newest and most accurate numbers for each country or territory, preferably based on official data from the country itself. Regarding the List of countries by population (United Nations), the unnumbered "other entities" should not be removed, since they are an integral part of the UN source that supports the whole article. The numbering in that article can be discussed (preferably in that talk page instead of here), but the content has to be based on the source, not cherry-picked according to personal points of view. Finally: Your claim that "de facto means nothing, and de jure means everything" shows that perhaps you should not be working in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia deals with facts, even with disputed facts, in that it tries to explain how things are, in many cases how things are from different points of view. Wikipedia will try to explain both the legal situation and the factual situation, based on valid sources. What Wikipedia does not do, and should not do, is to avoid presenting facts that are disputed. That Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of Serbia, is a fact, seen from Belgrade and from many other states. That Kosovo is an independent republic, is a fact, seen from Pristina and from many other states. For Wikipedia, it is a fact that this contradiction exists, and both sides should be presented. Regards! --T*U (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for a relatively long pause, I had some things which kept me from replying more promptly.
I agree with you on List of countries by population (United Nations). I thought it was the list of the UN members, and now I see it is not. Still, some of the numbers listed in it can be valuable here too.
Dealing with facts is one thing, dealing with twisted facts based on biased and malicious sources is something else, it is called disinformation and propaganda. And since I refuse to believe that Wikipedia as a whole is involved in it, maybe it is you who should not be working in Wikipedia at all. Simply, some of the "facts" you are referring to are not legitimate nor legal. They do exist, but they can't be considered simply as facts, because of that lack of legitimacy and legality. That is an important, I dare to say crucial, part of determining the difference between facts and "facts". De facto is not enough! There can not be two truths, there is only one. Even what you wrote, that Pristina, and some countries, see Kosovo as an independent republic, is wrong. That Kosovo is more dependent on Washington that L.A. (for example) is. So, it is not independent, and that is a fact. One way or another, Kosovo (and Metohija) is not an independent entity, and can not be in this list.
Just an example of "de facto": a lot of countries show in their national censuses a certain number of Martians, Extraterrestrials, Jupiterians.... they show up in official documents by those countries. Does that mean the E.T.s are among us? Is it a fact? Or a "fact"?
And how I see it, if you have it your way, next time someone removes Kosovo from the list, take it as a de facto fact, it is not there any more, and leave it like that, do not reverse it. It will be de facto gone, and as you said, you respect such de facto moves without questioning their legitimacy or legality.
Regards!188.246.51.142 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of formatting your post in order to show you how indentation in talk pages usually is done in Wikipedia.
  • Sources: You have not given any details of what you mean by "biased and malicious sources". Is that all sources that does not state explicitely that Kosovo is a part of Serbia? Or is it all sources that you disagree with in general? Do you have any criteria for detecting such sources? I advise you to read what Wikipedia guidelines says about reliable sources.
  • Facts: If being dependent on Washington excludes a country from being counted among sovereign states, this list would shrink dramatically. More seriously, Wikipedia may discuss the question of legitimacy or legality of facts, but the basis is (again) reliable sources. If reliable sources say that Serbia sees Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia, that is considered a fact. If reliable sources say that Kosovo has been recognized by 107 UN member states, that is considered a fact. Whatever you and I feel about the status of Kosovo (and we might even possibly agree), it is a fact (supported by reliable sources) that the status is disputed. That is how facts are treated in Wikipedia.
  • Splitting the list: It seems that no-one else is interested in the discussion about splitting the list, so unless anyone takes up that discussion again, I will let it rest.
Oh yes, and I would be interested if you could give some (sourced) examples of the "lot of countries" that include Extraterrestrials in their censuses. Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine - again

After April 1 official numbers have not been given for Crimea and Sevastopol. This means that we cannot give updated numbers for Ukraine including Crimea and Sevastopol. Adding the numbers from June with numbers from April must be seen as WP:OR, but giving the April numbers in a note will give the Wiki user a chance to do their own calculations. In the May 1 table, the number including Crimea and Sevastopol on basis of SSSU estimation is given in a note, so that can also be included in our note. I have removed the numbers for the present population from the note, since this was more confusing than enlightening. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The last edits to the Ukraine note do not reflect the sources accurately and the note is therefore somewhat misleading. According to the sources:
  • The numbers 1,959,309 and 384,121 are official Ukrainian estimates, not from May 1, but from March 1. The most recent numbers are 1,959,795 and 384,035 from April 1, the last time there were given official estimates for those areas. The April 1 source has to be linked.
  • The number 42,839,621 is the official Ukrainian estimate for May 1, not just "on basis of SSSU estimation". This is the equivalent of the number given in the table for June 1. I see no reason to bring an older estimate in the note.
  • The number 45,182,900 is not an official Ukrainian estimate, but a number given "For reference" in a note of the table, "based on SSSU estimation". This number can be quoted, but not as an official estimate.
The note about population including Sevastopol and Crimea is not given in the Ukrainian-language bulletin. It shows up in the English-language table that is usually published approx. one week later, around the 20th of the following month. The June 1 table is due any time now. Regards! --T*U (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your version is somewhat misleading:
"Excludes Crimea (1,959,795) and Sevastopol (384,035), controlled by Russia (official estimate on April 1, 2014)." April 1, 2014 official is no excludes Crimea and Sevastopol.
(1) May 1, 2014 is new official estimates; (2) May 1, 2014 is excludes Crimea and Sevastopol. I have partly reverted your edits to the Ukraine note. Regards!--RosssW (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! The first part is getting better, but still a bit confusing about the exclusion/not exclusion. I will try to split up the information for further clarification. In the second part, we still need to distinguish between "official estimate" and "based on SSSU estimation".
This morning the English-language table with numbers for June 1 was released, and this time it does not give any estimation including C and S. The number from May 1 will thus probably be the last we will ever get, so it will be pertinent to keep both numbers. I will just rephrase a little to clarify the estimation vs. Official estimate issue. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Philippine Population

Then whats this? Visit: http://www.rappler.com/nation/64465-100-millionth-filipino-born --The one who has Made a world map (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)--The one who has Made a world map (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)--The one who has Made a world map (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The figure given by this article for the current Philippine population (poptoday) is based on 2010 census figures extrapolated to the current date in a calculation done using data from Template:Data Philippines. That calculation uses a figure called popinc (population increment -- the number of persons added per day). I have just tweaked the popinc value from its previous value of 4899.18960485212 to a new value of 4949.435. That produces a poptoday figure of 100,039,200 for today, versus a figure off 100,039,235 reported as of now by the official popclock at http://www.popcom.gov.ph/. Feel free to tweak this further to improve the perceived accuracy of the extrapolation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

|156 |align=left| Mauritius |1,261,208 |July 1, 2014 |0.015% |align=left|Official estimate Megamast3r (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS/ISIL is not a sovereign state

The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria / Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not a sovereign state as defined by several governing United Nations guidelines, needless to cite. To subtract the populations of ISIS/ISIL occupied territory from the populations of which these territories are de jure creates a severe inaccuracy in overall rankings. Please correct and/or remove as necessary. 108.40.75.25 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Slovenia

For Slovenia it is given a very old data, new data is showing only 2.062.116 inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokkol (talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Repulic of China or Taiwan

Repulic of China is a sovereign state, so we can't use Taiwan instead of the Republic of China.

Yes, we can! See WP:COMMONNAME. T*U (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should respect the facts！In Taiwan, the official address is Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A862678110 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not governed by Republic of China, but by Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:COMMONNAME. In your comment you use "Taiwan" yourself, illustrating that this is common usage in English. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will also have to learn about other Wikipedia policies, such as WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. --T*U (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mexico

The entry for Mexico is missing entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.189.82 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

population of Tanzania

according to most versions tanzania should already have more than 49 million people since its population growth is greater than 1 million per year and can not be based on the 2012 census because it is a country with a fairly large population growth, I think you should put tanzania regarding the population version shown in other languages ​​, above Colombia

according to google , wikipedia in other languages ​​and various sources hill tanzania 2013 with 49.25 million inhabitants , so it would not be surprising that even today in 2015 has 50 million inhabitants , but I think they should at least actulizarlo data as closed its population in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin1216 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Date and a potentially more useful field

I would suggest shortening the date field to just include the year so that there is room for a field displaying growth rate. While it is interesting to see that, for example, Indonesia is 65 million people shy of the USA, I feel that a growth rate will better paint a picture of the two countries respected population than say, the precise date the population was update. 2601:E:CD00:87A:1D16:4A8C:EE9C:4D44 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The July 1, 2015 joke

Hello to all of Wikipedia's users.

I don't want to be a nanny guy, and I haven't posted the joke, but he list said that 52 out of about 270 countries are marked to have been checked on day July 1, 2015, being today 15/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 in some parts of the world, thus making impossible that anything happened on July 1, 2015, because this day hasn't arrived yet. Even though I have to admit it was probably an ingenious troll, Wikipedia is not the correct place for that to be. Anyone who has the time and ability to research further information, please edit the content.

Thank you.

Isaacdixonp0 (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)isaacdixonp0

Indonesian Population - Official Estimate

The "official estimate" for Indonesian population redirects here:

http://www.bps.go.id/eng/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=12&notab=12

But the page in question is nonexistent. Does anyone know where the official estimates can be found? BoltNinja (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just checked after a while, looks like someone fixed it. Thanks! BoltNinja (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The United States is The Worlds Most Populated Country

The United States is The Worlds Most Populated Country Not China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:A5F0:79CD:B706:B97B:6299 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. Check any source you'd like.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

72.186.124.1 (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Dominican Republic has 9,445,281 people not 12million like the population by countries indicates.

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Add a Growth Rate column

Measured in percents/year. To allow estimations in changes in the table at later times. Pavel Senatorov, developer of programming language Ya (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

There's an ongoing edit war. Please provide one definitive reliable source and end this.Ernio48 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

High protection of this page?

As this page regularly witnesses vandalism or placing of wrong (often exaggerated) estimates, it should be permamently protected not only for 1 week or so. This article is so crucial as it is the easiest this kind of list to find on the internet, not mentioning the falseness of similar lists on the internet.Ernio48 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Whats with the first of July in population estimation dates? --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

India

The population counter is not official. www.indiastat.com is a private website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.218.162 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RUSSIAN POPULATION CLOCK

There is a difference of 330,000 between the Russian population clock and wikipedia.--90.162.24.163 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Population clocks

@Mynameisrickyqin: Thanks for your good edits in this List. I would, however, ask you please to explain why you have replaced all the "data country|poptoday 1" templates with manual updating, which will have to be done every day to get the same result. The template is spesifically made for the purpose of avoiding that. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TU-nor, have you looked at how those templates actually work? They are not only WP:OR, they are also based on bad methodology (they assume linear growth!) and outdated and poorly sourced data. Click on any of the provided links to the actual population clock (and the unsigned comment below is correct in saying that the Indian population clock we're linking to is not officially sanctioned) and you will see that our numbers do not match up with the so-called "sources". The entire table is a mess: even just the choice of entities on the list is not based on the ISO standard as stated in the first paragraph – for example, what are Ceuta and Melilla doing here? Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The population of Russia includes Crimea and Sevastopol

Isn't it Russian POV?Xx234 (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Crimea and Sevastopol are, de facto, controlled by Russia and have been since 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.105.248 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Worldpopulationreview

This is not a reliable source. It uses Wikipedia as one of their sources. Here's one on the Czech Republic. Let's compare from an earlier version before their publication date.

Wikipedia:
According to preliminary results of the 2011 census, the majority of the inhabitants of the Czech Republic are Czechs (63.7%), followed by Moravians (4.9%), Slovaks (1.4%), Poles (0.4%), Germans (0.2%) and Silesians (0.1%). As the 'nationality' was an optional item, a substantial number of people left this field blank (26.0%).According to some estimates, there are about 250,000 Romani people in the Czech Republic.
The Jewish population of Bohemia and Moravia, 118,000 according to the 1930 census, was virtually annihilated by the Nazi Germans during the Holocaust. There were approximately 4,000 Jews in the Czech Republic in 2005.
The Czech Republic has one of the least religious populations in the world, being the country with the third most atheistic population by percentage, behind only China and Japan.
World population review
64% of the Czech Republic's population is Czech, followed by Moravians (5%), Slovaks (1.4%), Poles (0.4%) and Germans (0.2%). At the last census in 2011, "nationality" was optional and about 26% left this blank. It's estimated that the Czech Republic is home to 250,000 Romani people, as well as 440,000 foreigners, the largest group being Ukranian (140,000) followed by Slovak, Vietnamese, Russian and Polish.
The Nazis almost completely destroyed the Jewish population in the region, which dropped from 118,000 in 1930 to just 4,000 in 2005.
The country has one of the least religious populations globally with the third highest percentage of atheists (34%) after China and Japan.
Pretty much rephrasing what's been written here. Elockid Message me 04:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Syria population clock

Does anyone think the Syrian Bureau of Statistics can provide any meaningful population estimate? I believe we shall switch to UN sources for the time being. Demmo (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Jordan update

2015 census just released. Can someone please update Makeandtoss (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How does this work? To update Jordan, do I need to rearrange all the ranks of countries?!? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid so. It's remarkable that people spend time doing this, especially since there are websites with reliable population estimates, like this one. — 37 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tridek Sep: Not that reliable, considering Jordan's case... I guess I will just have to do it myself. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Consult ten different sources and you probably get ten different population figures. I prefer official UN estimates, but a note explaining the uncertainty in Jordan's case might be appropriate. — 37 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tridek Sep: A 25 million dollars 2015 census vs a UN 2013 estimate? Really? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The figures in the source I provided are those of the 2015 revision of the UN World Population Prospects, which can also be consulted here. — 37 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Id still trust a census over an NGO estimate. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the UN estimates because they are based on a single methodology and thus allow comparison between nations. I don't 'trust' these estimates to be absolutely true. Again, consult ten different sources and you'll get ten different population figures. I don't know if the Jordanian government is capable of collecting reliable data, so I can't comment on that. — 37 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You mean method wise or intention wise? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not doubt the good intentions of the Jordanian government, otherwise they wouldn't spend $25M on a census. But I have no info on how or when the data was collected.— 37 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
[3] [4] It was computerized and done in November Makeandtoss (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)2015
Certainly looks promising. Hope the full results get published soon. — 37 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Initial results are out. Should I update the info or will I be reverted? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
If you cite the source, nobody should revert you. That doesn't mean you 'should' update the info.— 37 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh?

if Kosovo, transnistria, abkhazia, south ossetia and taiwan make the list with differing levels of recognition around the world, why not nagorno karabakh? it's been a de facto independent country since 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh should indeed be included.— 37 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Metropolitan France ?

Someone (IP : 123.88.217.39) is trying very hard to exclude France of the List of countries and dependencies by population, and to have it replaced by Metropolitan France (the part of france which is located in Europe). There is no explanation for it, the oversea departments and territories of France are part of the country.
Metropolitan France is not a country, or a dependency. France is a country, and should be on the list. Once-but-never-again (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear 123.88.217.39 , Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and La Réunion are officially part of France, so please stop trying so hard to exclude them. 138.231.142.106 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Palestine

As of 2015-09-29 Palestine is not included in this list. I am unsure if this has been agreed upon based on Wikipedia policy or if it is simply the result of the series of 'add Palestine / remove Palestine' article edits that have been conducted by multiple accounts.

Could we please get some clarity on this issue?

1. Under Wikipedia policies, should Palestine be or should it not be included in this list?

2. Can / should anything be done do stop the 'edit war' on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.155.189 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine qualifies for inclusion since it is listed in ISO 3166-1 Meters (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Data templates

For some reason, AKS471883 keeps removing data templates from this article, and replaces them with manual calculations.[5][6] This is completely unnecessary, as the templates automatically calculate today's population and ensure the same data is consistently displayed across multiple articles. The removals have been accompanied by multiple population changes with no explanation as to where the new figures are coming from and certainly no sources. Given the lack of sources I was tempted to do a bulk revert, but this is an issue that has been going on for quite some time now. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Which UN member state is missing?

This list has 195 numbered states and includes Taiwan. There are 193 UN member states plus two observers and neither includes Taiwan. This list includes Palestine and Vatican City so which UN member state is missing? 110.22.123.142 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Palestine and Ireland are both numbered 120. What on earth is that about? If Palestine isn't a real state it shouldn't be numbered at all. 110.22.123.142 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_6&oldid=1144398484"