![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This
edit request to
List of countries and dependencies by population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Palestine or fix the numbering problem I noted above, that nobody has bothered to respond to.
110.22.123.142 ( talk) 07:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of countries and dependencies by population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Population of Portugal needs update. According to the last official estimate numbers (18/12/2015), total resident population is 10 374 822 [1] Thank you PedroFerrer ( talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The population table in this article is being edited daily, usually several times by different editors, changes being unsourced and devoid of edit summaries, except for those made by well established editors, and data templates are still being replaced by manual calculations. I have notified all related WikiProjects and requested page protection for this article as, without any sourcing or explanations for these changes, very few of the populations can be considered to be accurate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
France is listed with the note " Excluding French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion." While it's logical not to count those of the French Overseas Collectivities which are dependencies, the above regions aren't; they're full parts of France. If we're going to list apart all countries regions and subtract the shares from each countries total, it will just be a list of Regional entities and dependencies by population. If we're not, why only for France?
If it's because they're overseas, why is Hawaii, for example, included in the US total? Either Hawaii is included, and the five french regions are as well, either they're both listed apart and their population deduced from the US and France respectively. What is the logic otherwise?
Going with the same country's example, Puerto Rico and Guam are listed as dependencies, as they're not fully part of the US. It's the same with French Polynesia or New Caledonia. But Hawaii, fully part of the US, isn't a dependencies. So are the five above mentioned regions. They should be included in France's total. -- Aréat ( talk) 14:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
About the Third Opinion request: The request made for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution requires thorough talk page discussion — not just discussion through edit summaries — before seeking assistance. Discussion here is barely begun. After the matter has been thoroughly discussed, feel free to refile for dispute resolution if the matter cannot be worked out. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information". If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.-- Aréat ( talk) 7:11 pm, Today (UTC+11), [6] making it clear that Hawaii is only being added because Aréat cannot remove French dependencies. Looking at the individual articles for the 5 entries that are being removed I see
I reverted the addition twice, pointing out that Hawaii is a US state. Please note that, with very few exceptions, any Wikipedian is free to participate in any discussion, and I will continue to do so, especially when editors are editing disruptively. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I see User:Aréat has gone ahead and made the changes. I'll note that this contradicts the opening statement that the list is "primarily based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." I have no problem with us doing that (like I said, I think it's the right thing to do), but we should either remove this line about the ISO standard (but then we have to explain why our treatment of the UK differs from our treatment of the Netherlands) or qualify it with this exception. Cobblet ( talk) 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Should the note on "United States" be amended to read "50 states, District of Columbia and tribal jurisdictions"? As far as I understand, they are considered sovereign nations and not part of their surrounding states. I assume they are part of the same population count though.-- occono ( talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I am questioning the "citation needed" tag for this para: The population figures do not reflect the practice of countries that report significantly different populations of citizens domestically and overall. Some countries, notably Thailand, do not report total population, exclusively counting citizens; for total populations an international agency must issue an estimate.[citation needed] If a country does not report the data, then who would have reliable information if not "an international agency". Does that sentence really need verification? -- Hlphowell ( talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not really care if the number for Ukraine is given including or excluding Crimea and Sevastopol, as long as it is clearly stated in a note, but I suggest that the numbers for Crimea and Sevastopol are given in the note, so that people can do their own addition or subtraction if they want toe. My concern is really about which numbers to take from the source. The source gives two tables, one for the present population and one for the resident populations. It is the second one that is most relevant here, so the numbers for 1 april will be 45,197,226 and 42,853,396 including/exluding. Please continue to use the resident population numbers in future updates, too. And please do not forget to put the same number into the formula for the percentage calculation. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 05:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You made a mistake. The quantity of available population - 1.05.2014 - 43 009 258 (excluding Crimea and Sevastopol). You write that permanent population - 1.05.2014 - 42 839 621. But statistics gives an available population, as well as it is here resulted to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.34.221 ( talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should the population of Ukraine be without Crimea? There are very few countries that have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea as legal. On the contrary, The International Criminal Court (ICC) has described Russia's annexation as an illegal occupation…!!! Bjjobe ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between the two sources used to state the population of Iran by the pages of: Iran, and this article ( List of countries and dependencies by population). The page of Iran uses the CIA World Facebook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) which estimates the population to be: 82,801,633, as of July 2016. This article, however, uses the official statistics provided by Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/). Although, I was not able to find a link to the 79,880,300 (as of 2nd February 2017) that is claimed by the reference.
The two citations are inherently contradictory, especially the one that is used in this article, as it suggests that between 2016 and 2017, Iran has had a population decline of almost 3,000,000 million. This claim is without foundation and corroboration. Moreover, the figure that is used here also contradicts with the population of Iran in 2016 and the country's estimated rate of population growth. The difference in the two citations is not a matter of accuracy. One of them is wrong.
For the sake of accuracy and consistency, as stipulated by the various subpages of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, I strongly recommend changing the reference used from Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) to the CIA World Facebook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) and making the appropriate alternations. It is also questionable if using the Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) as a point of reference would be in violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Thanks, NuturalObserver ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally there has been minor fights about which countries/areas to include and which not, about which countries/areas to be numbered and which not etc. in this list. The last change was made by removing the numbering from Palestine. Earlier conflicts have included Kosovo and several other entities with disputed or uncertain status. The problem seems to be that there is not any inclusion criteria (or numbering criteria) in the article. In many other similar articles, the lede gives a clear indication of the inclusion criteria, like in List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. In essence, this is the same categorization as in the "mother" article List of sovereign states and several similar articles. My opinion is to follow the criteria from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and possibly include the criteria in the text of the article.Therefore I will reinstate the numbering for Palestine and remove the numbering from Taiwan. In any case, why should we include Taiwan (not UN recognized and recognized by 21 countries) in the numbering, when Kosovo (not UN recognized and recognized by 111 countries) and Palestine (UN observer state and recognized by 136 UN members)? Whatever criteria, Palestine should come first, Kosovo second and Taiwan third. The next question is: Should we include text explaining the criteria in the article? -- T*U ( talk) 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
We have an editor who is moving the article with no discussion. He wants to move it to "List of sovereign states and dependencies by population." The thing is some of these entities are countries NOT sovereign states (Taiwan for instance), so the article listings would be in error or the offending countries would need to be removed. I thought this merited discussion before moving and changing the lead so I'm opening this thread. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The colours for Czechia, Slovakia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Slovenia on the world map are all wrong. I hope this was the right place to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.133.226 ( talk) 11:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC) The latter two still have the wrong colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.251.66 ( talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The formatting of the note in the Cyprus entry caught my eye. I looked at the item cited as a WP:EL there, thinking that I might Ref-ize it. I saw that it is in Turkish, is from 2011, and (according to Google Translate) is of questionable b[earing on the population of Cyprus, so I just removed the note. The note which I removed mentions a figure of 294,396. The EL in the removed note says something about that on page 11. Google Translate can translate it from Turkish, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
Then, I looked at the Official Estimate item cited for Cyprus ( [9]). I saw nothing there to support the population assertion of 848,300 (December 31, 2015), but following links there eventually led me to this report dated November 2015, which says on page 11 that the population of Cyprus was estimated at 938,400 at the end of 2014. I changed the article assertion re the population of Cyprus to match this.
Revise or improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
We haven't had this date yet. Please remove data calculated for the future. -- 188.99.140.215 ( talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I realize this is a political hornet's nest to wade into, but here goes. I don't have any particular beef with listing Israel and Palestine separately and putting a number on Palestine like the other UN states, but given the confused geography of the area under control of various contending parties I think we need some explanatory footnotes like the kind indicating that Serbia's numbers don't include Kosovo, Russia includes Crimea, etc. So, for instance: Does the Israeli population figure include official and/or unofficial settlements of Israeli citizens in the West Bank? Does the Palestine figure include Arab residents of East Jerusalem, or perhaps all residents? These are not marginal questions: Israeli settlers make up more than 10% of the West Bank's population. I know this is a thicket where even seemingly simple demographic questions are weaponized, but we want to provide at least some guidance on where these numbers are coming from, and also make sure we aren't double-counting people in both line items.
(I'm assuming here that the Gaza Strip's population is also under Palestine, which is in my opinion the best way to approach it, but there should probably be a note to that effect, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are effectively under separate government.)
The Golan Heights poses a similar question, though it's simpler -- I'm guessing that its population is all listed under Israel and not Syria? Though perhaps the Druze who haven't accepted Israeli citizenship are still listed in the Syrian numbers? Either way, there should probably be a footnote on this as well. Again, I'm not proposing that Wikipedia take some stand on any of these disputes, just that we should be clear what the numbers we're presenting from these contested parts of the world actually represent. -- Jfruh ( talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just restored content for Morocco and Saudi Arabia that was recently deleted. [10] There are far too many of this type of unexplained edits in the article. This particular edit also removed one of the data templates. For the record, as of now, the following data templates are being used in this article:
As explained in the page editnotice, these should not be replaced with a manual calculation in this article. Instead the data template should be updated correctly. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
While I get the distinction between regular overseas territories and overseas, but integral territories, I also understand why someone would expect to see them separated here. Perhaps the issue could be solved with explaining the issue in the Notes section. Right now the note at the France entry only mentions the excluded territories, but it could just as well mention the included territories and list their populations and Metropolitan France's population in the comment. H2ppyme ( talk) 10:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be nice if the table could show geographic percentage as well. Such as ... I don't know... China, 20% world population and 15% geographic (surface) percentage or so. This could be obtained automatically perhaps from other data stored in wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F ( talk) 12:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
mexico very renctly became the 10th most populus country — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
instead to add " own projections of organisations" why not add national statistic that are more realistic ?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There ara other countries without internatonally recognise, for example Taiwan Rollerman ( talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
there NOT dependent territories there 3 special municipalitys (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this ( talk • contribs) 03:51, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
There is an inconcistency between the table and the pie chart of percentages at the top right of the page. For instance, Brazil and Pakistan are in reverse order in the pie chart, which I presume is out of date rather than the article itself.
So do we remove the chart, or does some kindly soul recreate the image?
Thanks. Silentcontributor ( talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please fix the ranks. This is a common mistake, but it is a mistake.
The rank tells how many are above, not how many categories are above.
If I tell you that a guy finished a competition with two people ahead of him and ask you for his rank you will say 'third'. What you won't do is ask if the top two tied, and say if they tied he came in second.
I want to see what is the median population, but I can't readily find it because the ranks are screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.112.226 ( talk) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the United Nations, this country has much more inhabitants. Propositum ( talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It is also worth adding that we have significant differences regarding China, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Afghanistan. Propositum ( talk) 10:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody changed the order by putting Pakistan ahead of Brazil, but the source given does not corroborate the change. Actually, the source given does not present a full number for the population of Pakistan - it only leads to the census 2017, which in the end found out Pakistan had 207 million people: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1490674/57-increase-pakistans-population-19-years-shows-new-census/
Brazil, on the other hand, has 208 million people, as the source indicated corretly points out. It needs fixing, then. 195.25.191.145 ( talk) 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to favour de facto rather than de jure rankings, in light of this why is Somaliland not listed as a separate entity? I have quite an issue with any definition of dependent territory as well, why aren't the constituent republics of Russia for example, treated as different autonomous regions, and therefore having their own ranking? How many countries have autonomous regions? Why does it seem only Western territories are included in this definition, with the exception of previous Western 'colonies' like Hong Kong and Macau.
2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 ( talk) 12:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The article detailing the foreign relations of Somaliland states it has political contacts with many countries, although you are right its international recognition is limited. It seems the door has been opened by the inclusion of other states with limited recognition. My objection is not because I wish to see Somaliland ranked, but rather the ranked Somalia entry should exclude Somaliland from its population figures so it is consistent with other states that have limited recognition. For more detail see /info/en/?search=Foreign_relations_of_Somaliland
The article also states that Somaliland passports are accepted by eight countries, none of which have limited recognition.
As for the dependent territories I question why they are even listed. It seems every country in the world has regions with varying degrees of autonomy, yet we wouldn't list every single US state or UK county council.
2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 ( talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can anyone tell me why Taiwan is ranked in this list while the much more well-recognised Kosovo is not? Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:4186:47C4:72C7:DB9D ( talk) 10:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I collected population counts via WorldBank API from 2016 and compared with this page. Many population counts are reasonably close between these two sources, but there are exceptions. If you're interested, the comparison is in this Excel file.
Some of the outliers, at both extremes:
Country | Wikipedia | World Bank | Wp:WB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyprus | 854800 | 1170125 | 73.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Afghanistan | 29724323 | 34656032 | 85.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mauritania | 3806719 | 4301018 | 88.5% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pakistan | 212082000 | 193203476 | 109.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Guam | 184200 | 162896 | 113.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eritrea | 5068831 | 4474690 | 113.3% |
Erik Zachte ( talk) 15:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors, please just check the official population clock of Pakistan on the bottom of offical page above: https://pwd.punjab.gov.pk
As you can see the estime of population is 201MI, no 212MI as this article of Wikipedia shows. It’s not acceptable use Wikipedia for political purposes and/or propaganda. I already tried edit the article and fix this error, but always one editor undo. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This article must be merge with the UN's Estimate article, as it basically the same. 174.112.50.125 ( talk) 07:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately it is up to us editors to decide which is best, a single article covering both views, or a forked articles. Examples of articles combining views are List of countries by proven oil reserves and List of countries by military expenditures. I think, when dealing with varying opinions, there is an added value in combining articles - "experts disagree". That added value is the ease with which the reader can compare the views of the experts. Batternut ( talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Noramiao: Your edits are problematic and have been reverted:
If you want to continue working for your suggested changes, you should use the talk page before trying to re-add them. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD about how Wikipedia works. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 08:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
1. T*U, you interrupted the process not just Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, but the rest to be numbered too, if you are not helping at least do not interrupt.
2. You said that CIA and BBC "should not be used". Why not? Why ignore two of the most updated sources ?
3. If you use critical thinking, you would realize the importance to work with the latest data.
4. If you have any decency, while I'm updating the population change, then you would jump and help with the numbering and the sources.
5. You should contribute to update, not to waste time lecturing, when it's beyond obvious that you are wrong.
6. With all due respect, look at the "contribution/consensus rules" first.
Noramiao ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
1. Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensus. The confirmation is that the CIA website as well as the Spanish, French, Russian, etc. versions of the article are the way I said it that it should be here too.
2. I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rules, yes someone can change it after me, but I have the right to do exactly what I think it's proper.
3. CIA data might say that it is from July, but the CIA is updated TWICE a month, and it's shown on the top of the the website ( not where you are looking on the side). Which means that that when I changed the date to August, this is because I want everyone to know when was the lastest update for the information, not the latest date for the census.
4. I will repeat myself about two things again. First it's crucial to work with the latest data and second if you are not helping to update at least do not interrupt. Updating is a longer process. You can not update everything with one edit. You should look what hasn't been updated and simply update what's not updated instead being rude and instead of interrupting.
5. I was never uncivil, anyone implying the opposite is not a clever person.
6. Worldometers is using data directly from the UN. Projections are not relevant. Its crucial to work with the latest data, not just for this article but in general.
7. You said you'll pass. Then pass and don't interefere for no reason by interrupting. If I completed what I was doing, everything would look more simplyfied, pleasant, reliable and making more sense. Everything is numbered and you said it was numbered by 2015, it should be numbered even now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensusindicates that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS states that "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals—i.e., to achieve the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote. Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Your personal interpretation of "common sense" and "critical thinking" can never "dictate" a presentation unless there is a consensus with other editors.
I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rulesalso shows that you have not understood what the 5th pillar is about. When it says "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time", it means that policies and guidelines may change over time. It does not give anyone carte blanche for breaking the policies and guidelines. In a certain sense you "have the right to change it", since in principle everyone has the "right" to edit Wikipedia. But if you consistently and repeatedly ignore the rules of Wikipedia with your edits, this "right" may be taken away from you for a shorter or longer period.
The link for India goes to worldpopulationclock, which is a source that should not be used in this article per section "Method". Taking a closer look, the data in the table do not conform to that site, so that is OK if we remove the link. But where do the numbers from? The description in the template {{ Data India}} confirms that the popclock numbers in the template are not based on any official population clock. According to the methodology of this article, we should probably not use the Data India numbers at all, and it should certainly not be sourced as an "Official population clock". I have not even been able to find any official national estimates or projections, but they may of course exist – somewhere. If not, we should probably use UN numbers for India. Pinging regular contributors Eric car, AussieLegend, Sokndal, MIHAIL for input. -- T*U ( talk) 10:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Why there is not included the British Indian Ocean territory in the list?
Wikiperuvian: Your change of the entry for Peru does superficially look like giving a newer estimate, but it is not. The census from October 2017 is (obviously) from 2017. The estimate for 2018 is from the publication Perú: Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Total, por Años Calendario y Edades Simples, 1950-2050, dated "Lima, setiembre 2009". Even if it is an estimate for the year 2018, the estimate itself is nine years old and is based on the census of 2007. I am not certain that this fills the criterium "the most up to date estimate or projections". The census number 31,237,385 is significantly lower than the Estimaciones number for 2017 (31,826,018) and even lower than the 2016 number (31,488,625). Also, the INEI website presents the projection numbers from the Estimaciones in a graphic presentation called "Población Proyectada", but they only give the numbers up to 2017. My suggestion is that we use the 2017 census result (which, after all, is fairly new) until the INEI comes up with new projections/estimates based on this newest census.
Just a small detail: The graphic presentation in the INEI website states that the numbers are "Estimación oficial de la población, al 30 de junio de cada año", so they are midyear projections, which is the most common way of giving yearly estimates. For now, I will correct the date, but am hoping you will agree to changing back to the census. -- T*U ( talk) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Per discussion /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_2#European_Union_entry it was "apparently" decided not to include the European Union on the list, even though several people have stated its usefulness in statistics.
If the EU is not to be included on the list because "it is not recognized as a soverign nation" then logically neither shall Hong Kong nor Macau. They are not sovereign nations, but are semi-autonomous regions and part of People's Republic of China. Attempted statements otherwise can be seen as attempted separatist movements, which does not belong on this page. - Foorack ( talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we please put a stop to the constant editing of the Indonesia entry by anonymous editors using IPv6 addresses starting with "2a01:598". Since at least late June 2018, someone has made edits to this page to change the population from 265,015,300 to 265,015,301 and back again in successive edits (13 times in 26 edits since the start of December). These edits are utterly pointless. Mind matrix 14:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This
edit request to
List of countries and dependencies by population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Palestine or fix the numbering problem I noted above, that nobody has bothered to respond to.
110.22.123.142 ( talk) 07:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of countries and dependencies by population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Population of Portugal needs update. According to the last official estimate numbers (18/12/2015), total resident population is 10 374 822 [1] Thank you PedroFerrer ( talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The population table in this article is being edited daily, usually several times by different editors, changes being unsourced and devoid of edit summaries, except for those made by well established editors, and data templates are still being replaced by manual calculations. I have notified all related WikiProjects and requested page protection for this article as, without any sourcing or explanations for these changes, very few of the populations can be considered to be accurate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
France is listed with the note " Excluding French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion." While it's logical not to count those of the French Overseas Collectivities which are dependencies, the above regions aren't; they're full parts of France. If we're going to list apart all countries regions and subtract the shares from each countries total, it will just be a list of Regional entities and dependencies by population. If we're not, why only for France?
If it's because they're overseas, why is Hawaii, for example, included in the US total? Either Hawaii is included, and the five french regions are as well, either they're both listed apart and their population deduced from the US and France respectively. What is the logic otherwise?
Going with the same country's example, Puerto Rico and Guam are listed as dependencies, as they're not fully part of the US. It's the same with French Polynesia or New Caledonia. But Hawaii, fully part of the US, isn't a dependencies. So are the five above mentioned regions. They should be included in France's total. -- Aréat ( talk) 14:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
About the Third Opinion request: The request made for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution requires thorough talk page discussion — not just discussion through edit summaries — before seeking assistance. Discussion here is barely begun. After the matter has been thoroughly discussed, feel free to refile for dispute resolution if the matter cannot be worked out. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information". If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.-- Aréat ( talk) 7:11 pm, Today (UTC+11), [6] making it clear that Hawaii is only being added because Aréat cannot remove French dependencies. Looking at the individual articles for the 5 entries that are being removed I see
I reverted the addition twice, pointing out that Hawaii is a US state. Please note that, with very few exceptions, any Wikipedian is free to participate in any discussion, and I will continue to do so, especially when editors are editing disruptively. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I see User:Aréat has gone ahead and made the changes. I'll note that this contradicts the opening statement that the list is "primarily based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." I have no problem with us doing that (like I said, I think it's the right thing to do), but we should either remove this line about the ISO standard (but then we have to explain why our treatment of the UK differs from our treatment of the Netherlands) or qualify it with this exception. Cobblet ( talk) 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Should the note on "United States" be amended to read "50 states, District of Columbia and tribal jurisdictions"? As far as I understand, they are considered sovereign nations and not part of their surrounding states. I assume they are part of the same population count though.-- occono ( talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I am questioning the "citation needed" tag for this para: The population figures do not reflect the practice of countries that report significantly different populations of citizens domestically and overall. Some countries, notably Thailand, do not report total population, exclusively counting citizens; for total populations an international agency must issue an estimate.[citation needed] If a country does not report the data, then who would have reliable information if not "an international agency". Does that sentence really need verification? -- Hlphowell ( talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not really care if the number for Ukraine is given including or excluding Crimea and Sevastopol, as long as it is clearly stated in a note, but I suggest that the numbers for Crimea and Sevastopol are given in the note, so that people can do their own addition or subtraction if they want toe. My concern is really about which numbers to take from the source. The source gives two tables, one for the present population and one for the resident populations. It is the second one that is most relevant here, so the numbers for 1 april will be 45,197,226 and 42,853,396 including/exluding. Please continue to use the resident population numbers in future updates, too. And please do not forget to put the same number into the formula for the percentage calculation. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 05:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You made a mistake. The quantity of available population - 1.05.2014 - 43 009 258 (excluding Crimea and Sevastopol). You write that permanent population - 1.05.2014 - 42 839 621. But statistics gives an available population, as well as it is here resulted to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.34.221 ( talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should the population of Ukraine be without Crimea? There are very few countries that have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea as legal. On the contrary, The International Criminal Court (ICC) has described Russia's annexation as an illegal occupation…!!! Bjjobe ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between the two sources used to state the population of Iran by the pages of: Iran, and this article ( List of countries and dependencies by population). The page of Iran uses the CIA World Facebook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) which estimates the population to be: 82,801,633, as of July 2016. This article, however, uses the official statistics provided by Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/). Although, I was not able to find a link to the 79,880,300 (as of 2nd February 2017) that is claimed by the reference.
The two citations are inherently contradictory, especially the one that is used in this article, as it suggests that between 2016 and 2017, Iran has had a population decline of almost 3,000,000 million. This claim is without foundation and corroboration. Moreover, the figure that is used here also contradicts with the population of Iran in 2016 and the country's estimated rate of population growth. The difference in the two citations is not a matter of accuracy. One of them is wrong.
For the sake of accuracy and consistency, as stipulated by the various subpages of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, I strongly recommend changing the reference used from Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) to the CIA World Facebook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html) and making the appropriate alternations. It is also questionable if using the Statistic Centre of Iran ( https://www.amar.org.ir/english/) as a point of reference would be in violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Thanks, NuturalObserver ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally there has been minor fights about which countries/areas to include and which not, about which countries/areas to be numbered and which not etc. in this list. The last change was made by removing the numbering from Palestine. Earlier conflicts have included Kosovo and several other entities with disputed or uncertain status. The problem seems to be that there is not any inclusion criteria (or numbering criteria) in the article. In many other similar articles, the lede gives a clear indication of the inclusion criteria, like in List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. In essence, this is the same categorization as in the "mother" article List of sovereign states and several similar articles. My opinion is to follow the criteria from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and possibly include the criteria in the text of the article.Therefore I will reinstate the numbering for Palestine and remove the numbering from Taiwan. In any case, why should we include Taiwan (not UN recognized and recognized by 21 countries) in the numbering, when Kosovo (not UN recognized and recognized by 111 countries) and Palestine (UN observer state and recognized by 136 UN members)? Whatever criteria, Palestine should come first, Kosovo second and Taiwan third. The next question is: Should we include text explaining the criteria in the article? -- T*U ( talk) 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
We have an editor who is moving the article with no discussion. He wants to move it to "List of sovereign states and dependencies by population." The thing is some of these entities are countries NOT sovereign states (Taiwan for instance), so the article listings would be in error or the offending countries would need to be removed. I thought this merited discussion before moving and changing the lead so I'm opening this thread. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The colours for Czechia, Slovakia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Slovenia on the world map are all wrong. I hope this was the right place to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.133.226 ( talk) 11:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC) The latter two still have the wrong colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.251.66 ( talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The formatting of the note in the Cyprus entry caught my eye. I looked at the item cited as a WP:EL there, thinking that I might Ref-ize it. I saw that it is in Turkish, is from 2011, and (according to Google Translate) is of questionable b[earing on the population of Cyprus, so I just removed the note. The note which I removed mentions a figure of 294,396. The EL in the removed note says something about that on page 11. Google Translate can translate it from Turkish, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
Then, I looked at the Official Estimate item cited for Cyprus ( [9]). I saw nothing there to support the population assertion of 848,300 (December 31, 2015), but following links there eventually led me to this report dated November 2015, which says on page 11 that the population of Cyprus was estimated at 938,400 at the end of 2014. I changed the article assertion re the population of Cyprus to match this.
Revise or improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
We haven't had this date yet. Please remove data calculated for the future. -- 188.99.140.215 ( talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I realize this is a political hornet's nest to wade into, but here goes. I don't have any particular beef with listing Israel and Palestine separately and putting a number on Palestine like the other UN states, but given the confused geography of the area under control of various contending parties I think we need some explanatory footnotes like the kind indicating that Serbia's numbers don't include Kosovo, Russia includes Crimea, etc. So, for instance: Does the Israeli population figure include official and/or unofficial settlements of Israeli citizens in the West Bank? Does the Palestine figure include Arab residents of East Jerusalem, or perhaps all residents? These are not marginal questions: Israeli settlers make up more than 10% of the West Bank's population. I know this is a thicket where even seemingly simple demographic questions are weaponized, but we want to provide at least some guidance on where these numbers are coming from, and also make sure we aren't double-counting people in both line items.
(I'm assuming here that the Gaza Strip's population is also under Palestine, which is in my opinion the best way to approach it, but there should probably be a note to that effect, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are effectively under separate government.)
The Golan Heights poses a similar question, though it's simpler -- I'm guessing that its population is all listed under Israel and not Syria? Though perhaps the Druze who haven't accepted Israeli citizenship are still listed in the Syrian numbers? Either way, there should probably be a footnote on this as well. Again, I'm not proposing that Wikipedia take some stand on any of these disputes, just that we should be clear what the numbers we're presenting from these contested parts of the world actually represent. -- Jfruh ( talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just restored content for Morocco and Saudi Arabia that was recently deleted. [10] There are far too many of this type of unexplained edits in the article. This particular edit also removed one of the data templates. For the record, as of now, the following data templates are being used in this article:
As explained in the page editnotice, these should not be replaced with a manual calculation in this article. Instead the data template should be updated correctly. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
While I get the distinction between regular overseas territories and overseas, but integral territories, I also understand why someone would expect to see them separated here. Perhaps the issue could be solved with explaining the issue in the Notes section. Right now the note at the France entry only mentions the excluded territories, but it could just as well mention the included territories and list their populations and Metropolitan France's population in the comment. H2ppyme ( talk) 10:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be nice if the table could show geographic percentage as well. Such as ... I don't know... China, 20% world population and 15% geographic (surface) percentage or so. This could be obtained automatically perhaps from other data stored in wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F ( talk) 12:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
mexico very renctly became the 10th most populus country — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
instead to add " own projections of organisations" why not add national statistic that are more realistic ?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There ara other countries without internatonally recognise, for example Taiwan Rollerman ( talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
there NOT dependent territories there 3 special municipalitys (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this ( talk • contribs) 03:51, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
There is an inconcistency between the table and the pie chart of percentages at the top right of the page. For instance, Brazil and Pakistan are in reverse order in the pie chart, which I presume is out of date rather than the article itself.
So do we remove the chart, or does some kindly soul recreate the image?
Thanks. Silentcontributor ( talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please fix the ranks. This is a common mistake, but it is a mistake.
The rank tells how many are above, not how many categories are above.
If I tell you that a guy finished a competition with two people ahead of him and ask you for his rank you will say 'third'. What you won't do is ask if the top two tied, and say if they tied he came in second.
I want to see what is the median population, but I can't readily find it because the ranks are screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.112.226 ( talk) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries and dependencies by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the United Nations, this country has much more inhabitants. Propositum ( talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It is also worth adding that we have significant differences regarding China, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Afghanistan. Propositum ( talk) 10:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody changed the order by putting Pakistan ahead of Brazil, but the source given does not corroborate the change. Actually, the source given does not present a full number for the population of Pakistan - it only leads to the census 2017, which in the end found out Pakistan had 207 million people: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1490674/57-increase-pakistans-population-19-years-shows-new-census/
Brazil, on the other hand, has 208 million people, as the source indicated corretly points out. It needs fixing, then. 195.25.191.145 ( talk) 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to favour de facto rather than de jure rankings, in light of this why is Somaliland not listed as a separate entity? I have quite an issue with any definition of dependent territory as well, why aren't the constituent republics of Russia for example, treated as different autonomous regions, and therefore having their own ranking? How many countries have autonomous regions? Why does it seem only Western territories are included in this definition, with the exception of previous Western 'colonies' like Hong Kong and Macau.
2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 ( talk) 12:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The article detailing the foreign relations of Somaliland states it has political contacts with many countries, although you are right its international recognition is limited. It seems the door has been opened by the inclusion of other states with limited recognition. My objection is not because I wish to see Somaliland ranked, but rather the ranked Somalia entry should exclude Somaliland from its population figures so it is consistent with other states that have limited recognition. For more detail see /info/en/?search=Foreign_relations_of_Somaliland
The article also states that Somaliland passports are accepted by eight countries, none of which have limited recognition.
As for the dependent territories I question why they are even listed. It seems every country in the world has regions with varying degrees of autonomy, yet we wouldn't list every single US state or UK county council.
2A02:C7D:367B:E100:99B6:860C:A14D:6F64 ( talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can anyone tell me why Taiwan is ranked in this list while the much more well-recognised Kosovo is not? Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:4186:47C4:72C7:DB9D ( talk) 10:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I collected population counts via WorldBank API from 2016 and compared with this page. Many population counts are reasonably close between these two sources, but there are exceptions. If you're interested, the comparison is in this Excel file.
Some of the outliers, at both extremes:
Country | Wikipedia | World Bank | Wp:WB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyprus | 854800 | 1170125 | 73.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Afghanistan | 29724323 | 34656032 | 85.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mauritania | 3806719 | 4301018 | 88.5% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pakistan | 212082000 | 193203476 | 109.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Guam | 184200 | 162896 | 113.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eritrea | 5068831 | 4474690 | 113.3% |
Erik Zachte ( talk) 15:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors, please just check the official population clock of Pakistan on the bottom of offical page above: https://pwd.punjab.gov.pk
As you can see the estime of population is 201MI, no 212MI as this article of Wikipedia shows. It’s not acceptable use Wikipedia for political purposes and/or propaganda. I already tried edit the article and fix this error, but always one editor undo. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This article must be merge with the UN's Estimate article, as it basically the same. 174.112.50.125 ( talk) 07:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately it is up to us editors to decide which is best, a single article covering both views, or a forked articles. Examples of articles combining views are List of countries by proven oil reserves and List of countries by military expenditures. I think, when dealing with varying opinions, there is an added value in combining articles - "experts disagree". That added value is the ease with which the reader can compare the views of the experts. Batternut ( talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Noramiao: Your edits are problematic and have been reverted:
If you want to continue working for your suggested changes, you should use the talk page before trying to re-add them. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD about how Wikipedia works. Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 08:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
1. T*U, you interrupted the process not just Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, but the rest to be numbered too, if you are not helping at least do not interrupt.
2. You said that CIA and BBC "should not be used". Why not? Why ignore two of the most updated sources ?
3. If you use critical thinking, you would realize the importance to work with the latest data.
4. If you have any decency, while I'm updating the population change, then you would jump and help with the numbering and the sources.
5. You should contribute to update, not to waste time lecturing, when it's beyond obvious that you are wrong.
6. With all due respect, look at the "contribution/consensus rules" first.
Noramiao ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
1. Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensus. The confirmation is that the CIA website as well as the Spanish, French, Russian, etc. versions of the article are the way I said it that it should be here too.
2. I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rules, yes someone can change it after me, but I have the right to do exactly what I think it's proper.
3. CIA data might say that it is from July, but the CIA is updated TWICE a month, and it's shown on the top of the the website ( not where you are looking on the side). Which means that that when I changed the date to August, this is because I want everyone to know when was the lastest update for the information, not the latest date for the census.
4. I will repeat myself about two things again. First it's crucial to work with the latest data and second if you are not helping to update at least do not interrupt. Updating is a longer process. You can not update everything with one edit. You should look what hasn't been updated and simply update what's not updated instead being rude and instead of interrupting.
5. I was never uncivil, anyone implying the opposite is not a clever person.
6. Worldometers is using data directly from the UN. Projections are not relevant. Its crucial to work with the latest data, not just for this article but in general.
7. You said you'll pass. Then pass and don't interefere for no reason by interrupting. If I completed what I was doing, everything would look more simplyfied, pleasant, reliable and making more sense. Everything is numbered and you said it was numbered by 2015, it should be numbered even now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Common sense and critical thinking are dictating over consensusindicates that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia policy WP:CONSENSUS states that "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals—i.e., to achieve the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote. Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Your personal interpretation of "common sense" and "critical thinking" can never "dictate" a presentation unless there is a consensus with other editors.
I have the right to change it, because the 5th pillar says there are no firm rulesalso shows that you have not understood what the 5th pillar is about. When it says "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time", it means that policies and guidelines may change over time. It does not give anyone carte blanche for breaking the policies and guidelines. In a certain sense you "have the right to change it", since in principle everyone has the "right" to edit Wikipedia. But if you consistently and repeatedly ignore the rules of Wikipedia with your edits, this "right" may be taken away from you for a shorter or longer period.
The link for India goes to worldpopulationclock, which is a source that should not be used in this article per section "Method". Taking a closer look, the data in the table do not conform to that site, so that is OK if we remove the link. But where do the numbers from? The description in the template {{ Data India}} confirms that the popclock numbers in the template are not based on any official population clock. According to the methodology of this article, we should probably not use the Data India numbers at all, and it should certainly not be sourced as an "Official population clock". I have not even been able to find any official national estimates or projections, but they may of course exist – somewhere. If not, we should probably use UN numbers for India. Pinging regular contributors Eric car, AussieLegend, Sokndal, MIHAIL for input. -- T*U ( talk) 10:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Why there is not included the British Indian Ocean territory in the list?
Wikiperuvian: Your change of the entry for Peru does superficially look like giving a newer estimate, but it is not. The census from October 2017 is (obviously) from 2017. The estimate for 2018 is from the publication Perú: Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Total, por Años Calendario y Edades Simples, 1950-2050, dated "Lima, setiembre 2009". Even if it is an estimate for the year 2018, the estimate itself is nine years old and is based on the census of 2007. I am not certain that this fills the criterium "the most up to date estimate or projections". The census number 31,237,385 is significantly lower than the Estimaciones number for 2017 (31,826,018) and even lower than the 2016 number (31,488,625). Also, the INEI website presents the projection numbers from the Estimaciones in a graphic presentation called "Población Proyectada", but they only give the numbers up to 2017. My suggestion is that we use the 2017 census result (which, after all, is fairly new) until the INEI comes up with new projections/estimates based on this newest census.
Just a small detail: The graphic presentation in the INEI website states that the numbers are "Estimación oficial de la población, al 30 de junio de cada año", so they are midyear projections, which is the most common way of giving yearly estimates. For now, I will correct the date, but am hoping you will agree to changing back to the census. -- T*U ( talk) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Per discussion /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_2#European_Union_entry it was "apparently" decided not to include the European Union on the list, even though several people have stated its usefulness in statistics.
If the EU is not to be included on the list because "it is not recognized as a soverign nation" then logically neither shall Hong Kong nor Macau. They are not sovereign nations, but are semi-autonomous regions and part of People's Republic of China. Attempted statements otherwise can be seen as attempted separatist movements, which does not belong on this page. - Foorack ( talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we please put a stop to the constant editing of the Indonesia entry by anonymous editors using IPv6 addresses starting with "2a01:598". Since at least late June 2018, someone has made edits to this page to change the population from 265,015,300 to 265,015,301 and back again in successive edits (13 times in 26 edits since the start of December). These edits are utterly pointless. Mind matrix 14:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)