Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 10

Venezuelan and other non-quoted population of country source update 2020
Hi,

The estimation of Venezuela and other countries need to be updated to new decade 2020 (at least projections and cit).

For the case of Venezuela it is not cited with link the reference (or not wanted to be by some users) and when you visit the link for Venezuela national authority, as for the other countries, adding this information seems to be the date of the web-page update but not the actual year of when the projection was made: (Read "Población Proyectada al 30/06/2019 - Base Censo 2011" when being able to visit it).

Moreover, the current page of that national source is partially unavailable, for some browsers or locations, you have to turn ON/OFF cookies or do private navigation in some browsers to avoid the bugs on that webpage. That's the reason why that for such case a more reliable and accessible source has to be added.

Please visit https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx and see that the current estimation is different for each of the non-quoted countries / year.

Finally please note the projection of Venezuela that was made on 2011 by the goverment with Census of 2010, published on 2011, I know it, was a static projection until 2050, and every year seemed to be updated following that file in this wiki. This disrupts factual information since they are suffering an incremented refugee crisis since 2012-2014 (still today) not even taken into account even if we take UN numbers following the rule of more accessible source (see the webpage file if you can for contrast and verification of what I said http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls).

I'll try to update some.

Best regards,--Santelli 09:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs)
 * The problem of national web sites changing their structure and/or not always being accessible does not change the criteria of this page, described in the "Method" section: Figures used in this chart are based on the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority where available. The use of UN estimates is a back-up solution for those (few) countries that have a non-functioning statistics division, and it has never been an option to choose UN numbers as an alternative when national numbers exist. You are mentioning "the rule of more accessible source"; could you please give a link to where I'll find this rule, which is new to me. You state that it is problematic to access the Venezuela web site; nevertheless you are linking to the relevant table http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls, where the formerly quoted number is presented. As the criteria in the "Method" section are presented, there is no reason to choose UN numbers over the national estimation. If you want to challenge that, you will need to create a consensus for the changed criteria. If not, you will have to accept the current criteria. If you want to change the criteria, please start a RfC or similar in order to create consensus. If not, you should self revert.
 * The same considerations are also valid for your edit to Saudi Arabia. And by the way, that edit can never, never be considered a minor edit, see WP:NOTMINOR. Regards! --T*U (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi TU, I hope you're fine. Take it easy, I am contributing with the most accurate and relevant and most up to date figures and citing (for instance citing the backup). I didn't mentioned in this talk what you said I mentioned about the "structures of the web sites". That is a little lie you're adding at the beginning ;) The webpage has a problem of accessibility (I am from venezuela I know it pretty well), you can check it with different browsers, private mode ON/OFF, and locations using different proxies (normal reader doesn't know how to do that). When I pointed a webpage's file, I said "if you can" (although I know that that file accessibility is more stable than the website's "home" or its demographic "menu" or files for example in the other authority of population and for elections in venezuela the "cne" like the "ine" but where files disappear, speaking to everyone or the one of this community that would try to access it, because curious about the source I guess) to consult the file I pointed. Moreover, if you read spanish and when you access to the webpage (if you can using the instructions I proposed, again) you can discover that former figures are in fact projections made in 2011 (the file you could have downloaded is a file old of almost 10 years old). The central point of this my talk was about the venezuelan case and the quotes usage, but I added later in comments that a crisis of refugees takes place since between 2012-2014, a complex humanitarian crisis probably not even taken entirely into account even by the Backup of UN! so imagine, the people in that country fleed their country and today they may be millions less. That is also a reason to choose UN numbers (added to the reason of intermittent availability). Mr ! take it easy Mr ! I am not trying to challenge anyone or rules or methods. When you first reverted without knowing or self-asking 'what about the source?', your contribution would have been more constructive, as I am getting mine ;) (eventhough venezuela is in he rank 50 now for us : For Arabia, of course it seemed to be the second and last of the table without a reference explicit-ed or cited. I saw other sources and they corroborated the UN source. (Remember my first wrong citation of world population review website? well, I didnt used it anymore!) Why you say "never, never a minor edit !" You translate some kind of anger -as in the rest of your talk- I hope you are fine ! This is my 10th edit only something like that ! Are you from Arabia or the other country? sorry If that edit makes it loose/gain 1 position in the ranking, is that it? Hope you're not angry about that! Thanks for the link of not minor edits.Take care and show welcoming to relative new editors. Best regards,Santelli 01:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs)
 * I have indented the above posting one level in order to clarify the talk page structure. --T*U (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I never said that you had mentioned the structures of the web sites. I only mentioned it as another argument of the same type, since it has been an issue in this page in the past. Calling it a lie is bordering on a personal attack. Please make yourself aquainted with WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
 * You are not adressing the main problem with your edit. This page has a section named "Method". In that section it is stated how the figures in the table are collected: Figures used in this chart are based on the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority where available. The estimates that used to be given for Venezuela are made by the national census authority and they are available. You have accessed them, I have accessed them (from several computers). Whether other parts of their web site are unstable or otherwise difficult to access is irrelevant.
 * You may certainly be right about the UN numbers being more accurate. There are also many other countries where the UN numbers probably are more accurate. Others have argued that the figures presented in CIA World Factbook are more accurate. That may also be true. But all that is irrelevant here. Either we have to follow the criteria given in the article, or we have to change the criteria. As long as the estimate or projections by the national census authority "rule" is defined in the article, neither you nor I nor any other editor has any right to override it just because we know or think we know that our figures are somehow better. We either follow the rules or we try to get a consensus for changing them.
 * Just for your information, there is another article presenting the UN numbers: List of countries by population (United Nations).
 * Also, I am not sure how my posting may have come over as translating some kind of anger. I can only assure you that I am not angry.
 * On another note, please see WP:SIGN about how to sign your talk page postings. --T*U (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitions of "Source" type?
It would be helpful if the different types of source identified in the table's "Source" column were defined in the article. For example, what does "National population clock" mean? Acwilson9 (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't "Population" the "resident population"?!
In the note about Vatican City, I do read "The total population of 825 consisted of 453 residents and 372 nonresident citizens"

I've supposed that "Population" column shows resident population. But if it shows "resident + non resident", it not just "resident" population. Is that just about Vatican City or about the whole table?

So, what is it all about? What is "Population"? --95.249.47.130 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

TIME TO INCLUDE HONG KONG AND MACAU IN THE PEOPLE´S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People´s Republic of China, so they have to be INCLUDED in the total population of the country, and not aside.--213.60.225.183 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of EU and other entities
Background and proposal: Years of anti-EU campaign in english Wikipedia articles. Because the last EU debate for this article was promptly archived to secure anti-EU edits on the article. I reverted the changes and demand to not archive this thread until consensus is reached. Reversions or delete EU figures in the article are seen as conflict of interest and will be reverted until consensus is reached. For background information, take a look on Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, EU figures in country-related lists has more support than the opposing side, other related articles have EU figures, it's not a debate, its a conflict of interest between some anti-EU campaigners and the rest of the world (not only EU supporters)--Manlleus (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC) I propose to restore and keep EU figures with the exceptions and notes described in Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries: Vote/support: Discussions:
 * Support--Manlleus (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion from 13 years ago that has long since been superseded is irrelevant. The last discussion was not archived before consensus was reached, and the claim that it was archived prematurely is entirely false.  Your accusations against other editors are unhelpful and break WP:AGF and WP:NPA.


 * None of the objections raised in the previous discussion have changed.


 * And just for information, did you previously edit Wikipedia under another user name? Kahastok talk 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your comment describes a solid argument to support EU figures removal.--Manlleus (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why include EU figures? The unranked EU entry should be maintained and regularly reinserted when deleted without discussion. The following rationale has been provided by numerous editors and is backed by external sources and acknowledgments. a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate, EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer. Common Policy Examples in the city of Berlin: The EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects etc. In official press conferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag.Image of the German Federal Chancellery with 2 standard flags (Germany / EU flag) b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc. c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican, Hongkong and others. EU is not per se an exception. d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case. e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked. f) Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries (old but still valid, more than the short-lived thread by 2 users that originated the last anti-EU edits and reversions.)--Manlleus (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversions or delete EU figures in the article are seen as conflict of interest and will be reverted until consensus is reached. - Persistent reverting is edit warring and will not be tolerated. Your edits have been opposed and it is now up to you to convince other editors that your edits should be made. While discussion is underway, the articles stays at the status quo. Before making further edits I suggest you review WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Edit-warring will very likely result in a block. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

- Special:Contributions/Manlleus shows that you have been actively canvassing other editors to participate in this discussion. that too is not permitted! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Let's make a few comments here.

First, the OP has egregiously broken WP:CANVASS:.

Any edit by any of these editors needs to be marked as canvassed and ignored for purposes of consensus.

Second, the previous consensus applies until a new consensus is reached. This discussion endorses a longstanding consensus against inclusion. Your claim that this is a short-lived thread by 2 users is false, but even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Because the consensus before then was not to include the EU.

Third, even if this discussion were not thirteen years old and long-since superseded, and even if we accept that consensus was reached, consensus on Talk:European Union doesn't override consensus on this and other articles against including the EU.

Fourth, on the substance, the question is, does the EU meet the criteria for inclusion for this article? Is it on ISO 3166-1, and if not, is it a state with limited recognition? No and no. And all the other discussion is irrelevant. Of course, if the EU were included, the member states would need to be removed.

Finally, I note with interest that you did answer my question. Specifically, did you previously edit Wikipedia under another user name? Kahastok talk 21:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again no valid consensus and solid arguments. Only you and the other reverser in the one-sided and month-lived "debate". You are accusing me of multi-account, thanks. BTW, I've created more than +4,000 articles, +20 bold articles awarded, +80,000 edits all in the same account. I think i'm able to write talk pages too, even cross-wiki.--Manlleus (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, frankly, that makes your behaviour here somewhat more concerning. Someone with 80000 edits - even on other wikis - should have a vague idea that canvassing is inappropriate.  Somebody who knows how Wikipedia works would know that the existing consensus remains until new consensus is reached.  Somebody who knows how talk pages work would know that a 13-year old discussion on the talk page for a completely separate article makes no difference whatever.  If you really have that many edits and still don't know any of this, then WP:CIR comes into play.


 * That you (apparently) do not like this article's inclusion criteria doesn't mean they aren't important. The inclusion criteria tell us what goes on the list.  This article's criteria are ISO 3166-1 and state with limited recognition.  The EU is neither, therefore it doesn't belong.  And it doesn't matter if you consider that not a "solid" argument.  Policy disagrees with you. Kahastok talk 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I never understood this stance against „canvassing”. No one can follow all the discussions on every topic they're interested in, I don't think it's a crime to ask for the opinions of other editors who might be interested in the issue. Malleus couldn't even have known whether I'll agree with him or not, as I've never edited this page as far as I can remember.

As for the issue at hand, I'm divided about it. While it would be useful to add it for comparison, and I don't like to see information getting deleted, it wouldn't be missed that much, since the data itself is easily accessible in the European Union article. Also, I agree that inclusion would open up the list for the inclusion of any other supranational entity, and we would have to decide where to draw the line. I'm not against including it, but I'd like to know how many supranational entities are similar to the EU (too many of them would clutter the list). Actually I was more surprised to see non-independent territories on the list, especially as their selection seems quite random, with Jersey being on the list and Scotland missing, etc. – Alensha   talk  22:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Going to talk pages saying that they "demand your support to keep EU figures and data in country-related lists" is a fairly obvious breach of canvassing rules even if you weren't one of those involved in the discussion 13 years ago. It is biased (he's asking for support, not notifying you of discussion).  It's also inaccurate in implication - Manlleus proposes to add the EU to this list overturning the longstanding consensus.


 * If you're not sure why Jersey is included but not Scotland, I suggest you read up on Crown dependencies. Jersey's status is really quite different to Scotland's.


 * Fact is, we have to draw a line somewhere, and the current standard - ISO 3166-1 and states with limited recognition - is a sensible place to draw it. Kahastok talk 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alesha, Kahastok, if you read past related threads, EU's entity inclusion is mainly for informative/reference purposes even with exceptions and notes. The list criteria is not a cast-iron law. Its a figure table with other entities that aren't countries like World, Hongkong and others. I'm not into that level of discussions and I make some mistakes so I apologize of war editing or non-neutral message flodding.--Manlleus (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong is on ISO 3166-1. The World is not on our list.  If we're including the EU for information purposes, why not include the African Union?  Why not Caricom?  I'm sure a comparison between countries and US states, Canadian provinces, Chinese provinces would be informative - why not include those?  Why not include historic entities such as the Roman Empire or Ancient China or the Soviet Union?  Why not include major cities, islands, continents?  And suddenly the list is 10000 entries long and mostly not actually countries or dependencies.


 * You have to draw a line, and the status quo is a sensible place to draw it. Kahastok talk 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well Kahastok, that line is already draw on the so-called old discussion and I defined more attributes similiar to countries but not aplicable (yet) in the examples that you cited. Take into account that ISO criteria doesn't applies to other country-related lists. Why is this different?--Manlleus (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to know by Alesha's words which entity that's not a country is similar in all-round characteristics. The opposition of "other entities" is out of question, but EU is.--Manlleus (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually I was saying that if the EU is included, then the African Union and similar ones should be included too (if there aren't hundreds of them). Historical entities obviously shouldn't be on the list. If the Canadian provinces aren't included, then I don't understand the inclusion of dependent territories either. (The World is on the list btw.) – Alensha   talk  22:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats an incorrect statement. The African Union and the "other entities" are unfortunately light-years to be similar to EU characteristics.--Manlleus (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You say, historical entities obviously shouldn't be included. On what basis would we not include them, given that we would be including entities that don't meet the inclusion criteria for the list?


 * The point of farming this decision out to an external standard like ISO 3166-1 is that it is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" as required by WP:LSC. The reason to have that standard is that it means that we don't - in theory - have to have endless unresolveable arguments about edge cases.  We can just ask "is it on ISO 3166-1", "is it on the list of states with limited recognition", and if the answer to both is "no", then we don't include.  If if is on ISO 3166-1 or is on the list of states with limited recognition, then we do include.


 * If we were to move to including the EU, we would need an alternative set of criteria that meet the standard of being "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" as well as the current ones. I don't think you'll find one.  And you would then of course need to remove all the member states to avoid double counting.


 * I'd add that the fact that other articles fail to meet the policy standard outlined in WP:LSC doesn't mean that we should lower this article to their level. Kahastok talk 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kahastok, for ranked countries and entities I can accept that ISO criteria, but EU is not ranked, although it can appear third on the list the relevance on the matter is well solid with unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and lines.--Manlleus (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see that ISO criteria on that link.--Manlleus (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If non ISO countries appears in the list as in the introduction suggests and "World" as well with references, with the same nature of EU, why it can't be included? The line you draw is biased or not that straight.--Manlleus (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The non-ISO entities on the list are states with limited recognition. They are in there because of the need for WP:NPOV - because we need to respect the POV that holds that entities like Kosovo are in fact states.


 * The "world" row is just a total for the list, not a separate entry. It is not plausibly a precedent for the EU here.


 * And it is the selection criteria that need to be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". That means, we have a standard, and it naturally follows that a given entity belongs on the list because it meets the standard.  You are proposing to add an entity that does not meet the standard described.  You do not propose an alternative standard, you just propose to ignore the existing standard.  That is not appropriate.  If we ignore the standard for this case there is no case that we can not ignore it for.  Ignoring the standard defeats the purpose of having a standard. Kahastok talk 19:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not all countries or depended territories are included in this list
I have noticed that this list isn't complete because there are many territories which are not included in this list. For example "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" etc Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to look at the criteria for inclusion described in the lead, this defines whether any particular entity qualifies. Donetsk, for example is not as yet a recognized state.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings #Selfstudier, I am glad that you gave your precious point of view. I have a question that if Donetsk is not included in the list because it is not recognize state then why there are many other unrecognized states in the list for example "North Cyprus", "Artsakh", "South Ossetia", "Abkhazia", "Luhansk" etc? More over "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" is a recognized dependent territory of United Kingdom, then why it isn't here in the list? Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was curious too so I poked around, this is from the List of states with limited recognition page on excluded entities:


 * "Rebel groups that have declared independence and exert some control over territory, but that reliable sources do not describe as meeting the threshold of a sovereign state under international law. Examples include Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, though both entities have received international recognition from partially-recognized states (see list of rebel groups that control territory for a more complete list of such groups)."


 * So my guess is this list is following that criterion. But I do find it curious that Artsakh is included, but not Transnistria. Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings @Fredlesaltique, exactly this is what I am saying. This list isn't complete. In my point of view either they include all state irrespective of their recognition or do not include unrecognized or rebellious states at all. Thanks again for giving your precious opinion. Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Inclusion_and_Ranking_criteria_for_Lists_of_Countries is an old list wide consensus which still applies for the most part. So you go ISO and then add from the limited recognition list, right? Artsakh and Transnistria are both in the limited recognition list and both in here afaics. What might be better is if you could point to a state in here that contradicts the criteria?Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I get where you're coming from on Luhansk and Donetsk, but it seems like those are specifically excluded on the States with Limited Recognition page as per above, so for me it makes sense to not include them as entries on this list either for consistency's sake. I went ahead and added a footnote, since they weren't mentioned by name once in the article (!), but we can change that.
 * The ISO list plus limited recognition criteria makes sense. I totally missed Transnistria; you're right it is there. Leaving aside Luhansk and Donetsk, I don't understand why Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (excluded from Morocco data), and Somaliland (included with Somalia data) don't have entries.


 * I think you have a point re Sahrawi, it might be that it was excluded for some reason, have a look in the archives. States from the limited recognition list are supposed to be included. I will leave the dependent territory thing to you, maybe look at some other list articles and see what they did.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In general, I don't have a problem with including or excluding certain entities, but I think the inclusion criteria are opaque at the moment.
 * Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Population for African Nations
So I have the Ethiopia wiki page on my watchlist after I edited it a while back. Someone recently updated the description to say third-most populous country in Africa because this wiki page lists it as such.

Clearly that isn't the case, but I was curious so I looked at the current 2020 population projections on the UN pagehere. The results for the top four African countries are pretty different:

UN July 2020 v. Wiki

Nigeria: 206,140,000 v. 206,139,587 (1 Jul 2020 UN Projection; obviously the same)

Ethiopia: 114,964,000 v. 100,829,000 (1 Jul 2020 National annual projection)

Egypt: 102,334,000 v. 101,405,505 (8 Jan 2021 National population clock)

DRC: 89,561,000 v. 101,935,800 (1 Jul 2020 National annual projection)

Since Wikipedia uses different sources and dates, the resultant discrepancies are large. Was there a reason to use different sources for each country, despite the discrepancies?

But more importantly, should content elsewhere default to rankings based on this page? The use of inconsistent sources and dates is a little worrisome. What about other rankings like mountain heights, land areas... the list goes on. Should those also default to their relevant Wiki ranking pages?

Cheers to whoever can provide insight. -Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you take numbers from the Wiki-template UN_population, they are actually from 2018, but the reference points to the table of November 2019 which shows the projections up to 2020. I'm not sure where you can change the place where the UN_population template picks its numbers from - that would be the best way to reduce discrepancies as you describe them, at least for a short time. BTW, until now the Ethiopia population figure on this page was there from a manual edit, based on obsolete projections by the National Central Statistics Agency from 2014. I have now replaced it with the link to the UN_population template. Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just found the template and see that the figures are inserted there by hand from the UN document. As is explained on the talk-page of the template, there are good reasons why they take numbers from a year or two back, as these are indeed estimates and not just projections. Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so if I'm understanding correctly (I looked at the UN page once more), the UN figures should be the 2019 projections for 1 July 2020 that I linked to above? Here's the release note PDF from the same page I linked earlier. WPP 2019 Release Note


 * If so, then it sounds like the issue is that the UN population template does not refer to this data. I have no idea how this template works though, could you link the talk page you mentioned? If it is incorrect then I'd like to see it fixed.


 * On a different note, I think the dating of 1 July 2020 is confusing to a lay reader- I assumed they were estimates released on that date. I can start a different section for that issue though.


 * Cheers - Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The page I refer to is Template talk:UN Population. The discussion there is from some years back, on a previous version of the UN document. But in today's context it reads that we get the information relating to the situation in 2018, published at the end of 2019, and this is because in 2019 the 2018 situation was actually known. So the figure is an estimate on a past known situation, whereas the 2020 figure from that document was a projection on a situation that was still in the future when that UN document was created. So the template deliberate hardwired the 2018 figures into the dataset. I don't think we should change it unless a new version of this document becomes available, and then, in the spirit of this template, should use the data from the previous year, even if there are projections for future years. I admit that this is somewhat poorly documented when this kind of data is used on actual pages. Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The National Projection is preferred in this article over the UN Projections and since there is a national estimate available for Ethiopia, it should be used. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This preference may be your private sentiment, but this is nowhere stated in the meta-text to this list. To the contrary, its states that "where updated national data are not available, figures are based on the projections for 2020 by the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs." This is precisely what is the case with Ethiopia. The data you use is a projection made in 2014, seven years ago, based on a census from 2007, and never updated since then. That is why, according to the instructions, the UN population template needs to be used. Those editing the list are further instructed that "templates must not be removed without providing full justification for the removal in the edit summary." Given that the use of the template is called for by the written instructions, your repeated replacement of the template with hand-inserted information from an obsolete source is working against the intentions of this list. As for quality of the national data, the Ethiopian Government is quite aware of the need to update its database by a new census, which was planned for 2018 but had to be postponed for security reasons. Therefore, the UN estimate is currently expected to be closer to reality than the old projections for this time. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thomascampbell123, I'll give you another day to ignore this renewed discussion before I revert again. Please engage with my arguments or let my edits stand. Everything else is disruptive behaviour. Landroving Linguist (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

All national estimates and projections are given preference in this article. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I quoted the text to you that makes it clear that your statement is wrong. You will have to bring a bit more substance into this discussion than your repeated one-line value statement that "national is better than UN", without stating any authority or reason on which it may be based. But this should not just be decided by us two. It would be good to hear from others what they think about this matter. If I don't hear from anyone supporting your position by Monday, I will reinstate the UN source as per the instructions given for this list. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That national numbers are "given preference" over UN numbers does not mean that faulty national numbers--and Ethiopia's government accepts that their estimates are based on outdated data--trump more correct UN numbers. That there is a presumption for something does not mean that it isn't rebuttable. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect dates
Nearly all (!!) dates of "national estimates" are incorrect. Many countries have references from 2018 and much older years, up to 2014; but in this table is everywhere written "1 Jul 2020" or "1 Jan 2020"!!!109.252.82.190 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not when the estimate was made that is of interest, but for what date the estimate is made. Example: The currently used UN numbers were produced in 2019, but they are mid-year estimates for 2020, so the date for them has to be 1 July 2020. --T*U (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The source for the population of Pakistan is from 2019, but the "Date" column of this Wikipedia page says 1 July 2021. It's currently January 26, 2021. (BlueBlurHog)
 * As explained above, the estimate may have been made in 2019, but the number is an estimation for what the population will be 1 July 2021, and that is the interesting date. It can be discussed if it is in line with WP:CRYSTALBALL to show estimates for a date that has not yet been. I would prefer to wait until the date arrives and use the 1 July 2020 number until then, but I have found that to be an uphill battle. --T*U (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article should not include predictions of future events as if they were facts. We should use the estimate as of July 1, 2020 for now and, if on July 1, 2021 Pakistan has not changed its estimate for such date, update the article on July 1, 2021.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. A few years ago, I tried to make a stand in order to prevent premature updating. It was a hard, uphill battle that only partly succeded, and only for a period. There seems to be any number of editors willing to use the WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you are willing to take your turn at fighting windmills, I will support you. I wish you the best of luck. --T*U (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to change the numbers for Pakistan, and then I realized that it is one of many countries for whom the population provided is an estimate of what it will be in July 2021. I don't have the time or inclination to make all of those required changes, but if you do I will support you if editors revert you.  If you don't want to go through that again, I fully understand, and maybe we can leave those existing WP:CRYSTAL violations in there but revert any new ones going forward.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are some 20+ countries with 2021 UN estimates. I do not have the time just now, but I will see if I can make a stab at reinstating 2020 numbers. It will be nice to have someone to back me up! --T*U (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel terrible that I didn't pay close enough attention to this article when people were posting future numbers; I definitely would have reverted such blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL. I will be more attentive in the future. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

New numbers for Iceland
https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/ibuar/mannfjoldinn-a-4-arsfjordungi-2020/
 * Was 368010, is now 368590 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaelkaffi (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

✅ Fixed! Thanks! --T*U (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia
I am happy that the point I raised has contributed to this fantastic debate. But I am still curious that why Akrotiri and Dhekelia isn't in the list? It is recognized dependent territory of UK like then why isn't here? Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have no idea. The footnote for the UK mentions that British Overseas Territories are excluded and listed separately, but perhaps ones with no permanent population are ignored like South Sandwich Islands or Diego Garcia? Clipperton Island (France) is not included either. But the BOT page lists a population for A&D—without citation though (argh). What do you think?


 * From what I understand the "population" of A&D is made up of British military personnel and Cypriot civilians, and both of those groups are presumably already included in the figures for the UK & Cyprus. Haltik (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong date
Not "1 Jul 2021"幺于 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

French Guiana
Shouldn't French Guiana is included in this list? Although it is integral part of French but it is a unique and sperate identify situated at South America. Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * French Guiana is not included in the article for the same reason that Alaska, the Canary Islands and Socotra are not included: It is neither a country nor a dependency. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Population Clocks
All of the Population Clocks in this article are outdated and need to be updated with a new base number and growth rates. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Demographics of Eritrea has an RFC
Demographics of Eritrea has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Boud (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Static row numbers
What, ?

Works fine here.

-- Guarapiranga (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (and re-pinging, since your ping will not have worked – the correct ping has to be saved in the same edit as your signature).
 * Your solution seems to work fine in desktop view. However, in mobile view, the table head is numbered #1, China is #2 etc. to World #243. No idea how and why.
 * Another angle is this: The "all lines numbered" solution has been discussed before without reaching any conclusion, so consensus will have to be created in talk page. --T*U (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution is not mine; it's 's. I just applied it.
 * Yeah, sorry, forgot about that whole cofefe with simple row numbering. It's just crazy to me not numbering all rows on a spreadsheet. Guarapiranga (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It numbers an extra row. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add columns for total fertility and for GDP per person
Including sortable columns for total fertility and for GDP per person would reveal current poverty levels and bring into focus any trend to improving conditions, or to conditions becoming more desperate. The added data columns would lay plain the salience of these dry numbers.

Thanks! Ocdcntx (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There are other lists for these. This cannot become a list of everything. Kahastok talk 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk
I have been asked by to clarify the reasons for my revert here of their suggested addition to the efn note for Ukraine. The edit was supposedly meant to clarify why Luhansk and Donetsk are not listed. In my opinion, it could easily be seen as more confusing than clarifying. The linkings  and   are hiding the fact that Donetsk and Luhansk also are names of two provinces (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast) in Ukraine, only parts of which are held by the proto-states. All this could possibly be explained in the note, but in my opinion it is undue. The purpose of the note is to explain which areas are included/excluded in the numbers, not to explain the conflict itself. If someone wants to find out more about the conflict, they will be able to do so by following the Donbass link. The other part of the addition, the linking to a note in the List of states with limited recognition article, is neither here nor there. I cannot see that this note adds anything relevant to the inclusion/exclusion information.

On another, more procedural note, the edit summary of the addition said Added information on Luhansk and Donetsk per talk page; this may be changed later if discussion decides otherwise. That is clearly not the way Wikipedia works. When an edit is challenged, the correct procedure for inclusion is to create a consensus through discussion before addition, not to add first and discuss removal afterwards. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seen from an international politics perspective, it is unrealistic that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will be part of Ukraine within historical time. Thus they should be included in the list. --Madglad (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree that it is highly improbable that Donetsk and Lugansk will be intregal parts of Ukraine in the close future. However, what you and I think or know or think we know, is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. In order to include them in the list, we would need to have reliable sources stating that they have statehood. So far, this has not been the case; most sources seem to regard them as proto-states or just rebel groups. This may of course change over time, but imho they are currently not close to being eligible for inclusion here. --T*U (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "highly improbable that Donetsk and Lugansk will be intregal parts of Ukraine in the close future", I said "it is unrealistic that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will be part of Ukraine within historical time." This is based on a evaluation from both of us on what is going on in the Donbass region. When Ukraine for years have no administrations in this areas (and have no chance to regain it),it is in my opinion safe and wise to consider the areas separated, though they have still little international acceptance.
 * They are mainly de facto recognised by Russia, which also means the will never be administered by Kiew again. Donetsk_People%27s_Republic
 * I think we should write the truth, not political correctnesses. We must be able to find sources. --Madglad (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the truth ... Please see WP:TRUTH.
 * As I said, my opinion and your opinion (as in it is in my opinion safe and wise to consider the areas separated) are irrelevant. They constitute original research, see WP:OR. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, and so far most sources say proto-states or rebel groups. But I am repeating myself. --T*U (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see List of states with limited recognition and its archive RFC in agreement with TU-nor.Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia
As I explained in my edit summary, the number 270,203,917 you quote is not for December 2020, but is the result of the Census from September 2020. In the given source here, the number 270.20 million inhabitants is clearly marked as being from September 2020, while the estimate for December 2020 is given (on page 10) as 271.35 million inhabitants, which is marked as being based on the Census with an increase of 0.14% from Sep20 to Dec20. In the section "Method" in this article, it says that figures in this list should be the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority. Since we have an estimate for December 2020 based on a very recent Census, this is obviously the most up to date number we can get. --T*U (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

21 Jan 2021 is just the publication date of the source. The "Date" column in the table must of course have the date for which the estimate is given, not the date when the nuber was published. That would not make any sense at all. Please self revert! --T*U (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please explain – here in the talk page – why we should trust the date used in the Indonesian Wikipedia (21 Jan 2021) more than the source given here in this article (this one), which is an official publication and gives the number as 271,35 juta jiwa (Desember 2020) (page 10). For obvious reasons neither Indonesian Wikipedia nor any other Wikipedia can be used as a source for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The number 271,349,889 used in Indonesian Wikipedia seems to be a more exact version of the number 271.35 millions. It is quite possible correct that the more exact number is the official estimation and that 271.35 is just a rounded number. It is, however, also possible that the official estimation is a rounded number (which is the practice in many countries). As long as the 271.35 number is sourced and the other number not, we have to stick to the rounded version. --T*U (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, the source provided includes the rounded number. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

New annotation break automatic parsing.
Revision as of 2021-06-08T03:20:37 Add annotation that break existing automatic parsing of the page. I understand that the annotation make sense, but is there some rules to ensure good automatic parsing of the table ? Jcamdr (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Worldometers
Is worldometers a reliable source? Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not for this article, at least. See section "Method". --T*U (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Parentheses
I see editors are yet again playing with this article. Lest we forget (WT:COUNTRIES): Are these parentheses in the sources? If not, they should be all stripped down. WP:SOURCES talk, WP:OR walks. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 08:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not quote me out of context as you did here. The above is a gross misrepresentation of my position on this point. Kahastok talk 11:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Isn't the "source" the ISO list? This is the totality of the text of the Wikipedia article on ISO 3166-2:HK, which is the ISO entry for Hong Kong:


 * "ISO 3166-2:HK is the entry for Hong Kong in ISO 3166-2, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which defines codes for the names of the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1.


 * Currently no ISO 3166-2 codes are defined in the entry for Hong Kong.


 * Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, is officially assigned the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code HK. Moreover, it is also assigned the ISO 3166-2 code CN-HK under the entry for China."


 * So Hong Kong "is also assigned the ISO 3166-2 code CN-HK under the entry for China." So not only is Hong Kong a dependency of the PRC according to just about every reliable source, the ISO 3166-2 lists Hong Kong under the entry for China.  It would be completely unsourced and POV to list Hong Kong as if it were a sovereign state instead of as a dependent territory, which is what removing "(China)" from its name would do.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, ISO does not define the names of countries – this information comes from United Nations sources (Terminology Bulletin Country Names and the Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use maintained by the United Nations Statistics Divisions). And the UN Statistics Division lists countries here and there, none of which have these parentheses. The legal status of each of these countries and whether they are home to a sovereign state--for countries are not states!--is pretty much irrelevant to listing as they're listed in the sources.


 * — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The USND list that you provided includes geographical areas under the name "Country or Area," so being on the list does not mean that they are deemed to be "countries." The Wikipedia article says that it includes "countries and dependencies" for a reason.  Anyhow, the USND lists "China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."  So no "parentheses," but it literally lists Hong Kong as an administrative region of China.  Isn't a parenthetical that lets the reader know the state with which the dependency is associated a better way to provide the information?  Or will you insist on listing Hong Kong as "China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" so as to match perfectly the UN's highly politicized naming scheme?  And by the way, the USND lists Heard Island and McDonald Islands (an uninhabited territory of Australia's that is located close to the Antarctic Circle) as a "Country or Area" but does not list Kosovo or Taiwan, so it seems odd that you would choose such a POV source (it is incontrovertible that Russia and China block Kosovo and Taiwan, respectively, from being listed by the UN as anything other than "provinces" of Serbia and China, respectively) as the "reliable source" on which we should base everything.  There are thousands of reliable sources that acknowledge that, for example, Guam is a U.S. territory and Niue is in free association with New Zealand, and it is silly to pretend that it offends reliable sources to include a parenthetical that alerts readers as to with what state such dependencies are associated.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The USND list that you provided includes geographical areas under the name "Country or Area," so being on the list does not mean that they are deemed to be "countries." The Wikipedia article says that it includes "countries and dependencies" for a reason.
 * Yep. That's beside the point herein discussed, though.
 * Anyhow, the USND lists "China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." So no "parentheses," but it literally lists Hong Kong as an administrative region of China. Isn't a parenthetical that lets the reader know the state with which the dependency is associated a better way to provide the information?
 * It is. So that would settle it for HK (though the other document doesn't make any additional remarks, so could arguably supersede the one you quoted), but not for Puerto Rico, New Caledonia or the Cayman Islands, none of which are listed with anything else but their names.
 * And by the way, the USND lists Heard Island and McDonald Islands (an uninhabited territory of Australia's that is located close to the Antarctic Circle) as a "Country or Area" but does not list Kosovo or Taiwan, so it seems odd that you would choose such a POV source (it is incontrovertible that Russia and China block Kosovo and Taiwan, respectively, from being listed by the UN as anything other than "provinces" of Serbia and China, respectively) as the "reliable source" on which we should base everything.
 * I didn't. But as long as they are hereby chosen to be so, that's what WP policy command editors to rely on.
 * There are thousands of reliable sources that acknowledge that, for example, Guam is a U.S. territory and Niue is in free association with New Zealand, and it is silly to pretend that it offends reliable sources to include a parenthetical that alerts readers as to with what state such dependencies are associated.
 * Did you cite them in the article? No. Then how do you propose to rely on them? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is the wrong discussion. To me it is obvious that the information given by the parentheses is useful, and it is equally obvious that it is correct, which tells me that sources certainly exists. So instead of discussing whether to remove the parenthesis, it would be much better to discuss to what extent, in what way and in what form such sources should be added. As a starting point, I will suggest that the sourcing could somehow be connected to the notes that all countries with dependencies have (after I added such notes for AUS and NZ) about which areas are included/excluded in the number given for the "mother country". --T*U (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To me it is obvious that the information given by the parentheses is useful, and it is equally obvious that it is correct
 * What is or isn't obvious to editors is not an inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, (WP:NOR):
 * which tells me that sources certainly exists.
 * It is not sufficient for them to merely exist (let alone for you to believe they do); you must attribute it to them. And they better be reliable and applicable to the whole list, lest you be accused of WP:cherrypicking (as you did above when asking Isn't the "source" the ISO list? when you thought it suited your argument, but is now claiming other sources certainly exist). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course I have no intention of using WP:OR, which should be quite clear if you read the rest of my posting: better to discuss to what extent, in what way and in what form such sources should be added
 * 2) Re your comment as you did above .... No, I did not. This was my first posting to this thread. --T*U (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2. My apologies! You're right.
 * 1. Well then, until those existent sources are cited, WP ought to stick to UN's nomenclature (regardless of China/Russia influence).
 * — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 09:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That has always been and still is my position, sources are a must, anything else is OR.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "WP ought to stick to UN's nomenclature (regardless of China/Russia influence)"?


 * Bear in mind that per MOS:GEO, we use our own naming conventions for countries. We do not treat the UN as some inherently neutral source, because it is not.


 * My view is that the parentheses are eminently sourceable and in most cases trivial to source. They are also directly relevant to how we count the numbers.  So we should include them and - if we need to - source them. Kahastok talk 11:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "WP ought to stick to UN's nomenclature (regardless of China/Russia influence)"?
 * Your words, not mine, (WT:COUNTRIES):


 * Bear in mind that per MOS:GEO, we use our own naming conventions for countries.
 * MOS:GEO says nothing about using unsourced country nomenclatures or formatting.
 * My view is that the parentheses are eminently sourceable and in most cases trivial to source.
 * The incessant footballing (reverting and re-reverting) with them in this article proves they're not trivial at all.
 * They are also directly relevant to how we count the numbers.
 * Which is also unsourced, and ought to stick to the sources deemed reliable.
 * We do not treat the UN as some inherently neutral source, because it is not.
 * Neither is Wikipedia (WP:YESPOV). WP reflects the POV of its sources. It's not above them. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You are referring to incessant footballing (reverting and re-reverting) of the parentheses. But has that really been the case? The only example I can remember is the removal/insertion of (China) for HK and Macau. Those parentheses were in place for many years until removed without explanation by a HK-based IP last October. When I reinserted them a week ago, it was removed (only for HK, not for Macau) with the edit summary "Hong Kong is NOT the PRC" (which anyway is incorrect), then reinstated. I cannot recall any other contested parentheses ever. There may, of course, have been similar incidents during the years, but 'incessant'? --T*U (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My browser counts 18% (179) of the tagged as reverted. Another 55 are tagged as undo, and 17 more as rollback. That's 1 in every 4 edits. It's a lot! Sure, not all are geopolitical footballing, but many of them are. Pretty incessant, wouldn't you say? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not surpriced that one in four edits to this article are reversions. I am actually surprised that it is not more. Of all the articles I have been editing fairly regularly during several years, this is probably the single article most targetted by POV-pushers, vandals, patriots, good-faith-well-doers, you name it. A certain amount of edits are of the "I found this larger number for country X [ususally the editor's country] in a book/newspaper/web site" type (typically worldometers, CIA and similar), even more are of the "I'll just put in a larger/smaller [fantasy] number here" type, quite a few are of the "I'll just put some extra 0-s after this number" type, and far too many are just plain removal and/or addition vandalism.
 * I would guess that way more than 50% of my edits to this article are in fact reversions, and the large majority of those reversions are of the types I have described. Of course there also are what you call geopolitical footballing edits. Removing Taiwan or Palestine completely, numbering Kosovo or Taiwan or removing numbering from Palestine occur from time to time, but your description not all ... but many does not come anywhere near to be a precise description of the situation. That kind of edits are mostly done by IPs or WP:SPAs, either without an edit summary or with an edit summary strongly reeking of POV. Sometimes they persist, but even those cannot be described as incessant. Perhaps three or four or six rounds, and they usually give up or end up being blocked. All in a days work ...
 * When it comes to what we are discussing here, the parentheses describing dependency, edits regarding them occur very seldom. I think you will struggle to find as many such edits per year in addition to those I have already described. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would guess that way more than 50% of my edits to this article are in fact reversions... Perhaps three or four or six rounds... All in a days work...
 * Wow, what a waste of time! Shouldn't we try prevent this? Having clearer rules--actually following WP policy in keeping with sources, for instance, and skirting the altogether unrelated question of sovereignty aside--would leave much less room for footballing the article. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 09:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I resent the way you have "quoted" me by combining parts of my comment taken from completely different contexts. The first part, about the character of my edits, continues to explain that the vast majority of these reversions concerns number juggling and/or pure vandalism. The second part (three, four, six...) is about the small minority of edits that are "footballing", and even about a very small part of those again: those that are stubborn. Putting these two parts together as if they were related, is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said and meant.
 * Anyway, for both these types of disruptive edits, the remedy you suggest, having clearer rules, will probably have no effect whatsoever, since most of these edits are already wittingly breaking the rules.
 * As for waste of time. Yes, that is the price we have to pay for having this kind of encyclopedia where in principle everyone is allowed to edit. I will gladly waste some of my time to help combat vandalism in order to protect that principle.
 * And just to make my point clear: political footballing is a tiny, tiny problem in this article compared to other POV edits and vandalism. --T*U (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

These discussions always come down to the same thing, whether X is a "country", in turn caused by a desire to identify them even though sources differ at the margins. This is why I agree in general with Guarapiranga effort to try and prevent these arguments if that is at all possible (ie no footballing of any sort). I have seen way too many of these list discussions where the conversation degenerates into a discussion about trivia and nothing gets solved. We should go only by sources not by stuff made up by Wikipedians, if there is a desperate desire to identify "countries", then we should go just by one list and the obvious one is the UN list of sovereign states (193+2), else no list at all. We should not really get tangled up in whether this or that state is recognized by these or those other states because it just causes lots of arguments and in general has nothing to do with area, population, density etc etc.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First things to point out, again, is that Guarapiranga is taking my quotes entirely out of context, and in doing so is misrepresenting my view. I will raise this at their talk page.


 * The question of whether things belong on the list doesn't seem to be at issue here. I do not see incessant edit warring over parentheses as a long-term problem.  The fact that Guarapiranga thinks it is not trivial to source that (for example) Puerto Rico is US territory demonstrates only that they haven't tried.  I found this in under ten seconds.


 * The aim of avoiding edit wars cannot be at the expense of WP:NPOV or other policy or guidelines. For example, many names from ISO 3166-1 reflect diplomatic niceties and other POV concerns.  For this and other reasons, we have MOS:GEO.  MOS:GEO means that instead of debating these names on every talk page individually, we use the names that Wikipedia consensus has determined are most neutral.  If people object, we can then direct them to the relevant talk pages so that the discussion is centralised.  There is no reason to override MOS:GEO here. Kahastok talk 10:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in MOS:GEO saying that instead of debating these names on every talk page individually, we use the names that Wikipedia consensus has determined are most neutral. Rather, it's just saying editors ought to be consistent when in referring to a country in an article's text the same way it's referred to in its title:
 * The fact that Guarapiranga thinks it is not trivial to source that (for example) Puerto Rico is US territory demonstrates only that they haven't tried.
 * Of course Puerto Rico is a US territory; that doesn't automatically mean it's referred to as Puerto Rico (US). Not even the US CIA does so (let alone the UN or, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica ).


 * For example, many names from ISO 3166-1 reflect diplomatic niceties and other POV concerns.
 * Diplomatic or otherwise, if it's what the sources deemed reliable say, it's what WP ought to say too. That's the policy (WP:NOR).
 * The aim of avoiding edit wars cannot be at the expense of WP:NPOV
 * True, but you seem to be under the impression that WP's neutrality is absolute and stands above its sources. It isn't. It's neutral the POV of its sources (WP:YESPOV). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you are not allowed to bias Wikipedia by picking reliable sources that suit a particular POV. No, you cannot claim the POV as the United Nations as the only valid POV and then insist that we follow it at the expense of all other POVs.  This is really really basic stuff in policy terms.


 * Let's look at WP:YESPOV. One key part is that we should avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.  Your proposal is that we break this.  For example, if you insist that the naming of countries has to follow ISO 3166-1, as opposed to the requirements of our manual of style, that means that we have to use the seriously contested form Taiwan (Province of China) instead of the Wikipedia consensus form Taiwan.


 * And let's be clear that the logic of your argument is that every time a country name is said, on any article, in any context, anywhere on Wikipedia, it needs to be negotiated independently and separately from scratch. Which is precisely the thing you've said you wanted to avoid.  Your interpretation of MOS:GEO is creative, but it is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia and I see no reason why it should be used here. Kahastok talk 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you are not allowed to bias Wikipedia by picking reliable sources that suit a particular POV.
 * Please point to where I did that.
 * No, you cannot claim the POV as the United Nations as the only valid POV
 * Please point to where I did that. All I said was:
 * Saying anything differently from what the sources say, whichever they are, constitutes WP:OR; and
 * The consensus at WT:COUNTRIES, which you yourself proposed, is that when a list is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.
 * Let's look at WP:YESPOV. One key part is that we should avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Your proposal is that we break this.
 * Please point to where I did that.
 * For example, if you insist that the naming of countries has to follow ISO 3166-1
 * It was you who proposed that! (see quote above) No one opposed it, and it became consensus.
 * as opposed to the requirements of our manual of style
 * MOS:GEO only requires that country naming in the text of articles match that in their titles (and that historical names, if used, be followed by modern names in parentheses).
 * Your interpretation of MOS:GEO is creative
 * Is it? That's literally what it says:
 * that means that we have to use the seriously contested form Taiwan (Province of China)
 * If that's what ISO 3166-1 uses, then yes (though Taiwan (China) should suffice).
 * instead of the Wikipedia consensus form Taiwan
 * That's WP:OR (consensus or not).
 * And let's be clear that the logic of your argument is that every time a country name is said, on any article, in any context, anywhere on Wikipedia, it needs to be negotiated independently and separately from scratch.
 * Is it? What I said is: WP policy requires us to copy the source(s). Where is the negotiation in that?? Quite the opposite: it is you who are advocating negotiatiating a consensus on every country name (presumably on each page).
 * Which is precisely the thing you've said you wanted to avoid.
 * Indeed. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you feel it is OR to refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan", I suggest you go open an RM at Talk:Taiwan, to rename that article to Taiwan (province of China). See how that goes.  See how neutral the people there think that name is.  Because you are now claiming that, not only is it neutral, it is the only name we can neutrally use.


 * You are twisting my words and you are quoting me out of context. You are insisting that my position is something that I have repeatedly told you it is not.  It is clear that there is no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you, because you will read what you want to read and ignore what I actually say.  This is described at WP:GAME as "bad-faith negotiating".


 * So let me leave it like this.


 * I strongly oppose any attempt to change the names of the countries on this or any other article to match ISO 3166-1, except where special circumstances make that the most appropriate choice. I also oppose removal of useful and easily-sourced information on political affiliations of entities that are not (or are not claimed to be) sovereign states.  In my view both of these are required by WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 16:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is "bad faith". This is just the usual thing, the conversation rapidly becomes circular, repetitive and resolves bugger all. Discuss the issues, if there is disagreement, we don't need pages and pages of discussion, we just need dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Guarapiranga is twisting my words in the previous discussion to such an extraordinary degree. I have repeatedly asked Guarapiranga not to.  I have repeatedly told Guarapiranga that the position that they assign to me is not the position I take or a position I have ever taken.  Guarapiranga refuses to listen and continues to assign that position to me below.


 * How can I possibly "discuss the issues" if my words are going to be twisted to mean something that is manifestly not what was intended? If that position is going to be assigned to me, over and over again, based on quotes taken out of context, despite my repeated objections?  This cannot ever be a rational basis for discussion. Kahastok talk 19:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly told Guarapiranga that the position that they assign to me is not the position I take or a position I have ever taken.
 * I did not assign anything to you; I assigned it to what you . I can only go by what's written, not by what's intended. And that is what we agree on: words, not intentions. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are insisting that my position is something that I have repeatedly told you it is not.
 * I can only go by what you wrote: that, in essence, the definition and should be based on the source. This is what we agreed on, and is now the status quo. Nowhere have I made any claim about what your position is. If you misspoke, or changed your mind, and wish to change the consensus, you'll need to initiate a new discussion.
 * If you feel it is OR to refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan", I suggest you go open an RM at Talk:Taiwan, to rename that article to Taiwan (province of China). See how that goes.
 * By this (convoluted) logic, should the article for Puerto Rico also be renamed Puerto Rico (United States)? Is that what you're proposing? I'm not.
 * In my view both of these are required by WP:NPOV.
 * What is required by WP:NPOV is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that on a topic, not some arbitrary Wikipedia consensus. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 17:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Side effects
Could you please take a closer look at the effects of your latest edits to this article. As I understand it, the intention of your 10 June edit was to align the country names regardless of the flag size, which is fine. However, what also happens is that the country name no longer links to the "Demographics of Xxx" article (as has been the consensus solution), but instead goes to the country article. Next to the country name a dagger sign (†) is added, linking to the "Demographics of Xxx" article. One thing is that this is unexplained (and far from obvious to the casual Wiki user). The other problem is that it does not work for all countries, most notably the United States (I see also Palestine and New Zealand), where there is no such link. The alignment of names is certainly an improvement, but I am not so sure about the linking system, and the missing links certainly is not. Since the problem obviously is hidden in the template, it is not easy to fix for those of us who have not specialized in template editing.

As for your 13 June edit, the removal of italics for some, but not all dependent territories is a bit confusing. The introduction to the table says Dependent territories and constituent countries that are parts of sovereign states are shown in italics and not assigned a numbered rank. After your edit, that is no longer the case. Could you be so kind to explain? --T*U (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * One thing is that this is unexplained...
 * Easily done, if need be.
 * ... (and far from obvious to the casual Wiki user).
 * It's precisely bc linking the country names to the further info page (in this case the Demographics of article) wasn't obvious to casual WP readers that in other pages there was a move to make it more obvious with a separate link next to the country name (oftenand obstrusivelyspelled out (more) or, worse, (further info)). The dagger adds less clutter, and yet makes the link to the country specific page more evident.
 * The other problem is that it does not work for all countries, most notably the United States
 * the removal of italics for some, but not all dependent territories is a bit confusing
 * If I didn't remove them all, it's my mistake. As the consensus reached in WT:Countries determined, naming, formatting, numbering, etc, of countries on WP ought to follow that of its WP:RS (or else constitue WP:OR): — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, also Palestine and New Zealand lack the double linking, and I now also notice the same for UAE. In addition, there is the handful of dependencies still in italics. I was trying to fix some of it, but ended up just making silly mistakes and thus wasting time because I am not familiar with the workings of the rather complex templates. It would be appreciated if you could finish cleaning up those missing details of your edits yourself. --T*U (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I really made an attempt to clean up the remaining details, but since you obviuosly have better methods and therefore have reverted some of my edits, I do not want to spend any more time in the jungle of templates. I will just list here the remaining problems, hoping that you or someone else with the necessary competence can do the rest:
 * The solution for the "the" problem worked fine for Caymans, Northern Marianas and British VI, but the Artsakh entry has lost the double linking when the "the" was removed.
 * Three more entries are without the double linking, probably because there is a discrepancy between article titles and display names: Saint Martin, Åland and Saint Helena et.al.
 * There is a completely different problem regarding New Caledonia. Some editors are insisting that the local semi-official flag should never be displayed alone, but preferably together with the tricolore. This happens across lots of Wikipedia articles and is usually solved by having both flags side by side. That solution does not work very well with the template. --T*U (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you obviuosly have better methods
 * Thanks {
 * have reverted some of my edits
 * I didn't; I just transferred them to the template. The end result is the same.
 * I do not want to spend any more time in the jungle of templates. I will just list here the remaining problems, hoping that you or someone else with the necessary competence can do the rest
 * No problemo
 * Yeah, I gave up on it, after seeing it's somewhat cumbersome and hard to maintain. I just included a test in flaglist+link for if  doesn't exist, instead.
 * This happens across lots of Wikipedia articles
 * Indeed it does.
 * and is usually solved by having both flags side by side. That solution does not work very well with the template.
 * Nor does it do with flaglist, which flaglist+link is forked from. The alternativeother than, of course, resolving that silly squabbleis pushing all country names further right to accommodate New Caledonia while aligning all country names.
 * — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor does it do with flaglist, which flaglist+link is forked from. The alternativeother than, of course, resolving that silly squabbleis pushing all country names further right to accommodate New Caledonia while aligning all country names.
 * — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As someone who just wandered into this article, I found the dagger † links very unintuitive. I moused over it to see if it had a pop-up; it didn't. I scrolled down to see if it had an explanation (since there wasn't one at the top); it didn't, but in the process I saw that almost every single entry had it. I moused over it again, and only then did I notice that the link was different to the country name next to it. Another solution is really needed here (in my opinion the country name should just be the link to "Demographics of…"). -- Perey (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I moused over it to see if it had a pop-up; it didn't.
 * It didn't? To me it does. Do other wikilinks show a popup for you? To me it shows the same as others (as it does to logged off users).
 * in my opinion the country name should just be the link to "Demographics of…"
 * You find that more intuitive? How could it be, if on the vast majority of articles, country name is linked to the countries' generic page (MOS:EGG)? How are readers to know (especially those on touchscreen/mobile devices, without mouse over ability)? The problem was such that in several lists of countries, editors started adding (more) or (further info) links next to country name. That seemed cumbersome, adding clutter and reducing readability, especially to people using screen readers (WP:ACCESSIBILITY). That's why I created that template. Perhaps there is a more intuitive marking to indicate further info here than the dagger $†$, but I couldn't come with a better one. If you think of one, you can propose it at the template talk, as it will potentially improve . — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 09:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If linking the country name to the demographics article is an MOS:EGG problem, so is linking a random unexplained symbol at the end of the country name. If adding "further information" is an WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem, then so is linking a random unexplained symbol at the end of the country name.  In fact this is explicitly disallowed by the Links section of WP:ACCESSIBILITY.


 * When we're dealing with screen readers, it is more important that the link be clear and the link text be clear. If it takes ages for the screen reader to read it, well, that's better than the screen reader reading nonsense.


 * The best way to do this is probably to add an extra column at the end of each table line with an explicit link to the demographics article (in the style e.g. Demographics or Demographics of Poland). Kahastok talk 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that. The article preview pop-up. I have that turned off (for some reason that must've seemed good to me at the time… maybe I'll turn it on, if I can find the setting!), and so I hadn't even thought of it. What I was expecting was a footnote pop-up, or even a tooltip. All I got was the browser's own indication that it was a link to "Demographics of…" (which tells me the same thing that the article preview pop-up would've). My confusion stemmed from the (wrong) conclusion that the one wikilink spanned the country name and the adjacent dagger, and so I went looking for what the dagger was meant to indicate.

I do. I don't say that my suggestion is a good one, but I think it's better than the daggers. It doesn't follow the MOS:EGG principle of least surprise, but I find it less surprising than a dagger that doesn't indicate a footnote (nor something death-related). Plus, linking the country name to something besides the eponymous article is already done in tons of places; this isn't by itself an argument in its favour ("let's do the same wrong thing as all these articles!"), but it does suggest that it may not be all that surprising to many readers after all.

As for touchscreen devices, I would expect them to have more difficulty than I did in distinguishing between the country-name wikilink and the dagger wikilink immediately adjacent to it.

I think that if a generic link for further information is desired, that the rejected "(more)" is appropriate—more so than the dagger. I don't know why that's more confusing to screenreader users than daggers everywhere, but I'm not one of them so I can't say.

But why have such a generic link? A link for demographic information should have some indication that it's… a link for demographic information. If it needs to be short, something like "(d)" would suit, with an explanatory key at the top of the table. A link for some other kind of further information should likewise have an indication as to what kind of further information it is. And above all there should be some clear separation between the two wikilinks.

Anyway, all of this is kind of moot to discuss here, because I've just noticed that I'm recapitulating discussion already happening around the template itself. I'll take my suggestions over there.

PS Now I know about the template and its ilk. Learn something new every day… Thanks! -- Perey (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * My choice of the dagger was sort of inspired by that icon WP shows after external links. It means: click here for more (or to go there, etc). It doesn't necessarily have to explicitly say what's there, if it's implied by the context (which, in this case, of a list of countries by population, that it is something about population of that particular daggered country). I picked the dagger bc it's a usual footnote marking, which is where one would usually find further information about a fragment in the text, but I'm not married to it. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There, just added the tooltips. How does it look? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There, just added the tooltips. How does it look? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed the bullshit "static row" shit of Guararara
... TABLES WERE MEANT TO BE SORTED$[1]$

That's not very nice, 70.77.224.98. I see this is not your first rodeo. But I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself before escalating it: Since you choose not to log in, you'll receive no notification of this. I'll give you a day to respond before re-reverting your poorly explained revert. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your problem with static row numbers? It streamlines table ranking.
 * 2) You reverted more than the static row numbers, and provided no explanation for reverting the other edits.
 * Re your #2, I have already challenged the addition of the "Region" column. --T*U (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you, ? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No! --T*U (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so you explained your objection, s/he didn't. His/her reversion remains unexplained. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to accept an uncivil drive by edit from an IP editor.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , then. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Page protection requested ivo repeated IP/SPA apparently related editing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo
The population of Kosovo on 01.07.2021 has been registered as 1,935,259. So the ranking should be updated as well as the population number from previously 1,782,115 to the new population number 1,935,259. Source is a CIA estimation from July 2021 https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/kosovo/

-Butrint10morina (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

About Wikipidea editting ( List Of Countries and dependencies by Population)
Moved from my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Already updated for Thailand Population according to the 2021 latest census of Thailand thai Population was around 69.9 million. Please do not revert My Edit again in the List of Countries and Dependencies, I'm only editting for number 20th to 23rd though, not Until the Whole page for today. Anyhow, I'm deeply sorry for Not Doing the right Edit when I was editting Earlier at Tanzania , South Africa and Thailand had Incomplete edits. So already Renewed it ( for Thailand til Italy Only ) Bayu Fuller (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thailand Til UK sorry, not Thailand til Italy. Only Renewed the Edit for number 20th until 22nd * Bayu Fuller (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The number you give is not from the 2021 latest census of Thailand, as you claim, but from macrotrends, one of a huge number of web sites (like worldometers, worldpopulationreview etc.) that spesialise in giving statistical estimates for every country in the world, often without explaining their methods and/or sources. In the section "Method", it says: "Figures used in this chart are based on the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority where available". In the case of Thailand, we have such numbers available, so we use them. End of story! --T*U (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)