Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index/Archive 4

Next publication?
Does anybody know when the next publication of HDI for countries are published? The last was published 14 Sep 2018. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 05:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Myself have been looking for same since September. It's been too late. In the news, they are probably drafting a new formula for calculation that includes inequality etc. for a revised index. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 14:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I hope new data will be published by the end of this year, unlike in 2017. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 00:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The new 2019 (2018) report is oot now! KREOH (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I'll be updating article within 24 hours. At least 8 hours because I'm working nightshift. LOL Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 19:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Marvellous! Brilliant! I can construct the choropleth map to show the new data J  ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind, has already done it  J  ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

these people can not add correctly
Costa Rica´s HDI in 2018 was 0,794 and in 2019 it is 0,794 again even if it supponsed to have increased by 0,002. These people can´t add correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.192.164.170 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the readjusted stats in the 2019 report PDF, Costa Rica had an HDI of 0,792 and not 0,794 in 2017 (the year for which the 2018 report covered).

HDI
The HDI is not update yet ! Harditya pratama putra (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it has been! J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 04:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it has anyway. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 05:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How are the 'Change from previous year' values calculated???
I may be wrong, but after comparing the 2019 and 2018 reports, it seems like many of these values are incorrect. For instance, the 2019 value for the United States is 0.920 and its 2018 value is 0.924 – shouldn't this mean that the change from previous year for the U.S. for 2019 is −0.004, instead of +0.001, as currently stated in the article? Another example is the United Kingdom, whose 2019 value is also 0.920 but 2018 value is 0.922 – so shouldn't the change value be −0.002, instead of +0.001? To give another random example, Albania has a score of 0.791 based on the newest report, compared to 0.785 in the 2018 report; shouldn't the change value be +0.006, instead of +0.002, as currently stated? I'm quite confused. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's written incorrectly. People have done this to statistics articles in past too as no one is able to sort calculations of dozens of countries. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I will be correcting these values soon. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 04:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, it seems like new report disagrees with old data. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am currently in the process of updating the changes in HDI score and ranking for each country, compared to the 2018 report. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 05:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So actually we should used the readjusted stats in the new report for the actual change in HDI values from 2017 to 2018, not directly comparing the HDI values from the previous report with the most recent one, which is what I (incorrectly) did. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
Remove the United Kingdom from the European Union top 10 HDI list. Dkm49 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hdi rank
Hdi rank of india Anirban hazra 07 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

One column
I think the main table should be turned into one column without breaking it up using "High human development" the subsections. This would allow sorting of the entire list instead of just sorting small sections of 30 or fewer countries. That would make things such as finding the country with the largest increase in HDI so much easier and make the display better when viewing the article on small screens. While the high/medium/low subheadings have a purpose putting them inside the table like is done with the by region tables, these rows could also be made sortable so they maintain their position. If no one objects I will do this shortly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now implemented it given the lack of opposition. It sorts nicely and is a lot more convenient in my opinion. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Data in column "Change from the last year" seems to be wrong for most countries
People already noticed that for some countries, here you have 3 random countries

India Year before was at 0.640, now is at 0.647 Change from previous year should be 0.007, is 0.004

China Year before was at 0.752, now is 0.758 Should be 0.006, is 0.005

Poland Year before was at 0.865, now is 0.872 Jump should be 0.007, is 0.004

I've noticed that as soon as new data was updated, months passed and it still isn't fixed. I wanted to fix it, but I do not have access to edit this website/table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.54.46 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing your getting the data by comparing the data in the 2019 and 2018 reports? That is not actually the most accurate method since the HDI is recalculated in the next report with new data making the most accurate way is taking both values from the 2019 report found at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf (pages 304-307). I checked all of the mistakes you mentioned and they seem to be correct using this method. There may very well be some errors in the table, I fixed a few just today, but these seem to be fine. Thanks for reporting though! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have those big reports from last 2 years and compared some countries. I've also checked other sources, like articles writing about China, India and Poland progress, where they wrote about jumps and previous years data numbers were there. I see for the first time this new data/link you send, all other sources point to different numbers. Seeing data from this PDF you linked, it seems to be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.54.46 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Countries missing from latest report
I'm not sure how this section should be handled. I have removed data older then a decade after failing to find a more up to date source on the basis that it's so out to date as to not be useful anymore, especially given the 2010 HDI calculation changes. I've also combined the three tables into one as it was so few countries after removal. I'm inclined to remove entirely as it's not really inside the lists selection criteria (This is a list of countries by the Human Development Index as included in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report.) I'll leave this here for a while to see if someone else have more luck finding other sources or have a better course of action. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section now seeing that there was no opposition raised. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"List of countries by Human Development Index,2006" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of countries by Human Development Index,2006. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is Russia?
I noticed the 49th entry is missing. If anyone can add the missing entry I found Russia listed as the country with the 49th highest HDI on the page linked below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_Human_Development_Index
 * Someone removed it without explanation yesterday. I have reverted the edit. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Development Over 2010s
Would it be a good idea to show the absolute increase in HDI between 2010 and 2018 like in the IHDI article, instead of just the average % growth as it is now? I feel like it would better show the development over time than what's there currently. Having both could also work. ClintsWayne (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

HDI map
you re added the map with countries divided into the official low/medium/high/very high categories. I do not think it is appropriate to have two maps displaying the same data as it is redundant and likely to confuse readers. I don't have that strong a preference for either but I do prefer the map with more granular data as it contains more information without being more difficult to read. Would your concerns be addressed by adding divisions corresponding to the official categories to give readers a sense of what the different values mean without saccrificing the more granular data. For refference I've added the two maps with the current captions as well as my proposed modified caption. Countries by Human Development Index category (2020).png categories (based on 2019 data, published in 2020). Countries by Human Development Index (2020).png categories in increments of 0.050 (based on 2019 data, published in 2020). Countries by Human Development Index (2020).png scores in increments of 0.050 (based on 2019 data, published in 2019). What do you think? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The two maps have been used together on the page for a long time and I don't think this is inappropriate (it's your personal preference to think that it is inappropriate). Both maps have also been used on lists available in other languages (some lists show only the map which shows the official categories). In my opinion I think that the map showing the division by categories is more relevant because it shows an official division in the index. The second map is interesting but has no official basis and shows a personalized division of the HDI. I also don't think that having the two maps on the same page is redundant or confusing since they have different focuses and this looks clear to me. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  03:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My only goal here is to make the article as good as possible and I think having just one map displaying all the information would be more useful for our readers. I fully get the desire to show the official divisions since most readers don't have any reference whether a HDI of 0.572 is considered high or low. I also think that more granular data is desirable as well. The map only grouping based on the official groups make large regions of the world look very homogeneous when in reality two countries in the same group can be vastly different. This makes the smaller divisions more desirable for me. In an attempt to combine the advantages of both maps in one I made a new caption for the more granular map which I think does a good job showing both the official divisions and the more precise data. I would appreciate your opinions on this attempt and whether that is an improvement according to you. Having the same information twice slightly reworded straight after each other is not good writing and it is for the same reason not good image use either as documented at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. We should be concise and present the best map possible not have the same information twice because we don't agree on which style is the best. This will avoid wasting users time figuring out whether they want to take an in depth look at both maps or not and avoid reader confusion. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * try to call other users to join the discussion on this, so we can see what most prefer. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  22:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the images! I am planning on take this back to FLC soon and it would be good to have this resolved before then so I was wondering if you have any opinions on this matter. Thank you so much for updating the images, the black border looks great! I also updated the images in this section. --Trialpears (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Seychelles
How has Seychelles fallen back to High Human Dev Index?? Just 5 points lol? They couldn’t leave it to very high HDI Nlivataye (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

New colour on the map for countries with a score of 0.950-1.000
There are now three countries that score over 0.950 so I think we should add another darker colour to the map. After all, there's a colour for 0.350-399 which also only has three countries. Koiramainen (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan (September 2020)
The Republic of China does not appear in this list or on this map. It has already been determined on Talk:Republic of China that Taiwan's HDI is 0.911, which should be on the list. There is no real reason not to include it, especially when non-sovereign territories like Hong Kong are on. --66.215.219.189 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I think the reason is that Taiwan is was not actually on the official list released by the UNDP, rather the 0.911 value was calculated by a separate entity – the Taiwan National Statistics Bureau. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:25, 09:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed Taiwan (again). The article is about the HDI developed and published by the UNDP, not about rankings created by other entities. Taiwan is not listed in the HDI. If someone wants to write about the various indices of development, Taiwan's Subnational Human Development Database might very well belong there. It does not, however, belong in an article about the HDI, and Taiwan's non-HDI statistics do not belong in the HDI list. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean Taiwan's indice are not HDI? If you mean the list should only contain the figures from UNDP database, then the European Union shall not also be included as it has no its own data in the report as well. Besides, you mentioned the Subnational Human Development Database a.k.a GDL sources all its countries' data from UNDP, except for Taiwan, because UNDP does not have Taiwanese data (the GDL's academic publication detailing their database construction explains this: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938). Thus, for Taiwan's data, GDL took the HDI values directly from the Taiwanese government website as secondary data. Taiwanese government used the same methodology. The link I provided ( https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/02416246DBUFBVDH.pdf for 2018, and https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/112116036FDX2D8F3.pdf for 2019) along with offical Excel formats from Taiwan statistical bureau (http://eng.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=25280&ctNode=6032&mp=5) which are far more transparent than UNDP figures. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I copied the name 'Subnational Human Development Database' from the ref that had been there; I've not looked at it. If they're using numbers from the government of Taiwan, those are not HDI numbers. They may be HDI figures, but that doesn't mean that they  HDI figures. You say that 'The link I provided is far more transparent than UNDP figures'. That may be the case. However, this is the List of countries by Human Development Index, which is composed of UNDP figures. If you wish to discuss removing the EU ('then the European Union shall not also be included'), that should be a new, separate discussion, added to the bottom of the page. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You just attempt to escape my inquiry. if your reason is to remove Taiwan because of no inclusion in the UNDP figures, then you should follow all that the UNDP report is given regardless of your own "feeling" in regarding which entities should be included or excluded from the list. That's why I brought the EU's case out here. Do not sidestep the real issue! 123.195.130.73 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When you reply to someone, please add one more colon so that it indents your comment, making it clear which comment you're replying to. if your reason is to remove Taiwan because of no inclusion in the UNDP figures: Yes. That is exactly my point. That is what I meant when I said 'Taiwan is not listed in the HDI', 'Taiwan's non-HDI statistics do not belong in the HDI list', figures from Taiwan's government are not HDI figures, and that this is the List of countries by Human Development Index, which is composed of UNDP figures. Please feel free to begin a separate discussion about the potential removal of the EU from the list. This section is for discussing Taiwan and the article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah keep trying to sidestep all the issue by giving no relevant and sensible reason for your edits of inclusion or exclusion of different entities to suit your own feeling about how to define this article, which seems very "fair" to every wiki editors in defining which is HDI or non-HDI figures by your own sense only. You made complete nonsense. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan (June 2021)
Thanks for trying to improve the article with the Taiwan change. I am however very hesitant to add data from any non-UNDP source for many reasons. First of all we have the very practical thing of the data not really being comparable with the rest. Even though Taiwan seems to have tried to do it properly, just looking at the annual re-calculation of the previous years HDI you see that there can be significant variations. This problem will inevitably be exacerbated when calculated by a third party. Then we have the trust issue. The Taiwanese government clearly has a conflict of interest and an incentive to inflate the figure and there is enough ambigoity about what data to use that you can do it while following the calculations to a T. We also have several other countries that for some reason or other don't have HDI values calculated by the UNDP. We should treat these consistently with Taiwan and I really don't want to include dubious estimates for North Korea, Somalia, Kosovo and any of the small island nations/territories. Finally 2 of the 3 sources used seem to be dead. --Trialpears (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Very High, High, Medium & Low HDI labels
Why were these removed, as they were a key identifying factor in HDI? --Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As per explanation by editor.  If you want to review the issue please refer it to featured list candidate page--123.195.130.73 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

They should honestly be brought back. I think only the English page for HDI rankings and such lacks the headers Heikocvijic (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's great seeing that there are more editors who want to improve our coverage of Human Development Index related articles, but these labels have serious issues. This was discussed at length on the featured list candidate page with several editors being in agreement about it, but to summarize the "Very high human development" is permanently stuck at the top and doesn't sort. This isn't possible to fix due to limitations to the wikitext table restrictions. Avoiding using table headers in this way is considered a high priority accessibility issue per Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial which seriously mess with screen readers. The text is also not MOS:COLOR compliant and even when sorting in the least bad way possible the labels makes no sense when sorting for the growth or country columns. They also don't contribute anything new with the labels being explained in the lead and the map clearly categorizing countries in the different areas. I have now removed these labels again both because of the accessibility policies and the previous consensus from the FLC page. --Trialpears (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The tables in the other languages for the same article have the same issues I think, yet no one cares apparently. Very inconsistent. Also, it looks like the same issues are present in other articles with HDI rankings, in English, but only this one is different. Heikocvijic (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that it isn't an issue in the other places, but rather that noone has made the same effort to make them high quality and accesible. The good news is that I plan on doing major work on Human Development Index and List of countries by inequality-adjusted Human Development Index. Stopping improvements because they haven't been made in other places is counterproductive. --Trialpears (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I still think that the lack of labels is worse than the previous state of the labels. Maybe copying the table style used, for example, on the page for the Democracy Index would be a good idea. Anyway, good luck on your plans! Heikocvijic (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Democracy Index definitely has some nice parts, but it has serious accessibility issues, tons of sorting issues, requires large amounts of horizontal scrolling on anything but a full screen computer, is essentially an in discriminant collection of data. The entire page would be a nightmare for someone with red-green colorblindness which affects like 5% of the population. Some of the things that's worth commenting on more positivley is that they solved the top label sticking to the header, but this was achieved by creating an invisible row above it which of course comes with other sorting and accesibility issues on top of being very ugly and not dealing with the other issues with headers. Having a development group column (similar to the regime type column there) would be an accessible option I guess and probably the only option I don't have significant policy concerns over. Even then I'm unsure if it's desirable because it doesn't add much. It's already clear from the lead what the category means, the map divides countries by this measure and since they are in a list it isn't even particularly useful to put them in somewhat arbitrary buckets when you can immedietly see what countries rank similarly which says so much more than just a bucket of high or low. --Trialpears (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Geography
Name the parts of the world which have very high HDI rankings 197.229.150.148 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

2020 List
My gosh, is the 2020 HDI list ever going to come out? I need to see if the United States has hit rock bottom and fallen to #189 on the list or not.


 * The 2020 HDR will be launched on 15 December 2020, as from UNDP HDR site, so stay tuned 😘 --AlfinIjaPratama (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The United States is at #17 on the list. I hope you are not disappointed. Surakmath (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I plan on taking care of this tomorrow as well as creating an easy guide to do it in the future using regular expressions. --Trialpears (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC) The HDI Report 2020 was released on December 15, 2020. The current list on Wikipedia is 2019.
 * Yep it was released 2 hours ago. I'm working on it. --Trialpears (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated this article, but the following will also need updates.


 * Human Development Index
 * List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
 * List of countries by Human Development Index by region
 * List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index
 * List of African countries by Human Development Index
 * List of countries in Asia and Oceania by Human Development Index
 * List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index
 * I'll work through them in the above order over the coming week, but feel free to help out! --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for updating it this year. I've done it for the past 3 years and this year I'm busier. Nice to have some help! &#32;Have fun on Wikipedia! (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating it previous years! It's highly appreciated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

it's weird. Arab-Gulf countries have slave workers (more than their citizens) but they have higher HDI. It's a bit confusing, isn't it? 78.190.138.21 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

China
I request that Free China is added on here, thank you 49.217.201.241 (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Formerly, this article used to include estimates for other regions not included in the official UNDP report. One of those regions was Taiwan. The information was considered relevant to the article in the past, and I believe it is still relevant today. Surakmath (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue for no inclusion of Taiwan in the list has been answered in previous discussions such as the following one: Talk:List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index LVTW2 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Human Development Report 2022
The new HDR will be released 8 September 13:00 UTC. I won't be able to do the update work before the 9th, but do plan on doing it or look it over properly for this article, the main HDI article and the inequality adjusted one. There are many others that are affected, but for lists and individual countries, but that work I won't do, at least not this week. Please make sure all the numbers are correct, making sure everything is correct afterwards can be real annoying, especially with how common subtle vandalism is with these figures. The in use template is made for situations like this one so we can avoid duplicating the update efforts like last time. --Trialpears (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

2021 HDI update
Is this year's HDI update not going to come out? It is supposed to be released at the end of every year like it did in December 2020. It's middle of January 2022 and still no update. When will it get released? Tanvir Ahmed Zubair (talk) 7:29 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the HDRO says "the end of the second quarter of 2022" so there's quite some time left. December is the most common release time but it's really inconsistent and Covid isn't helping I guess. --Trialpears (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Anyway thanks for replying! --Tanvir Ahmed Zubair (talk) 5:48 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, did they decide to call it quits on this thing? Latest report is based on 2019 data, and here it is the middle of April 2022 already! Lazarus1255 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's out now! The page has to be updated Ly.n0m (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So why don't you update? HOTmag (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Botswana and Seychelles
Botswana lost almost 40 points??? Now it’s medium and what went wrong exactly? And Seychelles not in very high but further down on high when literally most countries in very high literally made no more advances than those way lower yet points are high and keep getting high? This is a fuss 197.186.6.159 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan
Hi, I noticed that Taiwan is using in this list (although it appears in lists of GDP etc.) Dortur91 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant missing* Dortur91 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

5-Year Change?
Why does the graph show the five-year change (which is not in the report) rather than the change from the previous report? 021120x (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is in the report on the pages given in the duration. One year is considered too short for ranking changes to necessarily be significant and is thus not reported. Compaaring with a previous report doesn't really work either since older figures are adjusted slightly in light of improved data which becomes very important when considering a one year period over which the HDI change is usually very small. Also single events such as a large company or sector performing well or poorly can significantly sway GDP figures for smaller countries potentially giving weird results on small timescales. --Trialpears (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Table width
I have made change to the table templates in order to reduce the table's size on the page. Skinny tables are easy to read, especially on small screens. I abbreviated a lot of the column names that were shoving the most important column (HDI) far to the side.

I also moved the source information up just above the table, with added instructions to find the various criteria. The pages were there before but hidden deep in two almost identical citations.

Please revert and/or discuss these sorts of refinements if desired. Wizmut (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wizmut Thanks for the changes! I'm not an expert when it comes to tables and haven't thought about them since the FL over 2 years ago and feel like there are a bunch of improvements here, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the abbreviated headers. % growth could easily be confused for % growth over the measured period rather than average annual % growth over the period. I'm also unsure if the majority of readers will understand $\delta$ to mean change which is especially important since tooltips are finicky as hell on mobile, especially when it's just applied on one letter. The old layout can become significantly better on small screens if the non-breaking spaces that someone added to the headers are removed making it possible to see the country and one side at a time even on small phones which was my goal when taking the article to FL. The other two things I reacted on was that the row headers on countries should be reintroduced since I remember there being some policy about that and that I would like unique references for the different collumns since the data is taken from different tables in a super long report. --Trialpears (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I had thought that the instructions within the citation just above the table would be easy to find, but I may have gotten that wrong. I wrote the text: "Rank and index on pages 272-276. Change in rank and percentage growth on pages 277-280." But you have to hover over or click on the citation to see that. And you have to see that the sentence just before the table is associated with the table, which some people might skip over.
 * On mobile's it's really a tradeoff for readability, to use tooltips or not. On my phone the topic of the list (HDI) was pushed off the screen. The "change in rank" column in general is the least noteworthy, but it gets second billing. It could go; human development isn't a competition.
 * I hadn't heard of a policy on row headers but would be interested to learn more. Wizmut (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Afghanistan and HDI
Why are other editors putting the Taliban flag if it is not recognized? European Union Fan (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @European Union Fan - you may be better off taking this to the talk page of Template:flag, as that is where the flag icon is getting set. Kiwipete (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Flag and country name change
I had just recently reverted this revision back to my preferred version. I therefore want to discuss this stuff with other chief editors. Can someone please understand my rights on editing articles? It is because i am changing mostly the flag of Afghanistan, as well as few other country names. Thanks! 2A02:3100:5EF9:1A00:617C:DED8:CB3F:D2BE (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You have recently done it twenty times and got blocked for it. Block evading editors have no rights on this project. Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you always chsnging back to normal flag of Afghanistan? The IEA flag is unrecognized, so instead please let me put on this article page the flag of IRA, or the tricolor Afghan flag. You do not need to block any user. Just without edit warring please. Thanks! 2A02:3100:5EF9:1A00:617C:DED8:CB3F:D2BE (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you adequately please explain why you revert back my edits? 2A02:3100:5EF9:1A00:617C:DED8:CB3F:D2BE (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Afghanistan dispute edit
Can someone tell me why is the IEA Taliban flag used on this revision? I always put the Afghan tricolor IRA flag, due to it being internationally recognized by the United Nations. Make sure to do an consensus about changing the national flag. 2A02:3100:5EF9:1A00:617C:DED8:CB3F:D2BE (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Where’s the 2023 data?
Last year around this time, there was new data. However, no one seems to have updated this page with new data. Is it not out yet? Hikerblunt01 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Waiting here too GeraldoCzr4 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The data simply hasn't been released yet. The release date varies and has been as late as December. I'm in the UNDP mailing list and will update it as soon as it's released. --Trialpears (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give an update here since the report is still nowhere in sight. Usually there is a launch event associated with a new report. No such event has been announced making me think that it won't come out before the end of the year. The UNDP has however explicitly said that they won't combine two years worth of data into one report like they did last time. I also believe that there still is one or potentially two regional consultations to go before release. I'm not gonna put any bets here but my best guess for the release month would be February. --Trialpears (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally. The last report will be released on 13 March. https://hdr.undp.org/content/202324-human-development-report-will-be-launched-13-march-2024srank Bananice2 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

“Formatting” edits
Would it be ok if the data was separated into development groups? Very high, high, medium, and low. I was looking at revision history and it was separated into those groups. Also, should there be a separate column for like “change in HDI since 20XX”? Or something? 48JcL48 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The change in HDI formula can simply be recalculated once we have the 2022 values put in place. MapleStorie (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

HDI 2023/24 Report comes out on 13 March
https://hdr.undp.org/content/202324-human-development-report-will-be-launched-13-march-2024

The source is above. Will anybody be updating it? I would be fine with doing so, but if anybody else has plans, then note them here - in the past we've had issues as multiple people edited over each other.

Additionally, is it possible to break the one large column up into multiple columns as it used to be before 2020 or so? It was so much easier to read back then. Perhaps it could be split into four columns for Very High, High, Medium, and Low?

- Maketrad &#32;Have fun on Wikipedia! (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I can do it no problem. I suggest that we keep the 2021 column and just add the 2023 one. Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant that the list is currently very difficult to read. If you look at old revisions from 2020 and before, you will see how the article was far easier to read being split into two columns, and organised by the categories provided by the UNDP.
 * Also, I'll make the map! &#32;Have fun on Wikipedia! (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by splitting into two columns, but if that means splitting the table into separate tables, like in the past, I think that is not a very good design. There should be a single table that contains all the countries in my opinion. A new column with the UNPD development category can be added if needed. Vpab15 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've read the note since then which specifies why they decided to do one column instead of two, it's good for mobile apparently. I will just split it into four categories but one column then, I feel it's easier reading that way...
 * Also the report came out, I'll start updating. EDIT: On second thought, I'm too busy at work, so I'll let others do that task. - Maketras &#32;Have fun on Wikipedia! (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now I’m trying to add HDI data to countries with 2021 data or no data (I added Nauru’s data. Turns out they had data last year. Huh.) 48JcL48 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Though the table isn't complete yet, I have visually documented the 2022/23 data in increments of 0.050. A18934 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I started to add the numbers but I am afraid I can not get through multi-cell formatting. If nobody objects, I can remove the two-cell formatting for 2021, otherwise somebody has to show me how to do it for 2022. Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t see a problem with removing the 2021 graph. After all, people can just go to the UNDP website and get the HDIs from 2021 48JcL48 (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's relatively straight-forward. You use syntax like this: rowspan="3" . If you can't get the hang of it, please let someone else do it. At the moment, one of your edits has mucked up the formatting of the entry for New Zealand. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried that yesterday before coming here. I see that now it has been collectively fixed, so I will continue for the time being. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that decided that looking for consensus in Wikipedia is optional and, without participating in this discussion, unilaterally removed the 2022 data. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Judging from their talk page, they do not really care about Wikipedia policies in general. Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the 2022 data, in fact I filled the entire list with the new HDI, which is why I removed the 2021 data. You can look at the UN's official HDI list and see it corresponds with what I input. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I meant to write 2021, not 2022. This does not negate my point. Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)