User talk:Mcmulj1

Population figures
Thanks for your message. I'm afraid it's all got rather complicated, and is not the way it would be designed if Wikipedia was a centrally planned exercise, but we have to take Wikipedia as we find it.

Prompted by your message I have incorporated the mid-2016 figures in all the places I have modified. This covers List of English districts, List of English districts by population and List of English districts by population density. The others you mention - Demography of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom and Outline of England - I have never touched, and you are free to insert new figures directly into each article.

More to follow later.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Checking population density figures
Hi Keith,

I have been quality assuring some of the population density data that you kindly updated by comparing the 2016 figures with our published spreadsheet and I have noticed some differences.

Please could you double check that the correct data have been entered for this page. Below is a link to our population estimates mid-2016 workbook and the table that you need is MYE5.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland

Many thanks for your time.

With kind regards,

Jonathan

Different figures
Hi Keith,

I have noticed that the published population density figures that you updated for mid-2016 are still different to the data on the table MYE5 on the link that I sent you.

Please could you make sure that the published density figures on the Wikipedia website match the ONS' published data.

Many thanks for your time.

With kind regards,

Jonathan


 * Can you give maybe a couple of examples which are different so I can track down the source of the discrepancy, please?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks for replying.

I can provide you with some differences as you requested.

On the ONS published MYE5 table for Islington the population density is 15,524 in mid-2016 people per square KM. On your published WIKIPEDIA web page you have the incorrect value of 15670.

On the ONS published MYE5 table for Tower Hamlets the population density is 15,243 in mid-2016 people per square KM. On your published WIKIPEDIA web page you have the incorrect value of 15,404.

On the ONS published MYE5 table for Hackney the population density is 14,396 in mid-2016 people per square KM. On your published WIKIPEDIA web page you have the incorrect value of 14,358.

On the ONS published MYE5 table for Kensington and Chelsea the population density is 13,061 in mid-2016 people per square KM. On your published WIKIPEDIA web page you have the incorrect value of 12,931.

The incorrect values for population density are on the following web page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density

The correct values are published in table MYE5 on the ONS website.

Many thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing your reply.

With kind regards,

Jonathan


 * Hi, Jonathan, sorry for the delay but I only just noticed your response. I assert that my figures are not wrong, the figures in MYE5 are imprecise. The column "Area (sq km)" is not just displayed to the nearest sq km (e.g. Islington 15), but it is stored that way - and the calculations for Islington are carried through as if its area were exactly 15 sq km. But in fact the best available value for its land area (taking area AREALHECT from Standard Area Measurements for Administrative Areas in the United Kingdom ) is 14.8565 sq km, some 1% less than the value used in MYE5, and consequently the true population density is 1% higher. The worse deviations would appear to be Hammersmith & Fulham (16 vs 16.3976) and Westminster (21 vs 2148.7) at nearly 2.5%. My own calculations are slightly rounded, using Islington = 14.86, but this inaccuracy is comparable to the fundamental uncertainty in the district population estimates (which Wikipedia rounds to the nearest 100). You will understand my reluctance to replicate the inaccuracy in MYE5 even if it claims to be definitively inaccurate.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Thanks for getting back to me.

Is there another way that I can contact you as it does seem to take a long while for you to receive my messages?

Here in the Population Estimates Unit we have recently completed the processing of a revised back-series of population for mid years mid-2012 through to mid-2016. We are publishing around March next year so you may want to be aware of this as some data that has been published on Wikipedia may need updating. There is of course the mid-2017 population estimates that will also be produced and published next year.

Many thanks for your time.

With kind regards,

Jonathan


 * If you put the message on my talk page User talk:Keith Edkins rather than your own, I get a notification which I will normally receive in a day or so.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Mid-2017 population estimates
Thanks for the heads-up, I will look out for the new figures.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)