Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Requested move 5 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

List of countries and dependencies by population → List of sovereign states and dependencies by population – Per WP:PRECISE. The term "country" can be ambiguous as it can describe both sovereign states and constituent regions of a country (such as in the UK). This article deals with the former so the title should reflect that. On top of that, the article listing the countries of the world is under the name "List of sovereign states" so it'd be best to unify the terminology. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The lede clearly states "This is a list of countries and dependent territories by population. It includes sovereign states, inhabited dependent territories and, in some cases, constituent countries of sovereign states" so I don't see anything ambiguous. As for unifying the terminology, there are a lot of "List of countries" articles, 7 of which are listed in the see also section so I don't see an issue there either, unless you're planning on renaming those too. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too inconsistent

The list sometimes includes and sometimes excludes contentious territory. The inclusion of the Crimean peninsula as part of Russia and not Ukraine seems silly when the footnote itself acknowledges that most of the international community considers the opposite to be the case. Politics aside it would probably be better to have the Crimean peninsula listed separately from both countries.

92.233.139.105 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

206 sovereign states, some missing

There are 206 sovereign states. This List only has 195. We are missing 11 sovereign states.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Which are the missing ones?--Aréat (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wyn.junior, Aréat: Late answer, but here it is: List of sovereign states gives 193 member states and two observer states (which add up to our 195 numbered) plus 11 other states. The "missing states" are those 11, mostly states with limited recognision. They are included here, but without numbering. --T*U (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

New graph

Guarapiranga has now made several attempts to insert his graph into the article to the point that he's edit-warring with 2 other editors and after 4 attempts it still isn't right. Now the key is over the top of Australia, hiding several countries in the region. WP:IMAGESIZE also says "stand-alone lead images should also be no wider than upright=1.35." This is equivalent to 300px at the default preference selection of "220px" yet the graph is much wider than that and also needs to be fixed. Note that the existing image complies with this. Guarapiranga can't simply keep adding flawed images to the article and edit-warring with other editors. As Begoon said in his edit summary, Guarapiranga needs to get consensus for this change, hence this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I was just trying to update a map that is five years out of date, replacing an image only one person has the source to with a Wikipedia Template everyone can edit and keep up-to-date. If you don't like the way I configured the map, why don't you get off your high horse of "not good enough", and help improve it? Move things forward, not backwards.

Either war, screw this, I don't care. Nothing in it for me. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There's "nothing in it for me" to answer this either, but I will. Nobody is saying your work isn't appreciated - it is, but the fact remains that when multiple people tell you it isn't ready for the article yet and remove it then you need to accept that with a little grace. It seems every edit-summary or comment you make is belligerent and hostile and it's really hard to communicate with someone who is in that "mode".

I've created and edited thousands of images for wikipedia. Some get used, some don't. Some people are happy with what I've done, some people reject it or ask for improvements. Some people are nice and polite and thank me, some are rude or forgetful and don't. Some people get upset because what I've done might be seen as an improvement on what they did, some embrace the improvement. All of those things are part-and-parcel of this editing environment and I need to either accept them or throw my tools out of the pram and stomp off. I choose to accept them because above all I enjoy the work and achievements.

Now, it's a shame if you decide not to finish improving your work because it was not instantly accepted - I wish you wouldn't make that decision - but if you do, you do... Hopefully you won't. -- Begoon 04:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a template, not an image. Use it and improve it, if and however way you like. No point in my doing it just to get reversed and warned by people that do nothing but undo other people's work. Thought I'd help. I see it isn't welcome. Screw this, makes no difference to me. — Guarapiranga (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... I tried to be helpful. As you wish, then... I would, however, ask you to immediately justify or withdraw your "people that do nothing but undo other people's work" comment, since I see nobody meeting that description here and comments such as that, if unsubstantiated, are very likely to result in sanctions. -- Begoon 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Page protection?

Should this page be protected? The data is edited every day, more times than not by IP editors, and oftentimes without valid citations. WikiWinters (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange map

I'm sceptical about this map. Democratic Republic of the Congo (80 million inhabitants) and Brazil (208) look so small. What does the color represent ? Elfast (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A cartogram of the world population in 2002

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

CHANGE X 23 Italy 60,359,546 December 31, 2018 0.78% Official estimate

TO Y 23 Italy 60,294,587 March 31, 2019 0.78% Official estimate http://demo.istat.it/bilmens2019gen/index.html Dariobarque (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

An editor has recently made several changes to the layout of this article that I have opposed. He has made similar changes at other articles with other editors reverting him as well. Although I have asked him to discuss these changes here and gain consensus for them, he has not and instead has been edit-warring to force his changes into the article without explanation. I hope that he will enter this discussion but if not, I see no reason why the disputed edits should not be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Please see Template talk:Div col#"rem" for an explanation of rem units. Your most recent revert was this one, which you self-reverted when you realised you had been edit-warring. I suggest we continue this discussion at Template talk:Div col#"rem" for the time being. Lmatt (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted because I have principles. This issue here is whether or not your edits to this article are justified and, since they've been opposed they need to be discussed here. Use of rem is only one aspect, although why you think rem is necessary instead of em, which is widely used and pretty much the standard, also needs to be addressed. Please also acknowledge that you have been edit-warring. That's why a warning was left on your talk page by another editor. It's clear that your edits at other articles are also opposed based on the number of changes that have been reverted by other editors and the requests on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Referencing these figures on other pages

I've created Template:Country population to dynamically access these figures on other pages. Example:

{{Country population | IDN}} = 284,527,003

The ones fed here directly via the poptoday template are not accessible via this template, though. — Guarapiranga (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

They are now. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Dates

I noticed today that a number of entries in the Date column of the table use {{#formatdate: {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}}}. This appears to flout WP:DATED, and probably ought to be changed to the introduction date of the flag on that table row. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: This appears to have resulted because of this edit to {{poptoday 1}}. I have reverted it but now some of the dates are still in dmy format after edits by Guarapiranga. Everything seems to have changed with this edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I was trying to respect users' date format preferences, as the mdy format is standard only in the US out of the English-speaking world. In my browser it shows as dD Mmmm YYYY. I'll have a look at it logged off when I'm back at my computer. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Found the glitch: had forgotten to specify the default date format (mdy) in some of them. Looks good for me now, both logged in and logged out. Sorted? Guarapiranga (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

However, from what I understood, Wtmitchell is talking about using the current date, not about its formatting, AussieLegend. I haven't delved into it, but I noticed the current dates are used for the countries whose population are automatically calculated and updated daily from official estimates of population growth rates. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope Wtmitchell responds to clarify his position. However, dates are still an issue. This article has been using mdy dates for years and now some of them are being displayed in dmy format, which is incorrect. It's inappropriate to arbitrarily change date formats when an article has evolved using one format so this needs to be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Whichever date format is used, it should be consistent throughout the list. If the article has used m/d/y for years, then I think that it would be better for new dates to be provided as m/d/y instead of changing every date to d/m/y. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It shows all as mdy when I log off, which is what it defaults to when a user is not logged in or doesn't have date format set in his preferences.

Try logging off. As an Aussie, you probably have dmy set as your preferred date format. Guarapiranga (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've tried this on multiple devices using different operating systems, browsers and internet providers. I can go back to before this edit and all is fine but afterwards there are different formats. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not about browsers, ISPs or OSs, AussieLegend; it's simply about being logged in or out. If you don't want to log out, you can simply open it in a private window. We should respect readers' date format preferences. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

My point was that I have tried various things, including being logged out and I always see the same thing. Respecting users' preference is one thing but we also have to respect MOS:DATE and articles should use a consistent date format, which it did before your edit. I haven't changed my personal preferences so your changes seem to be the problem. If you can't fix the issue we're going to have to revert because the problem didn't occur until you started experimenting. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree articles should use a consistent date format. The only reason they don't now is bc you reverted my edit to {{poptoday}}, AussieLegend. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There, it should be consistent now. I edited the {{poptoday_1}} again, using the same template TU-nor just did here (please don't construe this as an edit war; we're just trying things out). Guarapiranga (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This is how it looks to me logged in:	And this is how it looks to anyone logged out or without set preference:

MOS:DATE is respected by keeping the mdy as the default format for users with no preference or logged out. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Prior to your edit to {{poptoday 1}} all dates here displayed as mdy. Since that edit and your other edits to the article, this is not the case so the ball is firmly in your court. When an article evolves using one date format it shouldn't be arbitrarily changed, which is what has happened since you started editing. You can't blame other editors or their preferences for this. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Not blaming anyone, AussieLegend. All I did there was ensure the article respects readers' date format preference (while maintaining mdy as default for those not logged in or without stated preferences).

How does it look to you now? Am I right to interpret from your reply that it now looks consistent on your screen? Can you confirm you see the same I do in the screenshots above? Guarapiranga (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's now consistent but in the wrong format and therein lies the problem. This is now the ONLY page on Wikipedia where this happens. All other pages that I've edited since your edit began look exactly as they did before then. Only this page has changed. An editor shouldn't be forced to log out to see dates in the correct format, especially when it is only happening on one page. I really don't see the point of these changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is, as I said above, to respect readers' date format preference. Are you saying readers who've chosen dmy as their preferred date format are incorrect. Isn't the reason why you're seeing it as dmy precisely bc you've chosen that as your preference? Are you saying it's incorrect for you to do so? That's lunacy. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You do know you can change your preference if you don't like seeing dates in dmy, right? Guarapiranga (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not at all the point. I'm happy with my preferences. I'm not happy with the fact that this is the only page on Wikipedia where this happens and that it didn't happen until you started making all of your undiscussed changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

UN List versus this one

Anyone know, or know a quick way to reconcile the 233 entities of List of countries by population (United Nations) with the 241 (194+47) that are here? Or I need to just do it manually?Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Better check manually, but List of states with limited recognition gives a helping hand. My guess is everything from States that are neither UN members nor UN observers and down. --T*U (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

At a quick glance, 13 appear only in one list (Abkhazia, Christmas I, Cocos I, Artsakh, St Martin, Great Britain, Kosovo, Norfolkk I, N Cyprus, Pitcairn I, St Barthélemy, S Ossetia, Transnistria) amd 5 appear only in the other list (Caribbean Netherlands, Guadeloupe, Guernsey and Jersey separately, Mayotte, Réunion).---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Ehrenkater, can you bottle some of your "glancing" ability and send it to me?Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Great Britain is the main island without Northern Ireland, it should be the United Kingdom, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Displayed name for UK fixed. Again I wonder if the coding of this table has become too complex. --T*U (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How to do this? In ISO it says GBR/United Kingdom of GB & NI the full official title, usually just United Kingdom but in here it shows GBR/Great Britain?Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there's nothing to send, I just sorted both tables into alphabetical order and compared them, jotting down the differences on a piece of paper. You can easily do the same. If it wasn't for the silly flags, it might be nearly as quick to copy both lists into a spreadsheet.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought it must be something like that, I downed the spreadsheets from the sources instead as I can't readily see how to do what you did.:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Easy to do on Google sheets. The silly flags are no obstacle. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please check the source of Algeria population

The article stated that population of Algeria as of 1 July 2019 is "43,378,027", but the source linked to a report in 2016. Can't find any official source about the number "43,378,027" either. --minhhuy ^(talk) 07:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest I found was 42.2m on 1 Jan 2018 here, Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy. Guarapiranga (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree! I cannot find any source for the 43,3M number. I have changed the entry. --T*U (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Found the 43M (2019) source: it's the UN. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

List of countries and dependencies by population → List of sovereign states and dependencies by population – Requesting page move per Kahastok's suggestion. The article's title refers to countries, geographical entities, whereas the article content and table refer to sovereign states, political entities. Much of the misunderstandings amongst this article's editors stem from this simple confusion of these two, related yet distinct, categories. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It is List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent arranged differently and with population added? Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, they should be consistent (much like any Lists of countries ought to be consistent with the list of ISO country codes). The point is that country and sovereign state are not synonymous, and the set of countries is not equal to the set of sovereign states. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose per WP:CONCISE.

As discussed above, and as per the article country that Guarapiranga cites, the word "country" has more than one meaning. One of those meanings is the concept that we describe in the article sovereign state. Guarapiranga's arguments, here and above, reject the possiblity that a word can have more than one meaning.

I take account of the fact that "sovereign state" suffers from a parallel problem. Like "country", the term "sovereign state" does not exclusively map to the concept described in the article sovereign state. For example each of the entities listed here is, technically, a sovereign state according to one legitimate meaning of the term. Kahastok talk 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the word animal also has more than one meaning; it may mean mammal, bird, reptile, etc. Yet, no list of animals should exclude any of them, on account of anything else but them being animals or not. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Indian also has more than one meaning; it may mean Gujarati, Bengali, Cherokee, etc. So, presumably no list of Indians should exclude any of them, on account of anything but them being Indians or not. Kahastok talk 18:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Title is already too long and confusing. It should simply be "List of countries by population", and let the specific details about whether they're "sovereign states" or "dependencies" or both be parsed in the article text. Walrasiad (talk)
• Oppose - I haven't participated in the above discussion much but I have been watching and I'm not convinced that the article should be moved. I can see where Kahastok is coming from and Walrasiad's oppose vote is, I think, a concise reflection of my own opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind if it were simply List of countries by population—in fact that's what I thought it was when I first saw the article—but then the list simply has to comply with internationally recognised standards, with no buts and ifs around numbering or inclusion. As it currently stands, this mish-mash list is just OR. Guarapiranga (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you in general terms; however the explanation was given that the title itself is not intended to be conclusive as to content although nothing else seems to be either.Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 is not, and does not claim to be, an internationally-recognised standard for definition of "countries". The POV of the ISO or of the UN may be relatively-widely-held, but it is still POV. We can't just dismiss out of hand the POV that the likes of Kosovo exist. Kahastok talk 18:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's wheels within wheels, if we say verifiability rather than truth, you still have to select sources and the selection is itself POV eg the CIA clssifies Gaza and the West Bank as two "countries" and then in its notes says that ISO refers to each of them as "occupied Palestinan territory" which isn't true because ISO switched over to State of Palestine in 2013. So you can't win, whatever you do, because ultimately this is political. I keep coming back to the UN, sure that's political as well but I always know where I am with them.Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The UN and ISO is a decent basic standard, but we can't use it alone. WP:NPOV absolutely requires that we have a method of accounting for the non-UN states with limited recognition. That can't mean treating them as equals, but also can't mean ignoring them entirely. The CIA gives the POV of the US government and is entirely inappropriate on that basis. Kahastok talk 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with treating everyone equally (ie rank solely by the amount of the population) if the purpose of the exercise is non political so if one just wants to show population for all entities with a population (ie the total is everyone in the world) I don't see any difficulty with that in principle (other than different sources calling entities by different names). A UN member state population isn't "better" than a non-UN population and same goes for levels of diplomatic recognition, states versus non-states and so on.Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV, Kahastok. It doesn't mean that sources ought to have a neutral point of view; that's impossible. Rather, it means that editors ought to be neutral relative to the POV of RS. Of course, Wikipedia has a POV; the POV of its RS:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

And, no, Selfstudier, editors are not meant to select sources but simply represent the views of all reliable sources:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. … If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

In particular case, if RSs other than ISO present a different list of countries, of course they need to be presented here. As it currently stands, this list is entirely unsourced, and the criteria used just OR. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I say that UN and ISO have a POV. That we should avoid treating the UN's opinion as fact and that we should weight opinions according to their prominence. You object, tell me that I've misunderstood, and point me at a text that tells me that we should avoid treating opinion as fact and that we should weight opinions according to their prominence.

I mean, presumably you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing? But, other than the frankly bizarre claim that a word cannot possibly have more than one meaning, I no longer have any idea what case it is that you're trying to make here. And on that basis, since we've been about this for days, I think it's best that we stop and let other people discuss this. Kahastok talk 22:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Kahastok, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. The case is clear:

• Either the page is about countries (geographical entities), as the article title says, or its about sovereign states (political entities), as the section title and text say. They can't be both, bc those are two different sets.

In trying to be both, the editors of this page have simply concocted a definition of their own volition that amounts to nothing but OR. There are a number of WP policies that have been misunderstood by this article's editors, leading them to believe editors can decide whatever they want by consensus, or that they should apply standards based on whether anyone may be offended or whether they'll get into fistfights. WP policy is quite clear: NPOV applies to editors, not sources. Whether the UN or ISO have a POV is irrelevant to Wikipedia (of course they do, nothing human is devoid of POV). All that matters to WP policy is that editors represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all significant views published by reliable sources (emphasis mine). And also that If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. IOW, what RSs agree on are WP:FACTS, what they disagree on are opinion. And all RS opinions must be presented on any topic covered on WP (including which geographical entities are countries, and which political entities are sovereign states). Guarapiranga (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: I resent being dragged into your argumentation on the basis of an edit that I immediately retracted when I understood it could be misunderstood. Stretching my badly formulated example into believe editors can decide whatever they want by consensus is undue, offensive and not in line with WP:AGF. --T*U (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Did I assume bad faith, TU-nor? No, I said the policies are misunderstood. You realised your misunderstanding, and corrected yourself. You didn't immediately retract your badly formulated example though; you defended it saying WP:CONSENSUS permits it. But, that's fine, all I'm saying is that these misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy that led to this confusion (no bad faith required). Guarapiranga (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I retracted it when I understood it could be misunderstood, which was after your second comment. I continued to retract more when I understood it still could be misconstrued. My point is that you used a retracted comment to illustrate that editors (in this case me) had misunderstood the policy. --T*U (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok: You mentioned the debate about (some of) these issues Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries earlier and I wasn't entirely clear what you were getting at, is the current system mainly the result of that 2009 discussion? Its not clear (to me anyway) that there was a conclusion to the discussion as such?And there is this as wellSelfstudier (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That RM was both right and wrong. It was right in wanting to put all lists of countries under the same titling standard, but it was wrong in assuming countries and sovereign states are synonymous and interchangeable. I don't see a problem in having both lists, as they refer to different sets (one, for instance, following the list of ISO country codes, and the other the criteria set forth on the List of sovereign states). Guarapiranga (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I only mentioned that discussion because someone brought up my change from ten years ago where we added reference to ISO 3166-1. That was a centralised discussion from among a number of pages, and as a result of that process this and several other pages that were not based on a single external sources adopted ISO 3166-1 with allowance made for states with limited recognition.

It has little bearing on this RM, except insofar as at that time a number of editors were insisting that their definition of the word "country" was the only possible one. Which is exactly what Guarapiranga is doing here. Of course, those editors' definition and Guarapiranga's definition were different.

And this is the crux of the problem with Guarapiranga's argument (insofar as I can tell what it is). Lots of people seem to think that the word "country" has one definition and that everyone agrees with that definition. But if you ask two such people how the word is defined, they generally won't agree. If you ask ten such people to each produce a list "of countries", all ten will swear blind that theirs is the only possible version but no two of the lists will be the same. Guarapiranga is not the first to make this kind of argument, and won't be the last. But those of us who've been here a while will know that Guarapiranga's is just the latest in a long line of different absolutely-universal definitions of the word "country" that these articles have seen. Kahastok talk 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The crux of the problem with your argument,Kahastok, insofar as I can tell what it is, is that what people think is irrelevant to Wikipedia. All that matters is what reliable sources say. Again, I reiterate, the role of editors is simply to convey what RS say. It's not the role of editors or Wikipedia to acquiesce to people's thoughts or feelings. It's an encyclopaedia, not group therapy. Guarapiranga (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In other words, the difference between me and all those other people is that I am right and they are wrong. Kahastok talk 21:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This derailed into personal attacks, so let me put it back on its tracks. Again, the reason for the move is that either this is a list of geographical entities (countries) or it's a list of political entities (sovereign states and dependent territories). It can't be both as these are different sets (even if there is a correspondence in the bulk of the set between sovereign states and their mainland countries). Evidence that it's trying to is that the article's title says one thing, and the table section title says another. Either the list follows the list of ISO country codes or it follows the List of sovereign states. Editors can't make up their own list in dissonance with RSs and other related pages on WP. That's simply OR. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source information

@Guarapiranga: I have tried to follow your changes to the formatting of this list, and I appreciate that the more complex formatting is beneficial to the quality of the list, even if it is more difficult to penetrate for unexperienced (and even for experienced) editors. In this edit you changed the linking to the sources, bringing it in in line with MOS:CITEFORMAT. That is just fine, but at the same time you removed the information about the source type from the visible table, information that is useful both for Wiki users and not least for the editors that are doing the updates to the population numbers. Could you please reinsert that information. I am not asking for clickable links, but it could be done in the format I have suggested (for China) here. Thanks in advance! --T*U (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't verify those cells, TU-nor. The cell for Thailand's population, for instance, said it was an Official population clock, but the link points to a university. In fact, many of the links simply point to home pages in govt depts, and quite often not even the English version of the home page (as the one for China I just corrected). Policy requires that information presented on Wikipedia be readily verifiable by readers and editors through the provided reference. Further, if the aim of those cells was to distinguish national government sources from UN estimates, these should really be put in separate columns, as both are reliable sources, and WP:NPOV requires editors to present to readers all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is why articles like List of countries by GDP (nominal) have 3 large columns (one of the IMF, one for the WB and one for the UN). Guarapiranga (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: I am sure there were errors and inaccuracies, but you have removed even information that was correct and accurate (which I suspect most of it was, since I have regularly checked changes to the list through several years). Regarding links that simply point to home pages in govt depts, that is in some cases the only way to link, since the subpages of many of those sites do not show up with separate web addresses. It does not mean that the link is wrong. Regarding UN data and national data, the intro says clearly that this in principle is a list of national data, and that UN numbers are used only where updated national data are not available.

Wrong links could be marked with "failed verification" or "better source needed" or similar, but removing all of it will make updating of the article more difficult. --T*U (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, done. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This list indicates ‘Country or Dependent Territory’. The independent countries are numbered. Dependent territories are not. Vatican City is an independent nation, recognized by such in ANY other list or reference you check. There are 194 recognized independent countries. Vatican should be numbered #194 and has been for as long as I have been referencing this list. With the number removed, it indicates that Vatican City is a dependency of another nation. Can you tell me what nation that might be? The number should be returned as I have attempted to do over the past few days. Rtb2425 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Vatican City is an independent nation. This list shows independent nations and dependent territories. The independent nations are numbered as Vatican City should be and I have attempted to fix over the past few days. Rtb2425 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you meant to put these comments in the section below, I only just noticed them. This list does not show "independent nations and dependent territories" as you claim. It says it is a "list of countries and dependencies" (or sovereign states) based on inclusion in ISO. There have been many discussions as to what constitutes a "country" (or sovereign state) and while I do not per se object to your characterizing a non member UN observer state as a country, I trust you will also agree that Palestine, a non member UN observer state, the same as the Vatican, is also a country and will not object to its also being numbered. That would be consistent. One cannot just invent criteria to justify numbering or not numbering otherwise you end up with a position that numbers 193 UN member states plus the Vatican (ie only one of the two non member UN observer states) and while that is a possibility, it requires an RFC if that is to be the lead criteria and since we are pending an RFC closure on the lead criteria, we need first to wait for that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FRANCE POPULATION

France´s population includes Overseas departaments according to the Wikipedia articla about the Demographics of France, as there are 2.1 million people in those territories. So it is not "excluding" them, but "including" them.--213.60.225.183 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The number for France includes the five overseas regions of France: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion, but excludes the overseas territories mentioned in the note. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Vatican City

This edit caught my eye, restoring 194 as the population of Vatican City and saying: Someone keeps removing the 194 from Vatican City. Vatican City is an independent country and needs the number next to it.. Looking back, I see this recent edit which removed the 194, saying: Undid revision 935331824 by Rtb2425 (talk) RFC on numbering not yet closed, also it is not clear that Vatican should be numbered according to criteria given in lead..

Things get a bit messy here. I see that the lead refers to ISO 3166-1, in which VAT is wikilinked as [[Vatican City|Holy See]]. There are WP articles for both, and in the Holy See article it says: "Although the Holy See is closely associated with the Vatican City, the independent territory over which the Holy See is sovereign, the two entities are separate and distinct." From that, it seems that Vatican City is the independent sovereign territory and the Holy See is the recognized government which holds sovereignty.

That's as far as I have looked at this. I'll hope that discussion here between interested editors will resolve this. Please discuss here instead of conducting an edit war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

First we need to wait for the RFC to be closed; at the moment there seems to be a rough consensus for numbering all the entries which would render the question moot. While we wait for the formal close, we should note that the 193 states numbered are UN member states, while the Vatican is not as UN member state (it is a non member observer state, the same as Palestine).Finally, I am not sure what the editor who is making the recent edits means by "someone keeps ..."; the editor in question has before these two recent edits made 8 edits since 2010, the most recent being in June 2018, perhaps this editor has another account?Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The argument about waiting for the RfC to be closed, is false. The RfC was opened 11 November, at which time the Vatican state was numbered as 194. It remained that way until this edit less then a week ago. Since then it has been reverted and re-reverted a few times. Waiting for closure can be an argument for a status quo ante version, not for a version introduced close to two months later. --T*U (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought you claimed (at length) not to have a position on the Vatican? Seems that you do, after all.(Is Rtb2425 an alternate account of yours?). Since we do not have to wait for the RFC to be closed, I trust you won't object if Palestine is numbered since it is a non member UN observer state the same as the Vatican and as well in ISO per the lead criteria. If one is numbered, the other needs to be numbered (or change the lead criteria, for which we are presently waiting on the RFC).Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You really do have a certain ability to misunderstand/misrepresent my messages.

1) No, I do not have a position on the Vatican. Please stop saying that. I just followed your lead and returned the numbering to status quo ante while we are waiting for the RfC to be closed.

2) No, Rtb2425 is not my account. I rather dislike the implicit suggestion that I am socking.

3) No, I have not said that we do not have to wait for the RFC to be closed. On the contrary, I agree with you that we should. But I said that your argument was false because the removal of the Vatican numbering was done long after the RfC started, so it was the removal of the numbering that changed the status quo, not the addition.

4) I am not against Palestine being numbered, given they fit the criteria we end up with. I do, however, find it highly unwise to change the numbering now, thereby changing the status quo while the RfC is still open. I will not revert, since I do not take part in edit wars, but I ask you to self revert in anticipation of RfC closure. --T*U (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that with the passage of time, it has been overlooked or forgotten that the "status quo ante" IS that Palestine be numbered; it was numbered at the time the numbering system was introduced (invented) in 2015 and then was numbered continuously from December 2017 until 25 September 2019 (another editor tried to reintroduce its numbering in October and only to be reverted by the same editor that overturned the long standing consensus). It seems not right that an editor should be able to force his opinion through and hold that position pending an RFC outcome when that RFC may not even resolve the debate. If the RFC is closed with an agreement to number all, the issue goes away else it will still be there for resolution. It seems to me that if someone wants to ensure that Palestine is denumbered it is up to them to either propose that specifically or some other change to the criteria that produces the desired effect because the criteria as they stand require it to be numbered.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo ante is open for interpretation, and it is quite possible that your analysis is correct regarding Palestine. But that will have to be decided by the closing editor if they do not find a consensus for numbering all. It might be a good idea to mention this at the end of the RfC.

I do not agree that the criteria as they stand require Palestine to be numbered, nor do they require Palestine not to be numbered. And that is imho the main problem with this article, that the criteria do not give any precise guidance for consistent numbering. That is something else the closing editor will have to bear in mind.

My suggestion now is to ask for a formal closure, since that has not been done yet. But I am afraid it still may take time before anyone is bold enough to make a stab at closing. --T*U (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I took another look at the RFC page and it seems from that they prefer that people wait for a closing, I suppose they have some backlog (the same situation and related issues at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia). My view is somewhat different to yours, I would rather there was no numbering at all and that is what I have said in the RFC. I am interested though as to why specifically you think that the current guidelines do not support the numbering, given that Palestine and the Vatican are included in ISO and are in the list of sovereign states (the criteria given in the opening sentence of the article). The only sensible way to exclude both is to limit it to UN member states and including one but not the other, while possible, looks quite odd.Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You ask why specifically you think that the current guidelines do not support the numbering. You refer to the opening sentence of the article, but that does not say anything about numbering, only about inclusion. Yes, Palestine and the Vatican are included in ISO, but so are Taiwan and Western Sahara, not to mention Macao, Åland Islands and Pitcairn etc.. You mention the list of sovereign states as criteria, but that is not mentioned or linked in the lede. What is said there, is that the article includes sovereign states, inhabited dependent territories and, in some cases, constituent countries of sovereign states. Even if we go to the list of sovereign states, we get no help with the numbering, since this list includes 206 sovereign states, including Kosovo, Niue and Somaliland, just to mention three very different cases. So I feel safe to repeat that the current guidelines do not support the numbering (or the non-numbering, for that matter) of Palestine (or the Vatican, or Taiwan, or Western Sahara, or Niue). The use of UN membership/observer as criteria is a possibility, but UN membership or observer status is currently not mentioned in the article. I hope this answers your question about my position. --T*U (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing, isn't it? I find it interesting that the states that were originally numbered (and still are currently) ARE the UN member states plus the two UN observers, this cannot be accidental. Still, my hope is that we can dispense with the invented numbering system altogether.Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is not accidental; it is the result of your edit here (for which I can not see that you have any consensus). --T*U (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no..that is merely restoration of the original and long standing numbering of Palestine, nothing to do with the fact that the ORIGINAL and long standing situation was that the UN member states plus the 2 observers were numbered.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You have stated about the RfC page that they prefer that people wait for a closing. Can you please point out to me on what you base that conclusion. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I read it here "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure. " Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, clarity is perhaps in the eye of the beholder. The situation afaics here is that Guarapiranga put up the RFC along with a statement that AutoH2ORepublican and yourself had suggested he do that based on a proposal of Wtmitchell to do away with numbering. Subsequently, Kahastok, Guarapiranga, myself concurred in that idea. I remain somewhat unclear about your position, you typically seem to refrain from taking one and well, we know the position of AutoH2ORepublican even if he didn't state it specifically on this particular page. And so that is why I say there is a rough consensus for getting rid of the numbering, if you specifically agreed to it, I think we might even close it ourselves. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? The last two entries in the RfC discussion above are you and Guarapiranga supporting to number all, and now you are claiming a consensus for no numbering. More to the point, the original RfC suggestion included several points beside the numbering question. I see no reasonably clear consensus at all.

As for my position, I am most of all in favour of clear criteria and rules. I could support the original proposal from Wtmitchell, given we could agree on how to implement his second and third point, but I certainly would oppose to remove the numbering without taking into account the other elements of the original suggestion. --T*U (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly awkward (number all and number none amount to the same thing, doing away with what we are referring to as "numbering" in either case). As I said, you do not appear to have any position on numbering, so to my eyes, the consensus reads 4 v 1 plus your no position. And in any case, I am happy to wait for a formal close to see where we are.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, I do not agree that number none and number all is the same thing. But what is more important, are the other elements in the RfC suggestion, where I certainly do not see any clear consensus. When I get the time, I will ask for closure. --T*U (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Now asked for closure. --T*U (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan population mistake

Population for Pakistan is wrong; it should automatically pull the data from Template:Data_Pakistan, which correctly says Pakistan population is 207 millions, but this List incorrectly says Pakistan has 218 millions. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it, the Templace:Data_Pakistan was extrapolating population today by using outdated population growth indicated in the source site (which hasn't been working for about two years existed). Replaced it with up to date source (World Population clock https://countrymeters.info/en/Pakistan ) 213.245.147.96 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

More complete source cites.

Editors should spend effort to complete bare URL cites per WP:Citing sources: "improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights linkrot;"

Currently 70 of the 201 source cites are bare URLs. Many other (e.g. "stat.gov.kz". stat.gov.kz.) are not much better. User-duck (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)