Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

I would like to update the population of countries, as this data is outdated. GeographySpaceWiki (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Argentina's population

The Argentinian population for mid-2024 is slightly mistaken, because it should be 47,067,641 inhabitants according to its official source, but unfortunately I can't edit this article in particular. 181.197.204.240 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands

How come South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands isn't added?

Also, I don't know if this is just a misconception for one, but I see some articles claiming that South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands has a population of 30 people, with other estimates over 1000. Newaccount33333 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Antarctica, it has no permanent population. Wizmut (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Northern Cyprus

On 11 November 2024, Population of Northern Cyprus was declared to be 476,214 by the Statistics Institution of TRNC as of the end of 2023:
Source: TRNC's Statistics Institution: https://stat.gov.ct.tr/HABERLER/n252fus-projeksiyonlar%c4%b1-2019-2023 .
Can someone correct the figure in Article page?EasternMediterraneanFacts (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the find! Wizmut (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is The UK higher than France?

The automatic response from online search bar suggests The UK population is just over 69 million whilst France is still in the 68 million range. Can this be verified? 92.28.37.89 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

Having two rank columns is a lot of repetition and gives a prominent spot to what is basically metadata. There just needs to be one rank column, either with respect to sovereign states only or for all entries. Wizmut (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without clear agreement for one or the other, both should be shown. I personally think it's unacceptable to not recognise the ranking by population size of somewhere like Taiwan as 59th, only because China blocks their recognition by the UN.
If we leave time for people to weigh in on this with different opinions, the article can then be edited accordingly. Snowpeek (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding addition information below for anyone who reads this and wishes to add their opinion here:
This article "List of countries and dependencies by population" has as its intention and purpose to provide, as a resource, a list of both countries and dependencies ranked by population.
This article previously only provided a ranking for sovereign states which are recognised by the UN. This therefore excluded territories that are dependencies (despite this being in the article title), and also excluded disputed territories / countries. Disputed territories may be partially or even widely recognised internationally, and often conduct all of their internal affairs independently, but are not recognised by the UN, often for diplomatic reasons. The UN is an imperfect measure of "validating" which countries and territories should be included in this article.
The following are some of the countries / territories which are not recognised by the UN, or are dependencies: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Greenland, and Palestine (although Palestine has been granted "Observer" status).
Out of respect for the integrity of the above countries/territories, I think it is important they are ranked equally alongside other countries/territories.
The purpose and intent of this article is listing countries and dependencies by population. It is not the purpose of this article to decide which countries and dependencies are legitimate to be ranked. For the purpose of comparing population sizes, I think all should be included in the ranking. Ultimately, Taiwan is 59th (currently) for population size, and therefore has a larger population than Mali (currently 60th), regardless of if China is blocking the UN's recognition of Taiwan.
If there is broad consensus to remove the UN-based ranking column, I am fine with that. Although, I also think the additional column is narrow, not particularly intrusive, and provides interesting context to the article, informing the reader about UN recognised sovereign states. Snowpeek (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor the ranking that doesn't skip anything. But both is just too much. Most people view WP on a small screen these days[1] and the extra column squeezes the table so fewer rows are visible. It's a shame the fourth or fifth most interesting column has to have the most prominent spot. Wizmut (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on the Geography and Statistics wikiprojects, asking for contributions to this talk page about this. I think it's quite important to get this right (which countries to include) so hopefully we get a few more posts to build some consensus. I'm happy to edit to remove column 1 if there is general agreement on this (or no further comments). I'll leave it a few days to see if there are more contributions.
I agree it's preferable to have 1 column. I was also reluctant to delete the previous contributor's work in ranking UN members only, so I opted to keep both for now. I did view it on my phone (vertically) and with the column being quite narrow, I thought it didn't seem too intrusive. But I agree 1 column would look better. Snowpeek (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time, a lot of recent updates by different editors has been reverted, in order to preserve an edit that is under contention. WP:BRD would be preferable as this article must be updated nearly every day. @Snowpeek, I believe any outcome of this discussion could be accomplished without much work (AI can tell anyone how to add a column of mostly sequential numbers). Do you agree that the previous branch can be the one editors use until a consensus is found? Wizmut (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to revert it until consensus is found I will accept that. But I would prefer the 2 columns to be live, so visitors from the WikiProjects can see them both easily and add their opinion.
I don't use AI, not all Wikipedia editors are AI users, nor do we need to be. I edited it myself, tidying up multiple areas, adding several internal links, and re-writing the text above the table for clarity. It did take several hours of my time.
If you revert it, once consensus is reached (or no further comments), I will try to spend a few more hours going through and re-adding my edits, without the 2-column layout.
Really, I think my large edit shouldn't have been reverted without discussion, as per Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, which would have avoided this situation of undoing a lot of my work then further edits being made (I appreciate it wasn't you who reverted it). Snowpeek (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can certainly appreciate the experience of having many hours of work reverted. I didn't know you had made more edits than simply adding a column. It is better to use the edit summary to explain, in a prosaic manner, what the edit was, rather than try and defend it. "Please do not revert" is a sign of an edit that is doomed. And different types of changes are best made in different edits.
As far as AI, it's fine to use it if done in a transparent way, especially for a task that is purely mechanical. If only India could do a census on time then we could just use Template:Static row numbers. Wizmut (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have been reluctant to make multiple edits in case it looks like I'm spamming the article history. But I'll split edits up in future.
I thought I had explained sufficiently the first time. Doing it in multiple edits would have made this clearer. My "please do not revert" was more just frustration someone would come along and undo everything, with barely any explanation, and without discussing it first. They could at least have improved on it rather than reverting! Snowpeek (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine Wizmut, congratulations, you win, you reign supreme on the page of countries by population and I give up, I will no longer try to contribute.
I changed Cyprus to Republic of Cyprus, why? This didn't breach use of Common Names. I represent the everyday person, and when I read Cyprus, I think of the island. By reading Republic of Cyprus, that reminds me that this represents only the southern half (governed by Republic of Cyprus). It takes nothing away from clarity (Cyprus is right there in the name) but is a helpful visual reminder of "ah, these numbers are for southern Cyprus only".
Maybe this is lost on you, Lord Wizmut of this article. Have it your way. Close down new ideas for improvements and contributions. I'm sure this is what Wikipedia want - for everyday people to be chased away from contributing and fresh ideas to die. Snowpeek (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Transnistria should be listed as Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic or Pridnestrovie. The former is an exonym and not even included on their currency, the second is official, the latter is colloquial. Ore no unko desu ka? (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exonyms are frequently common names. English Wikipedia uses the most common English term for names and places, with rare exceptions. Wizmut (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the Canadian population date

Canada's populacion date should be "1 Oct 2024" (instead of "1 Dec 2024"), as it can be read in its official source in particular. 190.97.21.222 (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Wizmut (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024

Rotuma, a self governing dependency of Fiji should be included in the list (2017 census): https://web.archive.org/web/20190826131154/https://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/images/documents/Census_2017_Release/2017_Population_and_Housing_Census_Release_1.pdf Countrymansk123123 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Different meaning of "dependency". CMD (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a self governing dependency (territory), it has a different council Countrymansk123123 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
according to the Rotuma Act Countrymansk123123 (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of places that are on the line between various categories, so country lists on wikipedia usually defer to the ISO 3166-1 to decide on what to include as a sovereign or dependency. Wizmut (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

The current source for Afghanistan is Worldometer, which is considered unreliable on WP:RSP. The previous source was the official one[2], although that website is now down. I cannot find any other active official website for Afghanistan with population figures.

The UN and other sources think it's wrong by a lot. The official source gives 34,262,840, while the UN gives 41,454,761 for 2023 and the CIA gives 40,121,552 for 2024.

What source should be used? Wizmut (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many weeks later nobody has replied to this and contentious edit summaries have continued to appear. Several constructive edits are being reverted. Please @Thelittlefaerie @MIHAIL use this space for discussing the content of the page. And please @Thelittlefaerie do not remove uncontroversial edits, and for that matter do not change content that is currently in dispute. Seek WP:CONCENSUS rather than fighting about it. See also Bold, revert, discuss. Wizmut (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thelittlefaerie you have now twice tried to remove several edits completely unrelated to your content dispute in an attempt to get your way. Please stop using the revert button to try and get "the right version" to appear, as it is disruptive to the maintenance of this article. Wizmut (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly wouldn't use the Worldometer figure, given the unreliability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 35 milion is Very much outdated since the population of Afghanistan in june 2006 was 32M. This is a better and more efficient source. @Wizmut I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelittlefaerie (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all editors should refrain from changing the article regarding Afghanistan while this talk discussion occurs - everyone, including MIHIAL and thelittlefaerie, please do not. Thelittlefaerie, do you have any specific reasons why you would think the source is better and more efficient? Hopefully we can all come to a compromise here! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 21:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's helpful, a similar situation (debate over what to use as the population figure for a country with limited national statistical capabilities) arose in the Eritrea and Demographics of Eritrea articles. The resolution was to list a range of figures (see RfC here. I'll note that the Eritrea situation was a little different, since Eritrea has never taken an official national census, so there wasn't an official government figure at all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a perfect compromise, thank you for bringing this up. Thelittlefaerie and MIHAL, do you both agree to provide a range for the population, incorporating the estimate from both sources that each of you prefer due to limited national statistical capabilities and a disagreement between usually reputable bodies (i.e. the difference between UN and CIA)? I.e. "The population is estimated to be between X million (MIHAL's source) and Y million (the littlefaerie's source)." MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 00:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much Support the idea of noting multiple figures. However, it's gonna be tough.
Too much writing outside of footnotes can distort the table. Usually it's been satisfactory to pick one value and list caveats in the footnote. See the treatment of India/China, although the footnote there is both obvious and unobtrusive. I wonder how to make it obvious to readers who are curious about Afghanistan that the numbers are fuzzy, while not making the table harder to read. About half the pageviews of this article are on small screens, so formatting is a concern. See [3].
I won't say it's impossible to make it obvious that "reliable sources disagree a whole bunch", but I'd be curious to hear people's ideas. Wizmut (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. MolecularPilot, I am not interested if country X or Y has a certain population larger or smaller, whether or not their institute gives correct figures or whether the UN increases figures… I'm counting on the objective wiki principle of official data. For my part any proposal is beneficial, as long as it does not encourage subjectivism. Anyone is free to edit as he wishes, anyone is free to express his options, and fanaticism has no place on the wiki.
It should be taken into account that if exceptions are allowed, certain users may be tempted to use certain sources with inflated figures for the population… because it gives better aesthetic. In general, exceptions reduce objectivity in the favor of custom stylization to raise a subject higher than other subject in the article. This is why exceptions should be avoided as much as possible in order to avoid subjectivism and not to diminish the article's importance.
I don't have any problem, I accept the good options from anyone and anyone is welcome with as objective variants. Thank you, and have a good day ahead!. MIHAIL (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify that the preference for official sources on this article is simply a consensus that has been found for this article, not for Wikipedia as a whole. And it isn't absolute. In cases where the official figure is too old (Sudan, Syria, Libya), we choose the UN estimate. There are good reasons for having this article act as a counterpoint to the UN list, but there's no absolute rules for choosing data points. It all comes down to what consensus we can find.
I don't think we're in too much danger of people sneaking in unreliable sources. Look at what we're doing now... lots of detailed discussion. Hopefully in a way that sets a good example for other entries. Wizmut (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I've stated these reasons before but here is why I think that the UN Estimate & The United States Census Bureau estimates seem more efficient and more agreeable.
First of all, the only official census that took place in Afghanistan was in 1979. The population was shown to be 13,051,358. Then, an estimate in June of 2006 showed the population to be about 31-32M. With the fertility rates being high and the highest in Asia, I very much believe that the population wouldn't be 35 milion. That pace when divided is an 11 percent growth from almost two decades. The pace would be similar to Norway's pace or the UAE's. And I have also been to Afghanistan before, as I am an full-blooded Afghan, and let me tell you a little secret. The streets in Kabul were super crowded. Yes! It was more like a less modernized version of any densely populated city you can think for, for e.g: Mumbai, Delhi, Tokyo, Manila, New York City, San Francisco, Dhaka, etc. and not just like a boring, old, sparsely populated capital.
This proves my point for why I think that the United States Census Bureau estimate of 49 mil. or the Un estimate of 42 mil would be a favorable and more logical estimate than the estimate of 35 mil.
I very much thank you for reading my text. Have a wonderful morning/afternoon/evening/night/midnight/dawn! :) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you guys agree to my explanation, then we should change the text on the Afghanistan page itself, which says that the population is about 35M. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting this detailed write up of your thoughts. I 100% agree that we should go with the UN estimate. You also have a wonderful morning/afternoon/evening/night/midnight/dawn, and thank you for your dedication to improving coverage of Afganistan! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Options and notes

Here are some notes on each possible source and a few ways the row for Afghanistan could look:

all sources compared

This table is provided for convenience and is not being proposed as an option.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
31  Afghanistan 49,552,566 0.6% 1 Jul 2025 US Census estimate
36  Afghanistan 42,045,000 0.5% 1 Jul 2024 UN projection
37  Afghanistan 40,121,552 0.5% 1 Jul 2024 CIA estimate
37  Afghanistan 38,300,000 0.5% 2023 BBC figure
40  Afghanistan 35,695,527 0.4% 1 Jul 2024 Official estimate

All of these sources suffer from lack of recent census data. The first and only census was done in 1979.

US Census (50m)

UN (42m)

  • closest to the average (~41m)
  • quoted by an academic source (via the World Bank)[4]

CIA (40m)

  • US based

BBC (38m)

  • not updated for over a year
  • UK based

NSIA (36m)

  • official
  • nomadic population is a rough estimate
  • quoted by an academic source[5]

Option 1: single row

One source is chosen to be most visible. The note would detail multiple sources.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
3X  Afghanistan XX,YYY,ZZZ 0.X% 1 Jul 2024 XXX Estimate

Option 2: split row

Using the upper and lower estimates. The note would detail the other sources. Location in the table is unclear.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
31/
40 		 Afghanistan XX,YYY,ZZZ 0.X% 1 Jul 2024 XXX Estimate
AA,BBB,CCC 0.A% 1 Jul 2024 AAA Estimate

Option 3: error bars

Using the same estimates as option 2; ranking is again unclear.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
3X  Afghanistan 37m - 50m 0.5% 1 Jul 2024 Various sources

Wizmut (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: single row

Option 1 would be suitable, so as not to spoil the article's assembly. In the Population cell, it can be passed the data provided by the UN to be in tandem with those countries in the article where information is missing. In the Source cell, it can be passed → Disputed UN estimate (35-50 mil). In the Notes cell, one can make a table with all the sources so that people can see the differences between the sources. The sources of the table can be updated with other sources.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
3X  Afghanistan 42,045,000 0.X% 1 Jul 2024 Disputed UN estimate (35-50 mil)

MIHAIL (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good. I do like how the word 'disputed' will probably get readers to look into the notes but maybe it's not the best word. Wizmut (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support Option 1 with the UN estimate, per points raised by MIHAL and also Thelittlefaerie above. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This talk is outdated but the split bars would make much more sense, and the notes wouldn't be that visibly seen. I say we should edit it to split row but maybe that will not happen. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we already have an UN estimate page, why not add official sources as the data? Thelittlefaerie (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally it would have been official sources, but as some want to increase the population, not accepting official local sources, and the best compromise is UN. Using the UN standard, certain users will no longer be able to use the pretext of those sources expressly that inflate the population as much as possible. In the Population cell, compromise is UN. At Source it can be completed with → Disputed UN estimate (35-50 mil) or Disputed UN estimate. The 35-50 million variant can be at Source, or it can be passed to Notes. Instead of the word Disputed, the word Contested can be used, or a synonymous word that takes you to Notes... choose how you want.

Location Population % of
world 		Date Source (official or from
the United Nations) 		Notes
3X  Afghanistan 42,045,000 0.X% 1 Jul 2024 Disputed UN estimate

MIHAIL (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've put a revision up on the article that seems to represent the consensus view so far: the UN estimate shows, but so does a plea to look into the notes.
The version I put up is not necessarily the last version. Please do continue to comment if there are improvements to be made. Wizmut (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your version with the expression (see note) is very good and you deserve a warm like. Your experience on wiki is visible and you deserve appreciated. Have a good day ahead!. MIHAIL (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are adding the UN population and more estimates, we should also add them to the official Afghanistan page.
At the end of the first paragraph on the page, it says that "The population of Afghanistan is about 35 million." I believe that we should change it to say something like, " The population of Afghanistan is currently disputed, but many sources show the population to be around 35M-50M. [Then we can list the sources here and show their population.]" Thelittlefaerie (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I even used the same note, largely. Wizmut (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But I didn't mean the infobox, I meant the first paragraph of the page. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for causing annoyance, but this needs to be updated in List of cities in Afghanistan, since that hasn't been updated since 2020. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the summary stats in the lead but I can't find any city-level data. The statistical yearbook gives provincial-level data, and says how much is urban, but there could be more than one metro area in each province. Wizmut (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Afghanistan". nsia.gov.af. Retrieved 23 Jan 2025.
  2. ^ "World Population Prospects 2024 Summary of Results" (PDF). un.org. p61. Retrieved 6 Jan 2025.
  3. ^ "Afghanistan". cia.gov. Retrieved 6 Jan 2025.
  4. ^ "Afghanistan country profile". bbc.com. 15 Aug 2023. Retrieved 23 Jan 2025.
  5. ^ "Library". nsia.gov.af. Retrieved 23 Jan 2025.
  6. ^ "Estimated Populatin of Afghanistan 2024-25". National Statistics and Information Authority. Retrieved 23 Jan 2025.
  7. ^ ref
  8. ^ ref
  9. ^ ref
  10. ^ "World Population Prospects 2024". population.un.org. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  11. ^ Multiple sources:
    • "Official data provided by NSIA - Estimated population of Afghanistan by provinces and districts (35,695,527 - July 2024) [pg.3]". www.nsia.gov.af/home. National Statistics and Information Authority (NSIA). 28 October 2024. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
    • "Afghanistan, while the U.S. Census Bureau give an estimate of 49.5 million (2025)". www.census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
    • "For 2024, the CIA gives an estimate of 40,121,552". www.cia.gov. CIA. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  12. ^ "World Population Prospects 2024". population.un.org. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  13. ^ The population is disputed between 35 and 50 million - Multiple sources: ...
  1. ^ Note
  2. ^ Note
  3. ^ Note
  4. ^ Note
  5. ^ Note

About Afghanistan's population

The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives a population estimate of 36,432,000 for 2025, very similar to the official one. 190.97.21.222 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]