Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 4

message: The user above neatly explained how the French overseas collectivities are integral parts of France. Concerning the INSEE document, INSEE distinguishes the residents of Metropolitan France and the overseas departments, the DOMs, on the one hand (where INSEE is in charge of collecting data) from the residents of the overseas collectivities, the COMs (where daughter statistical agencies are in charge of collecting data). The distinction is purely technical, based on which statistical agency collects data. It's the same in the UK where ONS is in charge of collecting data in England and Wales, while separate statistical agencies are in charge of collectig data in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Most data on the ONS website refer to England and Wales only, but some data sum up figures from ONS and the Scottish and Northern Irish statistical website. The INSEE website is the same. Most data are about Metropolitan France and the DOMs, but some data sum up figures from INSEE and its daughter statistical agencies in the COMs. If we separate the COMs from the rest of the France in the list, then we should also separate Scotland and Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK to be consistent. Obviously it makes no sense to do that. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the combined figure ever appear in an INSEE table? This is a statistical comparison table, and for statistical purposes, INSEE normally does not include the overseas territories in the figure for "France". This is clearly not the case with ONS and the United Kingdom. A figure for the "United Kingdom" always includes Scotland and Northern Ireland. --Polaron | Talk 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it appears in some INSEE tables, for example in this one, as of Jan. 1, 2006 (). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it not part of the total? Anyway, according to this, INSEE uses the term "France" as excluding the overseas territories but including the overseas regions. The statistical entity that includes overseas territories is "Territory of the French Republic". --Polaron | Talk 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually your source proves that the overseas collectivities are part of France. In the source you quoted it is stated: "on distingue trois ensembles géographiques de la France" (translation: "three geographic sets/layers of France are distinguished"). The overseas collectivities are one of these three layers "of France" ("de la France"). Can't be more clear than that. Constitutionally speaking, there is no dictinction between the French Republic and France. It's quite different from the Netherlands where the Netherlands are constitutionnaly distinct from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Next time you're in Mayotte or in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, tell the people there that they are not part of "la France", and you'll see the angry reactions you get. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what does it mean when at the bottom of an INSEE data table it says "Champ: France"? Which of the three definitions is it using? You're just arguing semantics now. For statistical purposes, "France" does not include the COM. Anyway, the point is moot for now. --Polaron | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconsistencies, that's all I can say. Everytime I'm in France, I often hear people referring to Metropolitan France" as "la France", even though it is technically and constitutionally wrong. The guys at INSEE are not immune from that mentality. It is only a few years ago that they started to include the departments and territories of overseas France along with the statistics of Metropolitan France. It will take a generation for mentalities to change. Sometimes it can lead to absurd situations: when INSEE says "France entière" ("entire France"), they mean Metropolitan France and the four overseas departments, but when the Ministry of the Interior says "France entière", they mean the entire French Republic (incl. the overseas collectivities). How can two branches of the French administration use the same phrase ("France entière") with different meanings? I've never understood it. INSEE is a bit faulty here, whereas the Ministry of the Interior is more correct in its use of words. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess the same happen for other countries. Danish speakers would sometimes use the word 'Denmark' to mean Jutland, Funen, Zealand, etc. And sometimes the same word would mean the whole Rigsfællesskabet including Greenland and the Faroe Islands too. Materials published by the People's Republic of China demonstrate a similar trend. Statistical figures for 'quánguó' (meaning the entire state) sometimes mean the 31 provinces, self autonomous regions and centrally administered municipalities only. To Chinese speakers the word 'China' may mean those 31 units only, those 31 plus Hong Kong and Macau, or those 31 plus Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan and other Taipei's islands. Umofomo (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: So shall we list the figures for the régions d'outre mer separately? Umofomo (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the update of the figures.--seberle (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French overseas collectivities 

message: According to the U.S. Population Clock,  American Population is 305,6 million (not 306,1)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.140 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. and Brazil Populations are Wrong 

message: A thread concerning Lear's behavior/attitude in regards to this dispute has been posted at AN/I here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AN/I

message: Lear has now given a reason why, he says, the footnotes must go above the list: "what else is an introduction for other than to explain and to inform the reader about the nature of the article?"  I can't see that anyone is better informed about the nature of the article by seeing three entities that fail the inclusion criteria than they are by actually seeing the list that is the whole point of the article.  In what way does listing the world, Antarctica and the EU at the top of the article inform the reader about the nature of the article? Pfainuk talk 10:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting, I've made a suggestion Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area#Resolving this to see if we can get this dispute resolved. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Above or below

message: I think a very valuable addition to this list could be the population growth rates for each country.  — VikingViolinist | Talk (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate list for growth rate here. --Polaron | Talk 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  growth rate 

message: Am I the only one who finds this unpleasing to the eye? No other list-article does that. I removed the bold a few weeks ago but someone has put it back. Sbw01f (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, as evidenced above, people are having difficulty distinguishing sovereign states from dependent territories when they're not bolded.  I personally have no strong preference either way, but this was the result of the discussion just above this one. Pfainuk talk 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding every country

message: This country is missing from the list. The_Gambia is lists the country as 150th, but here is it not present.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.122.142 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, actually the country is there at position 146. It seems the ranking on the country's page doesn't match the value here. I'll go fix that now. --McSly (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gambia 

message: I don't know if you noticed but we have huge differences between the population values listed in this article and the values present in the articles linked from the See also section, specifically the articles in the Lists of countries in various regions by populations section and World population. Some articles list List of countries by population as their source but haven't been updated in a while. Some have a completely different set of sources. Some don't specify any source at all. And obviously, the main problem is that the numbers don't match. They are sometimes off by millions and some countries are not ranked the same way depending on the article.
So I'd like to spend a little time to clean this up. The idea is to use this article as the primary point to do all the updates. I'll use the values and sources present here, after all the other articles are supposed to be subset of the current article. I'd also like to add a sentence on each article stating that the values are just copied from List of countries by population and add a comment so when editors want to change a value in one of the subsets, they are told to update List of countries by population first and then replicate the change in all the applicable subset articles.
Before I start, I'd like to make sure that this article can safely be used as the primary source for the others. Also let me know if you think that's a bad idea. --McSly (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures in the main table in this article are all sourced to a reliable (though not necessarily the most appropriate) source. In that sense, the figures here can probably be used as a source for other figures. However, many of the figures are sourced to population clocks and, unless the update process is automated somehow, you will likely never be able to fully match the figures in this list with figures in other articles at all times. You may also have to discuss with the various country article editors about that. I synchronized this list with all the country articles a few years ago but it was a nightmare to maintain. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that this list includes Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and so on as parts of the UN-recognised sovereign states concerned at the moment.  This may be at odds with the conventions used elsewhere and may soon change (considering that a different standard was agreed but has not so far been implemented). Pfainuk talk 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies between articles 

message: Why are U.S. possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands listed? These are not countries but territories of the United States. Hence, their populations should be either included into the USA population or these territories should not be listed at all since in fact, they are not countries. --Yoganate79 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, it one of the strange stupidities of Wikipedia. The overseas territories are not countries and do not belong here. They should not have an own rank. KJohansson (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Overseas Territories and Commonwealth=

message: The UK population is quite clearly incorrect. The population of Britain was 65 million in the early '90s. It is currently aroung 70 million. This needs to be changed. It is the third most populous country in Europe after Russia and Germany, but is heading to overtake Germany due to t he number of immigrants arriving in the country. mspence835  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspence835 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, the UK census of 2001 gives a population of 58,789,194 , The current number used in the article is from EuroStat which should be fairly accurate as well. Do you have a source giving other values ? --McSly (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Population 

message: should we put a note alongside the countries with a negative growth rate?? De Mattia (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative growth rates 

message: If there was to be a huge earthquake in china today (for example), and say 5000 people were confirmed to have died, would the offical china population clock reagust or would it just keep on climbing. De Mattia (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think population clocks readjust for natural disasters. From what I know, the population listed for a population clock increases/decreases is solely based on data using the last census and using a mathematical formula or algorithms (based on growth rate, birth rate, death rate, immigration, amd emigration.) It doesn't take into account other problems. It would also be pretty hard to keep up with natural disasters because the number of people that died changes frequently and I know China experiences a lot of them especially floods/typhoons. This might be too time consuming to keep readjusting the clock. To answer your question, I don't think that natural disasters would affect the population clock. Elockid (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping. De Mattia (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disasters etc