Talk:Population density

message: This page seems to get alot of vandals messing it up. When you restore pages please make sure you are restoring to the last "good" page not removing "bad" words because some of the vandals seem to like delete paragraphs out of the page. (I know it is redundant to say this but sometimes it hasnt been done )  --2mcm 07:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does this page get so many vandals ?  --2mcm 05:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's those people over at overpopulationisamyth.com  ;)  Impfireball (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: If anyone has a source to find it, it'd be great to add a set of typical density ranges for various settlement types: urban, suburban, rural, etc. Readers, like myself, may come to this page looking to get a sense of roughly how dense a particular value is. -Will Beback · † · 08:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density ranges 

message: This article mentions Mongolia as the least densely populated country in the world, but I thought Greenland was.  They both register as below 0/km². — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.156.215 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenland is less densely populated, but it is not strictly a "country" but a self-governing territory of Denmark, with the same status as the Faroe Islands.  NTK (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why does it say Greenland in the caption, but has a photo of Mongolia? Pick one and be consistent! 24.83.176.234 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least densely populated place 

message: I'd like to see a discussion of the consequences of high population density. AThousandYoung (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I note the article states that excluding Antarctica, the world's population density (including deserts and mountains etc.) is currently 50 per km2. It is fascinating to note that the originally wholly fertile Easter Island's society collapsed when its density reached about 100 per km2.1812ahill (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that should be mentioned, if not already. Impfireball (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: THIS IS VERY HARD STUFF TO FIGURE OUT PEOPLES. HOW DO YOU OLD PEOPLE DO IT. IT'S SO HARD. AND HOW THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO FIGURE OUT HOW POPULATIO IS MEASURED.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.142.168.14 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: population density is a simple math formula. Take the total population of a place according to current census data and divide it by the total physical size (land or land and water). For instance, if a place has 1,352,495 square miles and a population of 1519 people, then it has 0.0011 people per square mile (population density) [1519 / 1352495 = 0.0011231095124196392592948587610305], rounded to the nearest ten thousandth. If a place has 50 square miles and 12,853,289 people, then it has 257,065.78 people per square mile [12853289 / 50 = 257065.78], no rounding. hello (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  population density 

message: This article is confused. It needs a big refresh.
It needs:
A definition. The current definition is poor, confusing and inappropriate.
Currently: Population density (in agriculture standing stock and standing crop) is a measurement of population per unit area or unit volume. It is frequently applied to living organisms, and particularly to humans. It is a key term used in geography.
When is it applied to non-living things as opposed to living organisms?
Standing crop refers to biomass/energy in a crop not population density - it needs removing.
The human part is unnecessary. It is used in both science and social studies/humanities/geography.
It has not referred to carrying capacity of the environment or artificially exceeding it (as humans manipulate it for themselves and their livestock and crops).
The Allee effect is not related to fertility but reproductive rates. These are different things. This article seems to be explaining the Allee effect incorrectly. It is also not the place to explain it but explain why the effect is important in population density.
Weasle words about ... considered by some for example, need removing. 
Sections referring to other animal and plant populations need adding. These should be before the human population as the human population is a special form of animal population that has artificial carrying capacities.
I question the usefulness and  effectiveness of the 1994 world population density map. I believe it should be removed. --Candy (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article in need of some structure and a rewrite! 

message: I just compared these figures for several counties of New York. With checking Broome, Chemung, St. Lawrence, Nassau, Tompkins, and Suffolk Counties, I have noticed mistakes in the numbers (not all have mistakes).
I say mistakes. I am not talking about wrong numbers specifically. I am talking about wrong calculation, if any, used. Who ever places the figures either has bad math skills, copies the stuff from inaccurate information elsewhere, or incompletely copies the stuff. The math is pretty easy: Population divided by land (or land and water) area equals population density.
Why are the numbers so far off sometimes? How is the information gathered? How is the information actually put onto the county pages (and those of cities, villages, towns, and hamlets)? hello (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page definitely has bad information on it. On England the population density is listed as 395 people per square kilometer, yet it is not listed in the tables.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.16.41 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: England is not a country. If you use the UK density instead they would not be in the top ten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.239.61 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Where is PRC (People's Republic of China) on these lists?  It is one of the most densely populated countries, as well as a country with more than 10 million people?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by R10623 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populations, land area, and population density 

message: If it was UK we would drop out of the top ten.  (And if other regions of countries were included we would drop out of the top ten).  It's all politics... 86.2.64.179 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. So I've taken England out. All other countries stated are either sovereign or - in the case of Hong Kong - autonomous. If England is to be included so I suspect ought various US states, Swiss cantons, and other non-sovereign administrative divisions, all of which would have more constitutional autonomy than England which has none.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Angel of Islington (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is specious reasoning, England is not comparable to a state of the USA or a Canton of Switzerland, but is comparable to an autonomous or other component region of a country like Gaza Strip, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (and others). England is a political entity, and does posesses some autonomy, as does Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, which by your reasoning would be included. Futhermore, England's population density is concealed by only reporting the UK. England's population density is the highest of any country over 10m people in Europe and in the world; it just misses out of being in the top ten of countries over 1m population. England is restored, because all the other component parts and dependencies of the UK have separate entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.162.130 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it's England and not UK 

message: These seem to be in wrong order in the table, but I don't know what the mistake has been exactly so I'm not confident to fix it. Also, why on earth is it top nine countries? I'd usually expect ten in such a list, nine just feels random enough to warrant an explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.240.104 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka vs. Japan 

message: Monaco is 2nd most densely populated country, Macao is 1. --108.92.162.111 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macao 

message: The last picture file on this page depicts EU-27, not Europe, as seen by the lack of countries such as Serbia, Croatia, Norway and Iceland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:700:303:14:B0AF:780E:74F6:B611 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture file has faulty description 

message: I have no citations, but I have an idea that confronts the one that proposes economic stability is linked to diminishing population growth. The flaw I found was that it assumes that countries like China and India can become further and further economically stable to the point that pop growth actually diminishes to a point of 'stability' (or relatively managable level) like that of a western country.
In my view, this is naive, because I think that there's so many factors that link to economic stability.  On one end, there's free trade, which can cause an economy to grow rapidly but also become economically unstable when another country seemingly refuses to rise to stability.
On the other end, there's real estate prices!  This seems like a clear observation to me, but I never read about it in any of the article.  If the population is high and people are getting richer, real estate development bubbles are created.  However, this causes prices to rise rapidly.  Eventually, the cost to develop is too high and the economy could actually collapse again, as the cost of living becomes too much.  This is effected by high populations, because high demand created at a baseline with a high population (not even including external interested parties, which are very likely to occur when there's a real estate boom), can create major bubbles.  
In my view, it is possible for a country to be so populated that it's economy will never stabilize, and it will never develop the infrastructure needed to improve or provide a universal standard of living or one that can accept further populations that aren't made to live in squallor.  With overpopulation, growth in standard of living can stagnate, caught in a vortex of rising and lowering, or even recede rapidly.
I think that more research should be done on this issue.  Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy land because the "numbers don't lie"?  Impfireball (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Real Estate? 

message: Good day!  I would like to point out that the source used in this article to describe population density does not agree with the text in the article. As it stands now the article reads: Population density is population divided by total land area or water volume, as appropriate.  Whereas the source for the this statement reads: To determine an area's population density, you just have to divide an area's total population by the land area in square miles (or square kilometers).   Secondly, the first sentence under the sub-heading Human population density  which reads: For humans, population density is the number of people per unit of area, usually quoted per square kilometer or square mile (which may include or exclude, for example, areas of water or glaciers). Commonly this may be calculated for a county, city, country, another territory or the entire world.  has no source that supports that statement. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I do agree on your second point on how there is no source saying how calculations are commonly used on counties, cities, or countries, I must disagree with your second point. The articles sentence on calculating population density seems to simply be a paraphrase of the source. Both articles are simply saying to divide the population by the area in which they live in. Although I do agree that either a new source that mentions the inclusion of water should be found and used, or to simply exclude the part about using water volume as a divisor while keeping the old source should be done. Tlarican (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Population density formula

message: As I read through the article, I noticed a few small things that could be changed to make this article more clear and reliable.
As I had mentioned in my reply to StephenTS42's comment, the small sentence on calculating population density is a bit unreliable. Seen directly under the section "Biological population densities," the article states, "Population density is population divided by total land area or water volume, as appropriate." The part that sticks out as unreliable is the water volume part. If I were to calculate the population density of an island and included the water, dividing by the VOLUME of the water would throw my calculations way off. The ocean is a deep thing and by adding the extra layer of the ocean's depth to my calculations would make my population density seem minuscule. The article should probably say "Population density is population divided by total land area or water surface area, as appropriate."
Clarity should also be more apparent in the article. In the sub-section, "Other methods of measurement", the word "other" suggests that the sub-section is going to introduce different methods of calculating population that differ from the one mainly used in the prior sections. However, the prior sections never outright say what the most common way of calculating population density is. The main way of calculating population density, arithmetic density, is only mentioned in this sub-section at the END of the article. The words "arithmetic density" never come up in the main sections of the article. Also, the sentence after at the beginning of the sub-section "Other methods of measurement" mentions arithmetic density and there being more ways of measurement, but then arithmetic density itself appears immediately on the list. This structure is repetitive. Either name the sub-section "Methods of measurement" and keep with the same list, or mention how arithmetic density is the most common way of calculating population density somewhere early in the article and then remove arithmetic density from the list of "other methods of measurement."
In a sort of related track of the last edit, many of the parts of the article require sources. The words "citation needed" are riddled throughout the article, creating a less reliable article. Also, in the sub-section that I had just critiqued about "Other methods of measurement," many of the other methods aren't even sourced. This causes it to seem that these methods have been pulled from thin air. Sources showing who use these methods, such as certain scientists or certain groups of researchers, or how they are used would help bring reliability to that sub-section. Many of the sources are also a bit outdated. Source number seven of the article brings up an article about human population from 2002. In the article, the world's population is mentioned to be only 6 billion. As we know, the population is currently 7 billion and getting close to 8 billion. This sourced article also mentions other articles that are nearing twenty years old.
The last comment I have about the article is a tiny change in wording. In the middle of the sub-section "Human population density" is a sentence that states, "Cities with high population densities are, by some, considered to be overpopulated, though this will depend on factors like quality of housing and infrastructure and access to resources." This "by some" part can be vague. Even if the source were to define who the "some" are, the Wikipedia article should still be precise. Words such as anthropologists, sociologists, or even scientists would create some immediate ethos in the sentence rather than having the reader look through the source to find out who "some" are. Tlarican (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some quality of life changes

message: "In relation to the equator it is seen that the vast majority of the human population lives in the Northern Hemisphere." As opposed to the ocean that dominates the Southern Hemisphere... 84.248.218.89 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemispheres

message: How can Canada be dark purple?  35 million people in half the landsize of the USA?  Please fix Canada.  SystemBuilder (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just Canada even, almost everything in the map is wrong, how can Estonia have 2000 per square kilometre, thats just impossible 83.176.189.150 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada is OBVIOUSLY wrong 

message: Maybe this could be useful:
Online map view
Source 
--Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Population Density Map by FAO 

message: The map that uses area and colour to represent population and population density, Lithuania appears to have the Kaliningrad area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.189.150 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the population density of the EU map is wrong 

message: Let's start discussion 197.231.239.60 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain the influence of climate  on Population and then give other factors  for variation using population density terms with examples 

message: Shouldn't density be expressed in whole numbers? (See Wiki article on "Significant figures"; use only as many as in the least-accurate measurement component.) Carrying out the calculation to a decimal person is illogical — especially considering that the underlying data surely is not accurate even to a basic count only a day or so after a census was taken.Casey (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be overly accurate