Talk:List of African countries by population

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

sourcing

A date and source is needed for these population figures.

This is strongly seconded. I added a tag. AxelBoldt 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population Figures Error / Issue

In looking at this page I just noted we have SADR and Morocco listed, which is fine, but Morocco population estimates include the Western Sahara, which strongly implies a double counting of the SADR and Morocco categories (for all that the Morocco 33 million est. by CIA is somewhat dubious). As the pop of W. Sahara is fairly trivial, this is not a huge issue, however it is an inaccuracy. (81.192.169.110 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NOR

Calculated, when available, from the latest national censuses or most recent official estimates (many of which are cited in their respective column), using the exponential formula shown on the List of countries by past and future population article. This is done to normalize the different populations to a unique date, so that they are really comparable.

Everything calculated that way is WP:NOR and should be deleted. Extrapolating population trends is the work of scientists, not wikipedia authors. --S.arrhenius (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise: This is far from being routine calculations. There are a number of different methods used by various institutions with considerably different outcomes, as a quick google search shows. Which one to choose, which data to use is not up to us --S.arrhenius (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

The format of the table in this article was boldly changed recently, to add quite a few new columns, some of which don't seem to be sourced, such as "doubling rate". Furthermore, that version seemed to imply population decreases in most of the countries listed between 2019 and 2021, for example Nigeria from 200,963,599 to 195,868,433. While a third column had no header at all. I have no objection in principle to using UN data as a single point of reference and apples-to-apples comparison for all countries, but the table format needs to be agreed here, and it should not have columns which represent WP:OR. I have reverted back to the last good version, with actual listed sourced data for the time being. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau?

Where is Guinea-Bissau? Only UN member that seems missing from the table. Cstanford.math (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps connected to the bug discussed here: Module talk:Country population? Cstanford.math (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've rolled back to the previous non-buggy table, but would be nice to get the autogenerated one working, any ideas User:Guarapiranga ? Cstanford.math (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda

Isn't on the list but is in the pie chart?

Page seems sketchy. 208.38.201.147 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total number

Calculate total number of people at the end of the table 169.255.185.25 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland

Do you guys think that Somaliland should be included on this list considering Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) is? Gatorbearratica (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a de facto sovereign state and we can get a population figure for it, then I don't see why not. Wizmut (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete update

I went over all the figures and made sure they had a recent working official source, when possible. I also added a column for the UN figures and a column for percent of Africa. I changed the figure for Egypt a bit in one column so just the Africa population is represented (for the percentage calculation), but kept the official figure the same and added a note so readers can see what was done there. This is similar to what I did for the Asia article, but there was only one transcontinental country in this case.

For right now I've kept Somaliland separate from Somalia, because the data are not very good for it. That's on the fence, though.

I also added a map I made, showing total population (not density). I removed a lot of text from the lead, as it all seemed more appropriate for the Demographics of Africa article, which I added to the See also links. I also reduced the number of countries in the pie chart so it covers just over 50%, which seemed like a more sensible stopping point. Wizmut (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the map that you added because it contradicts the UN's and the UA's map. There are many ready svg maps that you could use, or if you prefer, you could ask for a simplified one to be created on WP:GL/M. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say what you mean exactly by contradict? If this map can be replaced with a better one, it might be better to do that instead of removing it.
My goals for a map were to:
Shade by country and not province or city
Point out the location of the most populous countries
Use a continuous log scale (ie not 1 5 10 50 100)
Be dark mode friendly Wizmut (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly replace it with a better one (assuming the article needs one), though I'm not sure what you mean by "dark mode friendly" (I have never encountered such a request on WP:GL/M). M.Bitton (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot of SVG files will insist on being bright. Some appear dark some of the time only to light up under certain conditions (mouseover). I'd be curious to see one that avoided it.
The maps seem helpful, as one has long stood on the Europe article and maps have recently been added to the articles on Asia, Oceania and the Caribbean.
If you could please restore the map until such a time that a better one is found or made. Wizmut (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on having a map, it has to account for what's cited in the article. Like I said, you're welcome to use a ready one or ask for one on WP:GL/M (where I'm active). Alternatively, I can make an easily configurable blank one and let you adjust the colours (based on the percentages). M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map reflects what is in the 'Africa population' column, which is why I used the same citation for that column as I did for the map. Wizmut (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of African countries by population. M.Bitton (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Wizmut (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crusty lead

Currently the title and first sentence do not mention territories or regions that are normally considered listable by the world article and other articles of this type. It also does not mention the new distinction between UN data and the list of official sources.

The second sentence and source is about GDP.

The third sentence is a demographic point, but it is not sourced.

The fourth sentence seems like so much WP:DUH but may serve a purpose to people unfamiliar with geography.

The fifth mentions Western Sahara which is not considered a ranked country on other lists, but is included for completion. Other territories that fit into other lists should also be included, so that the calculated total at the bottom of the page is in accord with an actual estimate of the total population of Africa. The article name may need to change but I see no reason to wait. Wizmut (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is a list of the current 55 African countries, and as such, the views of the African Union count. 2) Neither the UA nor the UN show Western Sahara you way you did. 3) Equally, none of them mentions Somaliland that you added to a List of African countries. M.Bitton (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I showed Western Sahara but not Somaliland. I did mention Somaliland in the Somalia note. Can you clarify what you mean?
There seems no reason not to include territories on this list and eventually rename the article. The alternative would be a second list or a second page, neither of which seems very elegant. The number of territories et al is small in any case. Wizmut (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You showed a portion of Western Sahara and Somaliland (this is clearly visible in the map that you added). There is no reason to rename the article. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for specifying the exact problem. Those I can fix.
Can you say why you are so against including territories? Many other articles have done so without issue. There needs to be a reason other than "this article is this". Including territories would be helpful information and likely what some people are looking to see when they visit a page like this. Wizmut (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because this is a list of African countries by population. What makes you think that territories such Mayotte and Saint Helena belong in such a list? M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered this question:
>What makes you think that territories such Mayotte and Saint Helena belong in such a list?
>Including territories would be helpful information and likely what some people are looking to see when they visit a page like this.
But I'll give it one more try before asking for help:
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to fulfill titles, but to provide information that people are looking for. Look at the list for List of Oceanian countries by population. Would it be better if lots of highly relevant information was removed and placed in a harder to find location? Wizmut (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around long enough to know what the purpose of Wikipedia is. You're welcome to seek help if you think that Saint Helena belongs in a "list of African countries by population". M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hyperlinked encyclopedia. We do not include in every article all the related information that someone might some day also like to know. You yourself have remarked that a mention in the lead relates to GDP, but if we are to "provide information that people are looking for", why would we not list here all the GDPs, all the breakdowns by religion or age, all the information that people are looking for? No; instead we remain focused. NebY (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but the inclusion of territories would be so close to the topic of proper countries that there are no reasons to object, other than adherence to a title. If it is off-topic to include them, somebody needs to take an axe to about a third of the entries at List of countries and dependencies by population. That article started out with a shorter title, by the way.
By comparison, GDP is only tangentially related to population by way of country statistics. Wizmut (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this list include territories, disputed countries and outlying islands?

No consensus to include. While there were responses to this RfC, the responses, overall, did not present either a clear yes or a clear no. One key reason for that is that the non-countries have different status, some may be more likely to be accepted than others, but there has not been enough agreement. One remedy is to propose single additions of non-countries to this list, and one possibly can start with Western Sahara or Somaliland. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Areas such as Saint Helena, Western Sahara, Somaliland and Mayotte are not standard countries, but may not belong anywhere else. Should this list include them, assign rank numbers for (some of) them, or exclude some or all of them entirely? Answers may be different for each case.Wizmut (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my points made above, I think all of these are highly relevant and their inclusion would only help to perfect the article. For a similar long-standing example, see List of countries and dependencies by population.
As far as ranking, Western Sahara may be ranked or may not. But the others should not be, because they are truly portions of transcontinental sovereign states. Wizmut (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Comment this is non-neutral and malformed RfC that mixes up different topics. Territories such as Saint Helena cannot and should not be included in this list (which is self-explanatory). Western Sahara is a different issue altogether and the reason it's mentioned is highlighted in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close This Rfc fails WP:RFCBEFORE as the topic was only discussed for two hours between two participants before the Rfc was opened. In addition, the OP seems to offer no policy or guideline-based rationale for their support, merely personal opinion. As for policy, article title policy says,
    "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles"
and the title of this article is "List of African countries by population", and that doesn't include things that aren't countries. Finally, the WP:LEADSENTENCE defines the content and establishes the WP:LISTCRITERIA of what should and shouldn't be included here, and says:
"This is a list of the current 55 African countries sorted by population" (emphasis added)
This Rfc fails procedurally and should be closed; but if reopened properly it would fail based on policy and guidelines lined up squarely against it. Please consider withdrawing your Rfc, as it has no chance of succeeding. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally agree with all the above, though I am not sure why we would include Western Sahara but not Somaliland; their cases seem similar. For the two taht are territories of European countries, I could see including them in a footnote. They're of relevance/interest, but are not within the scope of the article title or lead. I think I would prefer that all four be in a footnote (or series of footnotes) for this reason. The principal content should follow the title and lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural concerns were raised about this RfC, so feel free to copy this comment to other relevant appropriate locations. This list uses two variable terms in its title, "African" and "countries", so I'm unsurprised it has generated issues. Broadly, I would support a wider net over a more limited one, which is a general practice amongst such lists. Where possible scoping has quite small differences (eg. differences that wouldn't make sense to split into different lists, such as here), the broader inclusive net provides further information to the reader. Potential differences in interpretation should be explained in prose. The parent lists of this list, such as List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa and List of countries and dependencies by population have cast broad nets, as do the equivalent lists for Asia, Europe, Oceania, and South America. (North America includes Greenland but not other territories.) A simple path forward would seem to be to make this list consistent with those lists by including the other territories but leaving them unranked. CMD (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's an excellent point about "country" having a generic meaning that can mean 'sovereign state' but also 'distinct region' generically. This probably explains why some articles say "sovereign states and dependent territories" rather than country - to avoid the debate.
    But an article that is currently titled with "country" may be inherently flexible, if we read the dictionary correctly. Wizmut (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't agree with some other comments here that the entities in the list are definitely not countries. In particular, Somaliland has been widely described as a de facto state by RS example, so I don't see why it can't be included in the list with an appropriate note. Alaexis¿question? 08:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we should err on the side of inclusiveness – if a reader wants to see how Somaliland or Mayotte compare to the rest of Africa, we might as well provide that information. But we should clearly indicate their special status, maybe with a different shading, italics, parentheticals, and/or footnotes. We probably shouldn't assign them numbers in the ranking. The concerns about the title seem like putting the cart before the horse: if consensus is to include dependent territories, we can always change the title to reflect that more clearly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The RFC should have been on the lines of Should the scope of this article be expanded to include everywhere in Africa once only and the article title amended accordingly through an RM discussion to choose the exact wording?. I'd support that. An article with a comprehensive scope makes more sense and the status of sovereignty/dependency/whatever could be shown in an additional column. Choice of phrasing (sovereign states/countries, dependencies/territories) needn't clutter a scope RFC and could happily be held over for an RM. NebY (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note: the first comment below is a reply to the comment of 16:09, 26 June 2023 above, and was refactored into this discussion when the section header was added in this edit.

The purpose, title, and lead all ought to agree, yet which should change first? I propose to change the article title to include relevant information and align with similar moves in other articles and am told that's only my opinion, despite giving reasons. I modified the lead to be more inclusive, and it is simply reverted. And I add content that would be relevant by the standards of any other article and it is removed. Assuming it's not completely impossible that this change is valid, what's the right procedure to get it added? Wizmut (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure is to discuss on the Talk page—as you began to do above, so kudos for that—until you achieve a consensus that your proposed changes are appropriate and accepted by other editors. Reverts are a sign that there is no agreement and no consensus, so the missing step is discussion about the content disagreement. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More time for discussion, or more editors? The current discussion went in circles as I unsuccessfully tried to chase down what the reasons for the opposing view actually were. Wizmut (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both I and NebY explained to you why the content that you want to add is inappropriate. If the GDP is only tangentially related, then it should be removed instead of being used as an excuse to add completely irrelevant info. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to use GDP as an excuse at all, I clearly stated why territories should be added (highly relevant and not a new practice), and I got no explanation why this should not be other than circular reasoning (this article has only these things because it has only these things).
This is why I have sought outside comment, because somebody glancing at all this digital ink might think that reasons for the opposing view had been shared. Wizmut (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the details of the edit I made. The previous source was about GDP, but I changed it (being largely able to keep the same text) to a source about population. Wizmut (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to convince others of the merit of your proposed changes, not the other way round. I restored part of your previous edit (explanation given in the edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. In the spirit of discussion, I would like word one on what problems would be caused by slightly expanding the subject matter of the article. Wizmut (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the subject of an article is a radical undertaking and one that happens rarely, and should only be done with very broad consensus. (If it were successful, it would also require a name change, as the new topic would require a new title.) If you don't get enough feedback, you can try notifying some related WikiProjects in an appropriate manner, requesting feedback and linking back to this Rfc. (Make sure your notification is neutral, and that someone reading it can't tell which side of the fence you are on.)
If in the end, you aren't able to get enough agreement from participating editors, or you aren't able to attract sufficient participation to get a "broad" consensus for anything at all, then your only alternative (other than notifying even more WikiProjects) is to give up for now, and try again later. I can see that you are passionate about your beliefs, but at some point, other editors don't have to endlessly answer your questions and arguments; if you wear everybody out, they will just stop responding, you won't have your broad consensus, and the Rfc will just expire and die. So, take your best shot, but don't take it personally, if things don't work out the way you prefer. It happens all the time to everybody here, if they stick around long enough, and it's just one of the things you have to learn to weather, and deal with as an editor. Aphorisms like "Pick your battles," and "Live to fight another day" come to mind.
But hey, unless you withdraw it, the Rfc will likely be around till July 25. Who knows—maybe a bunch of editors will show up and agree with you; so be patient. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been about two weeks and the only argument against has been that the inclusion of territories may mean that the title will not exactly match the content, but this was called into question as 'country' may be ambiguous (meaning distinct region). It is used in an ambiguous way in some articles, whereas in others the title length is simply doubled to be absolutely precise.
Meanwhile four commenters (besides my own) seem to like the idea of inclusion, each with separate reasons. The exact title may still be an open question, but the ideal content of the article, not so much. Wizmut (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the closer to decide, though, given the badly formulated RfC, I don't expect them to find a consensus about anything in particular. That having been said, it's still open, so I suggest you let it run its course. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have declined to respond to any of the arguments put forth in favor of inclusion, and you have not presented any argument against, other than "it's self-explanatory" or "it's obvious" or "I don't need to say" or "I already said why".
Nobody else has presented an argument against either, and the discussion stopped after many not only voting in quick succession in favor, but presenting multiple arguments in favor: it's not against a broad definition of the word 'country' to include them, other lists include territories such as these just fine, and above all the content is highly relevant as it includes parts of Africa that would not be covered by a more restrictive following of the concise title.
I would add that these territories had all appeared in this article before for many years , but were removed during an edit war that featured no discussion - except that Reunion was kept and remained until you recently removed it.
If you cannot offer any reason why they should not be included, I will revert to the previous version soon. Wizmut (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I don't see how anyone would close this crappy and non neutral RfC that you started without consulting anyone.
I will revert to the previous version soon You can rest assured that your promise to edit war to impose your POV will get the appropriate response. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not edit warring to follow the consensus of the discussion.
Do you really not want to add anything to the discussion beyond procedural complaints? What is the point? Wizmut (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closer will decide is there if a consensus and about what (an impossible task given the crappy and non neutral RfC that you started without consulting anyone). I don't need to repeat or waste my time discussing what you refused to discuss. You chose the RfC route and a crappy one at that, now you live with it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you refuse to add to the discussion? This is the only thing preventing a perfectly clear consensus. You have alluded to points against inclusion without saying them out loud. Among points that have actually been typed out onto this page, there is certainly a consensus. Wizmut (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done wasting my time with you. If you dare to impose your will through edit warring, you will reported to the admins. That's a promise. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is Wikipedia - we don't vote. Various comments, including mine, supported going about it differently but don't support your malformed proposal or what you're doing now. Please drop your idea that this article should use your opportunistic redefinition of country. NebY (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was using voting in the sense of the general disposition of the post.
Please drop your idea that this article should use your opportunistic redefinition of country.
This is the essential issue at hand, which was quickly found during the discussion. To resolve one issue (is title ambiguous) is very much to resolve the other (what should the content be). Wizmut (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your badly formulated and non neutral RfC doesn't and wouldn't resolve anything. That's what happens when editors take the unilateral decision to start a RfC without consulting anyone. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry for learning on the fly, but a productive discussion happened anyway. What is the discussion missing that would be needed to resolve anything? Wizmut (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The genie is out of the bottle, so now, you have to live with the consequences of what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Wizmut (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing remotely productive in the way your formulated your RfC (without consulting anyone). You can add this experience to the list of things that you are learning on the fly. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it, exactly? And what sort of productive discussion item could have come out if it were perfect, that has not come out already?
Perhaps I know one. There must be a reason you're against inclusion. In fact, you've indicated its existence. But you haven't said what it is.
What is it about the faulty way I formulated the RfC that has prevented you from 1. Imagining I had put the issue more precisely 2. Making a point towards that issue.
It certainly hasn't prevented you from indicating that you have things to say. But for some reason it's prevented you from saying them. Wizmut (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your badly formulated and non neutral RfC is the perfect example of the garbage in, garbage out principle. Anyway, I said what I had to say. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GIGO is not a hardline principle of wikipedia discussions let alone RfCs (thank goodness), and not everything in this discussion was garbage. Indeed, a lot of it was very on-point and fruitful.
Perhaps by mistake, you slipped and said that you knew why you disagreed. "It's obvious," you said. What's obvious? Why? Why do the points in the other direction not need to be responded to?
If you really have nothing to say, then please withdraw your objection. Or, type your reasons out and "live with the consequences" of having to have a discussion about the actual topic at hand, rather than relying on extensive knowledge of procedure to avoid it. It really shouldn't require so much rigamarole to have a discussion occur. What is the point? Wizmut (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title isn't ambiguous, so your edits are inappropriate, as well as premature. Await or seek a close of the RFC; the next step may be an RM, but we can and should wait to see the close first. NebY (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well some people have said that 'country' could be construed in other ways, if you read the discussion. And again (this is a trend) there are no people saying why the broad definition cannot be used.
And I really must protest the saying that my edits are premature. These items were included in the article for many years, but were removed during an edit war last year. Except for Reunion, which M. Bitton is responsible for removing (without ever saying why). What is this standard I am being judged alone by? Wizmut (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion. It was implicit in my comment that your "broad definition" of country is inappropriate and others agreed that while they thought it would be desirable to have an article that included them, the territories you wish to include aren't countries. You launched an RFC; wait for the outcome to be determined and whatever next steps are required to be taken. That's all. NebY (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're discussing the issue. Thank goodness. And I'll certainly wait until a closer is found.
But to respond to your point. Why is the broad definition inappropriate? There are many articles that currently use it to have a concise title, and they then go on to specify more clearly in the lead.
Examples (not including articles I've edited):
List of countries in the Americas by population
List of countries by population growth rate
List of countries by income equality
This seems to allow for highly legible titles for articles that are allowed to go into desirable detail. Wizmut (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles whose scopes are clearly defined by the terms used and which use deliberately inclusive titles if they are to be inclusive. This is a massive encyclopedia; there are exceptions (and many other things wrong with it) but they should not be used as justifications.
Now, you may be enjoying this discussion but I am finding it highly repetitive and I weary of being continually pressed to explain my opposition in different ways. Accept it. Read WP:BLUDGEON, which may help you in future. Respond to this if you wish, but don't expect me to. NebY (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to being accused of bludgeoning. Your reply is the first to actually respond to a point made about the actual topic. If anything, I have been constantly berated for not crossing my T's in the initial post, as if that should disallow discussion.
But to reply to your point (for the record if nothing else), I don't think there's anything wrong with the other articles for the reasons I've said. Nobody will be confused about why the title is slightly more ambiguous than the lead. See Tom Cruise or North Korea or When the Pawn....
And you did not say why the broader (and older) definition of country is incorrect. Certainly somebody from Guam, if asked what country they're from, would say Guam. Wizmut (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Réunion, Mayotte

Réunion, Mayotte are overseas departments of France and also African islands[1][2][3]. Mayotte in particular used to be part of the Comoros islands before the rest of them declared independence, and the Comoros are considered part of Africa just as Madagascar is. Similar to how Guadeloupe and Martinique are included in the Caribbean list, these two would be highly relevant material that adds to one's knowledge of the population of different parts of Africa. Wizmut (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would now also invite comments about whether to include these regions.
Some thoughts to add. These are not called separate by the ISO 3166-1, but are integral parts of France. That fact taken alone would say that they should be included by adding an entry called "France" - similar to how Russia is handled in the Asia article (three integral regions comprise Asian Russia almost exactly). The alternative is to handle them as they have been in this article before, the same way that the Oceania article handles Hawaii - an integral part of the US, but labeled "Hawaii (US)" and not "US". So, separate entries. A region that probably seems most on the fence in this way is Western New Guinea in Indonesia.
If it's really a coin flip, perhaps looking at how the French editors think about the issue would help settle the issue. On the French Wikipedia, they are listed separately and not under "France".[1] I would also note that Réunion was included on this list for quite a while until it was removed without a posted reason. Wizmut (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Réunion + Mayotte references

  1. ^ https://www.worlddata.info/africa/reunion/index.php
  2. ^ https://www.worlddata.info/africa/mayotte/index.php
  3. ^ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/france/

Inclusion of Somaliland

Somaliland is sometimes dealt with as a sovereign state[1][2] and has been ruled separately for over 30 years. I would wonder how long a state such as Somalia would have to fail to be the primary minister for an area before its status would change.

There is some difficulty in finding the neutral point of view for this region. Their lack of recognition may be political, as they are said to not be very cooperative with the goals of super-national bodies.[3] Wizmut (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Rfc above. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the RfC closer, I would invite any more comments about whether or not to include Somaliland. So far a few posters have been pro-inclusion. The main reason is because Western Sahara and Somaliland are in the same category (partially recognized states). One was against, because the UN and African Union do not recognize it.
The UN does not provide any data for this state (because it doesn't recognize it), however it is recognized by Taiwan and so qualifies as a partially recognized state. Per the consensus for all country lists from 2009,[2] it should be included in some way. My suggestion is to leave the UN column blank for this row and post only its most recent official estimate (which is 4.5 million on its website[3]). And perhaps the total for all official estimates should not include Somaliland. Wizmut (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SawsanJojo your comment in this thread is requested. Edit summaries are not ideal for making arguments as they do not stay visible for very long. Wizmut (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland claims sovereignty but doesn’t even control the area that it claims. Look at SSC regions where Somaliland claimed for every 30 years but never controlled part of it such as eastern Sanag and southern Togdheer. it seized regions like Sool by force and now they were kicked out of it since February, to retake it back, Somaliland committing a war crimes as they don’t have the acceptance of those communities and they identify themselves as Somalis from Somalia.
Somalia don’t claim sovereignty over Somaliland, in fact the world deals with Somaliland as territory that is an autonomous within Somalia, that includes World Bank and other organisations that function within Hargeisa as part of a bigger framework within Somalia.
Western Sahara is recognised by 40 countries including African Union, but Somaliland failed to be acknowledged as separate state. Taiwan is a disputed territory itself and not even treated as sovereign country in many international stages. So why cannot claim Somaliland to be partially recognised, that is a misinformation.
nothing personal here but you need to understand the depth of this problem and why the world has turned its back for over 30 years. I will shape the space when it comes to this matter as it have the understanding. Sorry for not providing references as I am using my phone and going to work but I did provide security council document released this June referring to territories claimed by Somaliland as Somalia SawsanJojo (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland's government has continuously controlled territory for over 30 years, at least in the same fashion as Somalia's government. I don't claim that Somaliland's government is filled with very cooperative people who make a lot of friends. But it would seem they have done the bare minimum diplomacy to have at least one other country officially recognize them.
I don't see how Taiwan being claimed by China keeps it from being a sovereign state that can recognize other sovereign states. Many countries have disputed territory, and some are entirely disputed. South Korea is disputed in whole, but that doesn't invalidate its status as a state. And Taiwan is not the only country to treat with Somaliland's government. Even the UN recognizes that Somaliland is a de facto state.
The number of countries required to be called "partially recognized" must be arbitrary if one is not enough. How many is enough? 3? 10? 30? It would seem that 40 is enough for your argument.
Surely it would be a better standard to deal with how other countries act, rather than simply what they say. There is a word for a region that acts autonomously in every way while calling itself independent, and that is a country. Wizmut (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland references

  1. ^ https://africanarguments.org/2020/11/why-did-somaliland-just-suspend-cooperation-with-the-un/
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20221210115329/https://en.mofa.gov.tw/CountryInfoEn.aspx?CASN=2&n=1289&sms=0&s=200
  3. ^ https://democracyinafrica.org/somaliland-suspends-relations-united-nations/

RfC: Treatment of Somaliland

Should this list article include Somaliland? Wizmut (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see previous discussion above. Also note that per a 2009 consensus[4], all country list articles that use multiple sources should have the same criteria for inclusion (the one chosen in that consensus), so the decision here may effect other list articles. Wizmut (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No
Its claimed sovereignty is not recognised and its referred by ALL countries as autonomous region. Just recently, Kenyan foreign office described Somaliland as an autonomous region of Somalia by letter sent to Somali Embassy in Kenya. Somaliland claims territories that cannot control and will not control peacefully nor by force. SawsanJojo (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Treatment of Somaliland)

Yes: Somaliland's de facto independence of three decades was recognized for the first time by another country recently, after Taiwan's foreign ministry began referring to the region as a "Republic" and a "country"[5]. Per an earlier consensus, all partially recognized states should be included on country lists like this one (those which use multiple sources). Wizmut (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per the scoping statement: "This is a list of... African countries", and applying WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTLEAD: "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow". Until there is a clear majority of secondary sources that say that Somaliland is a country, which very clearly is not the case now, it may not be included here. (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, at least with the current scope. As mentioned above, this kind of classification is up to WP:RS; calling a region like this a country when that is not supported by RS is probably WP:OR. I think rescoping to „countries and autonomous regions“ might be useful, though, and if that happens, Somaliland should be included. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the higher-level lists, which currently means yes with appropriate explanations. The wheel should not be reinvented for each article. CMD (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The article's scope is in the title, List of African countries by population. It's not List of African countries and territories/dependencies/unrecognised states by population. Recognition by just one place (one which itself has limited recognition as a country) doesn't mean somewhere has general recognition as a country or that Wikipedia should treat it as one in lists of countries; similarly, we do not include micronations even when they recognise each other. There's also an unaddressed question of whether inclusion of Somaliland would mean that the listed population of Somalia should be reduced accordingly to avoid double-counting, which could be considered in a WP:BEFORERFC discussion and RFC on retitling this article and expanding its scope, as it would apply to other possible inclusions if the scope was expanded. NebY (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the data handling question is a difficult one. It is not helped by the fact that neither Somalia nor Somaliland has done a census for some time, so the only estimates that split up Somalia into its regions are from non-official sources. But the closer of the previous RfC specifically recommended asking about Somaliland's inclusion as a next step.
    About the title not being long: long titles are not encouraged per WP:CONCISE. It's been the understanding in lists like these that the "country" in the title is very general, with the scoping statement a little more detailed, and the lead in general describing the list criteria. The long discussion from 2009 I keep linking to held that it might be nice to change every single list title to be more specific, but it would be too much work and not important enough to require all the lists to exclude all the edge cases. And to respond to @Mathglot's note about the lead using the term "country", it was decided by the previous RfC not to try and say what the scope of the article is (not yet anyway), but rather to handle specific cases first as a way of understanding the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Not my preference either, but we have to start somewhere.
    Hopefully if the political status of Africa's internal borders continue to change we'll have this list's criteria pinned down better. I found more than one edit war in this article's history, all while having a fraction of the discussion of the Europe population list despite being viewed more often. Wizmut (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not widely considered to be an independent country yet unless I'm missing something.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's a de facto independent. If we include Western Sahara, which is mostly controlled by Morocco and not universally recognised as a separate country, then we should list Somaliland too. Alaexis¿question? 12:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Saint Helena

Saint Helena (and nearby islands) are sometimes considered part of Africa, in models which divide the entire world into continents.[1][2]. Additionally, it is part of the African plate.[3]

This may seem an extreme example, but similar ones exist in the case of Bermuda being considered part of North America[4] and Easter Island being considered part of Oceania.[5] Wizmut (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Rfc way above. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Helena references

  1. ^ https://www.worlddata.info/africa/saint-helena/index.php
  2. ^ https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx/_Docs/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Saint%20Helena
  3. ^ http://sainthelenaisland.info/geology.htm
  4. ^ https://www.worlddata.info/america/bermuda/index.php
  5. ^ https://earth.esa.int/web/earth-watching/image-of-the-week/content/-/article/easter-island/index.html

Inclusion and treatment of Western Sahara

The closer of the recent RfC suggested treating each territory individually, and specifically mentioned Western Sahara as a good starting point. There does not appear to be anyone on this talk page who is against inclusion, but I figured I would follow the suggestion and create this discussion and anticipate any questions about whether or not to include Western Sahara and how exactly it should be treated in the list.

Should Western Sahara be included? Via a consensus reach in 2009,[6] it would certainly seem so. That consensus said that if a country list uses multiple sources, it should be based on the ISO 3166-1, but also include partially recognized states. And the African Union constituents collectively recognize Western Sahara (under the name Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Morocco disagrees.

But note the name difference. For neutral point of view reasons, the name "Western Sahara" has stuck, often with a question mark flag (). An editor from 2007[7] seems to have come up with this, and nobody argued against it at the time. But people still seem to fiddle with it from time to time. (Right now this article has the SADR flag ). The big lists all have " Western Sahara".

That same editor (who was talking about the big list), also decided to unrank it. The practice of having ranks only for full UN members seems to go back a ways and was thoroughly discussed here,[8] which seemed to give a weak consensus that the big lists have since followed. It would seem to make sense to follow their lead, and to pursue a change there before asking for one here.

A tertiary issue arises when showing maps. Where is Western Sahara? Morocco says it's part of Morocco, as part of its Southern Provinces, which form a different shape than SADR claims. So that's a disagreement over the de jure shape. For the de facto shape, there's a little less uncertainty: SADR governs the southeast portion and Morocco rules the rest. So which standard is correct? Wizmut (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best suggestion I have for mapping is to use whatever borders are being used by the data. If the "Western Sahara" population includes only SADR's constituents but not people in the southernmost provinces of Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra or Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab (and a tiny bit of Guelmim-Oued Noun), then the map should show the SADR-controlled shape, rather than the SADR-claimed shape. I cannot find a source stating a figure for "Western Sahara" that does not make me squint with suspicion about its definition. As far as I know that government has never conducted a census. Wizmut (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Treatment would presumably depend on how Morocco is treated, per your suggestion on reflecting the data. If the Morocco population includes the Southern Provinces, then it wouldn't make sense to 'duplicate' that population. (There might be slight duplication due to the different shapes you mention, but that would be more minor.) I don't think there need to be a map though. CMD (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you restored the disputed lead (despite not having a consensus to do so). Anyway, the way your phrased it This is a list of African countries by population in Africa according to the United Nations leaves no room for speculation or pov of any kind and makes keeping (not adding) WS even more relevant than it was before. As for the map: since the UN gives the population of WS (btw, keeping track of it is part of its mission), the choice is simple, we follow the United Nations geoscheme for Africa and the UN's map (including its population specific one). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "according to the United Nations" refers to the "Africa population" column (for the most part). Notice that the sentence does not end there, but goes on to include "and the latest official figure", which allows for a second source for each country, or for a first source for countries with no data provided by the United Nations.
There could conceivably be a country for which the column "Africa population" does not use the UN data, and in that case the associated note could be used to indicate the difference. Right now there is a slight deviation for the case of Egypt, which excludes the Asian portion on the table, but mentions the calculation in the note.
Agree that WS is highly relevant. I was not disputing its inclusion, but simply opening up this discussion as instructed by the RfC closer. Wizmut (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage population of total African population

@Wizmut: this edit adds the percentage of the total African population for each country, which is a nice-to-have, but it makes the page unmaintainable. I wanted to add the latest figures for South Africa from the recently-released census (62,027,503), but didn't as this would require manual updates to every single row in the table. All figures are actually already wrong, since there have been numerous population updates since then, but no updates to the percentage figures. I suggest this column be removed, or automatically calculated. Greenman (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greenman, the "% Africa", "Africa population" and "% growth" columns are based on the UN estimate which comes out every year at the same time for each country (compare the unmarried master lists here[9] and here[10]), so the article can be updated once a year in that respect. The census figure should go in the Official figure column, with an updated Official date. Some may find it easier to update the UN estimates with templates (it's been done in the past), but they haven't been used much lately and I find it easier to copy and paste from Excel using internet tools. Regards Wizmut (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_African_countries_by_population"