Talk:List of European countries by population

Adding Israel because of cultural ties

Since the list is already quite loose (Kazakhstan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia), why not also include Israel? It participates in common European institutions such as CERN, UEFA or Eurovision, and has obviously more recent cultural and genetic ties with Europe than any of the five countries excluding the significant European minorities in Kazakhstan. 45.72.224.134 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason Israel should not be in the set.PotvinSux (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Turkey, Kazakhstan, and parts of the Caucasus maintain territory within the common definitions of Europe. While Cyprus and Armenia are geographically in West Asia, they both participate in dozens and dozens of European programs, organizations, and treaties and both have strong geopolitical ties to the continent. Much more then Israel. Just because Israel participates in a scientific program and sends singers to a song competition once a year, does not justify the claim. Archives908 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All Israeli sport takes place in a European context. Other cultural exchanges like the Eurovision take place in the same context. Israel is a member of countless European organisations, and is distinctly MORE European in outlook than Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, two countries neither of which geographically is really in Europe proper. The nearest comparison would be, I suggest Cyprus. Geographically part of Asia, but culturally, socially European with a largely European derived population. There's really no good rational reason to exclude Israel but include Azerbaijan, for example. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Is there any reason why Akrotiri and Dhekelia would be omitted? 203.145.95.32 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing Kazakhstan

Without taking a stand on complicated cases and other transcontinental countries, isn't the relevance of Kazakhstan in this list so vanishingly small that we could agree to remove it? Yes, it is included in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, since it's partially in geographical Europe. But neither fom a geographical nor from a cultural view is it a European country, is it? St.nerol (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Valid points indeed, however, over at Europe#Definition, the western edge of Kazakhstan is counted within the contemporary definition of "Europe proper", like you said. Therefore, I'm not convinced if the complete removal of Kazakhstan is warranted. Archives908 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No countries in UK.

There are no UK countries in the list of countries pages. 2601:500:C201:2600:896D:A0DE:8CBE:5888 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Table

Where is the table !?!! 73.62.97.160 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent disruptions

The lead has been carefully constructed to avoid any overwhelming WP:POV, it is concise, to the point, and doesn't have any factually incorrect data that I can see. Hence, no valid reason to overhaul it. Archives908 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not concise (contains unncessary and wrong infromation), and contains factually incorrect data. See the topic below. Also, see Wikipedia:Edit warring Meurglys8 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally decided to respond on the talk page and ceased your disruptive editing. Thank you. You keep on claiming that there is factually incorrect data and wrong information in the lead. However, there doesn't appear to be any misinformation. Your suggestions below are not necessarily vital to include in the lead of this article. The article in question is a WP:LIST and such technicality is not needed here. As per MOS:LONGSEQ, "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum, per policy". This list is not intended to go in-depth into each country's geographical peculiarities/complexities. Should readers want to learn more about any of the countries listed, they may link directly to the respective countries profile(s), whereby readers may find additional information about that country's geography/demographics. Archives908 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I see you've only been active on Wikipedia for less then 2 days, so you may want to read WP:TALK#DISCUSS. In the future, if an editor starts a discussion on the talk page (like I did), its best to respond and discuss the topic/any issues there may be. Thanks! Archives908 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

1. The list contains 49 European countries and 6 dependent territories along with two Asian countries added for non-geographical reasons. You keep changing the correct number, 49, with a wrong number, 51.

2. The list contains four categories of countries: a. Countries that have territories in Europe and Asia (Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Greece, Georgia), b. Transcontinental countries that have overseas territories (France, the UK, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway), c. Countries that have no lands in Europe (See: List of European countries by area), but included here for non-geographical reasons (Cyprus, Armenia), d. Countries and territories that are completely in Europe (the rest). The first paragraph is confusing and misleading as you edit. It lumps an arbitrary set of countries from category a and the two countries from category c together.

3. The second paragraph according to your edit is also misleading and does not comply with the Wikipedia rule of "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum, per policy". Here is why:

a. It goes into unnecessary detail about an arbitrary country from category a.

b. Not only a small amount of Turkey's population is situated in Europe. The population of Turkey in Europe is as large as the Netherlands and it would be the 7th or 8th biggest country in the EU had it joined it alone. Also, the citation is unreachable.

c. If we exclude Turkey and claim Germany is the second-most populous country in Europe, why don't we also exclude Russia? We have to exclude either both or none.

d. It contains a meaningless term (people living in an intermediate region?) without any citations.

4. A respectable amount of the Aegean islands of Greece are located in Asia (See: List of transcontinental countries), putting Greece in category a. However, you keep manipulating this information for no reason.

So, yes, I keep on claiming that there is factually incorrect data and wrong information in the lead. Any reasons to insist on misinformation? Thanks! Meurglys8 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

By you listing each and every single minute geographical and demographic perplexity, you are further proving my previous argument. Which is, this list is not intended to go into such detail. This is not the place for that. Perhaps you didn't read the policy I provided above, but lists are supposed to be kept to the point for a reason. This list is meant to be a brief guideline, not an overwhelming in-depth article. There are far better articles where readers may learn more about any of these country's geography and/or population facts. Take Turkey for example, Geography of Turkey and Demographics of Turkey covers the points you mentioned above in far greater detail, with far better sources, images, and more specific information then this list. I'm afraid that if we go into such detail here, then we will detract from what a list is meant to be. Brief. It may also open a can of worms where we would then be obliged to include other geographic/demographic peculiarities; of which there are far more then your list above. Which will, yet again, detract from keeping this list being bogged down with an overload of statistical data. Thanks! Archives908 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Man, 1. 51 is not equal to 49, right? As simple as it is. 2. Greece has lands on Europe and Asia, right? As simple as it is. Are you manipulating these? Yes. As simple as it is. Meurglys8 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This list of European countries by population comprises the 49 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe, broadly defined, and two Asian countries, Cyprus [1][2] and Armenia[3], for non-geographical reasons.

Russia is the most populous European country and the country with the largest population in the European region of Eurasia. Turkey is the second most populous European country, whereas Germany hosts the second largest population in the European region.

Simple, isn't it? No perplexities, no details... Less perplexe and less detailed and less misleading than the current version. Are you going to revert in fifth time? Meurglys8 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert it* Meurglys8 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain to you why we should avoid over complicating this list- reiterating my position three times. I've provided you with the relevant Wiki policies to refer. Have you read them? You continue to avoid addressing the rationale. In terms of the lead itself, the current lead is more than acceptable. Europe, very broadly defined, does included 51 countries. This broad definition is pretty consistent across Wikipedia articles related to Europe. From what I see, the broadest of these definitions remains 51 (with the inclusion of Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan). Kosovo is also included here, but not always everywhere else. That is why the number is 51 here. The rest of the lead addresses population figures, which all seem to check out. The wording is neutrally presented, grammatically correct, and is as concise as possible. The other minor details you have mentioned are not critical to include here because that information is already presented in the respective country profiles. There is a plethora of additional information there, including links to more specialized articles/lists. List of islands of Greece for instance provides readers information all about the Greek islands and their location, information which is not necessary to include here. Got it? Archives908 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is over-complication? Is coloring a country that is in Europe and Asia to green over-complication? By following your logic, then people can also go and check other green countries, too. Then, why are they green? What makes Greece different than them. You are insisting on misinformation. However, I lost my hope to communicate with you. Even such simplest things are not able to be perceived by you. Nationalism really makes people blind, unfortunately. Meurglys8 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess you haven't even read the last edit that you have reverted. Have you? Because the note you are talking about was not there and you keep talking about that note. Have you read it? Meurglys8 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the number is 49, because Cyprus and Armenia have no lands in Europe. So, they are NOT IN EUROPE. See: List of European countries by area. (I support including them in this list.) Meurglys8 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your negative remarks against me are not constructive to this discussion. Read WP:TPNO and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. Cyprus and Armenia are obviously in West Asia geographically, but they are and have always been included here due to their geopolitical ties with Europe. That's why the number is set at 51, that's why they are included in most "European" related articles. There is nothing false or contentious about that. This list, like other articles, uses the broadest definition to included these entities. Do you understand? At this point, I have no clue what you are even arguing about. The color box of Greece can be changed, I was never opposed to that. You made it seem above that you wanted to include expanded information about the Greek Islands in Asia and this list is not the place for that. Archives908 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I added small note indicating that the population in the Greek Islands in Asia were also included.

2. After that, I did not insist on this after you have reverted my edit.

3. You completely undid another edit of mine that did not include this small note. After that you kept emphasizing this note, showing that you have reverted without even reading the edit.

See: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

There are a number of things that sometimes motivate an editor to revert, but should not.

Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Shortcut

WP:MASSR

Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.

Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes.

Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary.

Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit. Meurglys8 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"comprises the 51 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe". Are Cyprus and Armenia in Europe? No. So, data says 49. Clear? Meurglys8 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you ok? For the seventh time, this list uses the broadest definition of Europe, which does include Cyprus and Armenia. Therefore, the number remains 51. Clear? Archives908 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am explaining with patience.

Section A: Basics

A1. What is status quo? Status quo

A2. Current version of the lead represents status quo. It is only the current state. It is not a proven, unquestionable physical law.

A3. Status quo is objectable. Very importantly (for a Wikipedia editor like you especially): "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."

A4. I object the status quo here.

Section B: Why do I object to 51 (the status quo)?

B1. First, let's assume "this list uses the broadest definition of Europe" as you say. Further assume, this is an unshakable truth. Now, please check the link in the lead (broadly defined) and search for Armenia there. You'll find 4 occurences.

B1.1 Occurence one: On a map, where Armenia is NOT in Europe. Armenia (Asia), Cyprus (Asia), and Greenland (America) are written in a color different than all countries, because they have ZERO lands in Europe. What we infer from this occurence: Armenia is NOT in Europe.

B1.2 Occurence two: In a list of states and territories. Armenia is listed as having 29,743 km2 in Europe and Turkey is listed as having 23,764 km2 in Europe. This is manipulative/wrong/inconsistent. Why?

B1.2.1 Hypothetical case 1: If the list had Armenia with 29,743 km2 and Turkey with 783,562 km2, it would be consistent. Why? Because it would contain full land areas of two countries in the list.

B1.2.2 Hypothetical case 2: If the list had Armenia with 0 km2 and Turkey with 23,764 km2, it would be consistent. Why? Because it would contain the land areas of these two countries in Europe in the list.

B1.2.3: Current status quo case: The list has Armenia with 29,743 km2 and Turkey with 23,764 km2. This status quo is inconsistent. Why? It contains full land area of Armenia and the land area of Turkey in European region of Eurasia.

What we infer from this occurence: The list is untrustable.

B1.3 Occurence three: This is about the Armenian language. (A nice language. I like languages and the culture of your region [Kurdish, Armenian, Persian etc] actually) Nothing to do with our discussion.

B1.4 Occurence four: A note about the untrustable table. Again not supportive to anything...

Therefore, even if we assume that this list is specifically for the broadest definition of Europe, link in the lead (broadly defined) says only two things: a. Armenia is NOT in Europe. b. The list in the link is untrustable and is a good example of status quo that has to be replaced to comply with Wikipedia's policies. For a consistent version of the list, see: List of European countries by area

So, in the case that the list uses the broadest definition of Europe, then, according to the reference Wikipedia page, Armenia is out. Sorry :(

B2. Second, the remaining case is the case of the list not using a broadest definition (a vauge term, by the way) of Europe. In this case, Armenia is out. Sorry. :(

In both cases, there are 49 countries as Armenia and Cyprus should be out. However, I support Armenia being in the list and I would vote for it to stay in the list. In the case that we keep Armenia and Cyprus in the list, then again we have 49 countries having lands in Europe and 2 countries from Asia.

So, 49. Not 51.

Section C: Why do I object to the rest of the first sentence? (the status qou)

C1. The first sentence is confusing and misleading as you edit. It lumps an arbitrary set of countries from category a and the two countries from category c together, where category a is a) Countries that have territories in Europe and Asia (Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Greece, Georgia), category c is c) Countries that have no lands in Europe (See: List of European countries by area), but included here for non-geographical reasons (Cyprus, Armenia).

Thus, you can't combine Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and the countries of the Caucasus altogether. As Kazakhstan, Turkey, and the countries of the Caucasus other than Armenia obviously have lands in Europe, only Armenia and Cyprus should be mentioned. (or we can just say 49 countries in Europe and 2 countries in Asia, depending on our taste)

Section D: Why do I think the second paragraph (the status quo) should be edited?

D1. The second sentence contains unnecessary information.

D2. The second sentence contains wrong information.

D3. The second sentence contains a meaningless term without a proper citation to it. What is an intermediate region?

D4. As there are different opinions on how to rank the countries in Europe, I suggest the following to satisfy both parties (a. those who think a ranking should be based on the individuals living in the European region of Eurasia, b. those who think a ranking should be based on the populations of European countries):

"Russia is the most populous European country and the country with the largest population in the European region of Eurasia. Turkey is the second most populous European country, whereas Germany hosts the second largest population in the European region."

Is it clear now? Are you ready to be constructive?

PS: Your region is an admirable place. The culture of your region (Kurdish culture, Armenian culture etc.) has many advantages like being hospitable. I like it. You just need to overcome the menaces of nationalism and conservatism. Meurglys8 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are incoherent and painstakingly difficult to understand. I'm afraid I still don't know exactly what you are proposing (or even upset about). The lead is sufficient in its current form. I have agreed with you over and over that Cyprus and Armenia are not geographically in Europe and the article already clearly confirms that. The number "51" is accurate, as it includes all countries in the broadest definition of Europe, regardless if they have physical territory within the traditional borders of Europe or not. As this is something you keep failing to grasp, I recommend you take a minute to read that again before replying so hastily. I shall reiterate for you yet again, just because Cyprus and Armenia do not have territory within Europe, it does not mean they should be excluded from this list. In fact, they are included in almost every single "Europe" related article across Wikipedia, usually with some sort of footnote explaining their geography in West Asia. That is exactly what is done here. The article clearly discusses their location in Asia. As such, we must maintain consistency and keep the status quo. Archives908 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Current violation of the three-revert rule

Hi dear Wikipedians. Recently a user has violated the three-revert rule by changing the correct information on the page with wrong and biased information. Here are what they have changed:

1. The list contains 49 European countries and 6 dependent territories along with two Asian countries added for non-geographical reasons. They keep changing the correct number, 49, with a wrong number, 51.

2. The list contains four categories of countries: a. Countries that have territories in Europe and Asia (Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Greece, Georgia), b. Transcontinental countries that have overseas territories (France, the UK, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway), c. Countries that have no lands in Europe (See: List of European countries by area), but included here for non-geographical reasons (Cyprus, Armenia), d. Countries and territories that are completely in Europe (the rest). The first paragraph is confusing and misleading as they edit. It lumps an arbitrary set of countries from category a and the two countries from category c together.

3. The second paragraph according to their edit is also misleading and does not comply with the Wikipedia rule of "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum, per policy". Here is why:

a. It goes into unnecessary detail about an arbitrary country from category a.

b. Not only a small amount of Turkey's population is situated in Europe. The population of Turkey in Europe is as large as the Netherlands and it would be the 7th or 8th biggest country in the EU had it joined it alone. Also, the citation is unreachable.

c. If we exclude Turkey and claim Germany is the second-most populous country in Europe, why don't we also exclude Russia? We have to exclude either both or none.

d. It contains a meaningless term (people living in an intermediate region?) without any citations.

4. A respectable amount of the Aegean islands of Greece are located in Asia (See: List of transcontinental countries), putting Greece in category a. However, the violating user keeps manipulating this information for no reason.

Below you can see the text they have changed for no reason: " This list of European countries by population comprises the 49 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe, broadly defined, and two Asian countries, Cyprus [1][2] and Armenia[3], for non-geographical reasons.

Russia is the most populous European country and the country with the largest population in the European region of Eurasia. Turkey is the second most populous European country, whereas Germany hosts the second largest population in the European region. " and this is the text that they replaced: " This list of European countries by population comprises the 51 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe, broadly defined, including Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and the countries of the Caucasus.

The most populous European country is Russia, with a population of 146 million. Turkey straddles both Europe and Asia, and lies almost entirely in Asia, with most of its population in the intermediate[clarification needed] region; though within its small territory in Europe, a small amount of its population is situated.[1] Excluding Turkey, Germany is the second-most populous country in the continent. "

What are your opinions on this issue? None of us would want to see such violations and misleading/wrong information on Wikipedia in my humble opinion.

All the best to all of you.

Need to improve the lead

The lead has several problems.

1. The first paragraph lumps together an arbitrary set of countries from transcontinental countries located in Europe and Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia from the green category in this table) with two countries that are entirely in Asia (Cyprus and Armenia from the red category in this table), leading to a misunderstanding.

2. The second paragraph has the following problems:

2a. The second sentence is unnecessary. There are six countries in the same category as Turkey. Why is there a special mention of Turkey?

2b. Someone has added a source that repetitively mentions a disputed and discriminatory term, the Middle East (see: the lead of Middle East). Accurate sources can be found on pages List of European cities by population within city limits and Provinces of Turkey.

2c. It is a wrong and vague claim that "a small amount of Turkey's population is situated" in Asia (please see Provinces of Turkey). Even by only counting the population of Turkey residing in the current arbitrary boundary of Europe, Turkey has the 11th largest population in Europe, between the Netherlands and Belgium.

2d. The paragraph contains a meaningless term. What is an "intermediate region"?

Thus, my suggestion for the lead is the following:

"

This list of European countries by population comprises the 49 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe, together with two countries that lie completely in Asia, Armenia and Cyprus, which have non-geographical links with Europe.

Russia is the most populous European country and the country with the largest population residing in Europe. Turkey is the second most populous European country, whereas Germany hosts the second largest population residing in Europe.

"

My suggestion has the following advantages over the current lead:

1. It differentiates between countries that are officially/obviously in Europe and that are not in Europe. (see: List of European countries by population#Table)

2. It solves the issue of having an unnecessary, wrong and unsourced phrase.

3. It is compatible with two points of view of a. having a ranking based on the populations of European countries as a whole, b. having a ranking based on the populations of European countries residing in Europe. (For a good example of having these two different points of view, please see List of European cities by population within city limits).

I'm looking forward to having a constructive discussion and reaching consensus with fellow Wikipedians. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous discussion regarding the lead on this talk page. The lead is fine as is. Archives908 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, your alternative suggestion is not an improvement, and not necessary. The current lead already clearly describes which countries this article covers. Using the number 49 is incorrect as I've already explained time and time again. As for the population figures, they are presented correctly. The lead in its current form is accurate and well written. Archives908 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Overseas territories

How should overseas territories be treated in this list? Right now, it's inconsistent/unclear. France's overseas regions, for example, are included, but the UK's overseas territories are not. What about countries like Denmark and the Netherlands? Are we including their territories in these figures? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the asterisk supposed to mean?

Most of the countries listed have an asterisk (*) after their names. What is this supposed to mean? The introduction to the table does not explain. 173.25.121.164 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is to indicate that you'd be taken to the Demographics of X page. Seems like over-engineering to me; whenever I click on one of those I'm annoyed that I didn't get taken to the country's general page. It also adds junk to the table. Wizmut (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, and Kazakhstan.

Why is Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Cyprus on the European countries list?? - Geographically, Armenia and Cyprus are fully located in Asia. (Geography should be the determinant for what continent a country is located on, not geopolitical or cultural ties.) Jamaica is heavily influenced by African culture considering most of the population is African, but that does not make it in African country, because it is located in North America/the Caribbean. - Turkey is geographically located 97% in Asia and 3% in Europe. We don’t consider Egypt an Asian country just because a tiny part of Egypt is in Asia, while most of the population and land is in Africa. Why are we considering countries to be a part of a continent which they have minuscule amount of land on?? Turkey’s culture is also considerably different than most European nations because of their practice of Islam (I know Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are exceptions because they are Muslim, but their culture is European and they are all fully in Europe, which Turkey is not. - Also, why is Kazakhstan on this list?? Majority of Kazakhstan is in Central Asia and it has minuscule land in Europe (I think 16% of it is in Europe but I may be wrong). Also Kazakhstani culture is very different than European culture, plus they look nothing like Europeans, they look like East/Southeast/North Asians, not Europeans. - Fourthly, why is Georgia on this list?? Most of Georgia is geographically located in Asia, and has minuscule land in Europe. Yes, while Georgian culture is heavily influenced by Europe + it has historical and cultural ties to Europe, it should not be considered a European nation geographically. Just like Jamaica may be influenced by African culture, does not make it an African country. - Second Point with Armenia. Why is Armenia located on this list?? Armenia is fully located in Southwest/West Asia, and none of Armenia is in Europe. While it has some ties to Europe, the people usually do not look European. In America, the Armenians had to fight for their right to classify as European (they aren’t European but they wanted to be). - Why is Azerbaijan on this list? Most of Azerbaijan is geographically located in West Asia, with minuscule land in Europe. Also Azerbaijani culture does not align much with European culture nor do they look European. - Second Point With Cyprus. Why is Cyprus on this list?? Cyprus is geographically fully located in Asia, it has no land in Europe. Yes, while Cypriot culture may be culturally European or geopolitically European, does not make it geographically European, just like Jamaica may be influenced by African culture, but it isn’t an African country. - I understand why Russia is here, considering it has considerable land in Europe, and most of the population is in Europe, but geographically it is mostly in North Asia. - Lastly, Caucasia/Caucasus is not European. Yes, while I understand Georgia and Azerbaijan have minuscule amounts of land in Europe, they are mostly located in Asia, while Armenia is fully located in Asia. The term “Caucasian/Caucasoid” is an outdated and scientific racist term used mainly in North America to describe white Americans, but the actual Caucasians are Southwest/West Asian, not European. Can someone please fix this list thank you. Gatorbearratica (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Germanys population now bigger than turkey

Due to Immigration from Ukraine Germanys Population is now 84.4mio thats 0.4mio more that turkey. This article has to be edited 2003:E5:9F14:E600:F8EF:44D8:8A5A:4208 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Aland

Aland has recently been removed from the list. So far as I can tell it has been there since this edit 10 years ago, and there was never any discussion on this talk page about whether or not to include it.

However, there was a general discussion about all country lists about which criteria to use for inclusion, to help avoid the same debates being held on each individual page. There is quite a lot to read, but at the end of the discussion one summary said to use the source's criteria when using a single source, but to use the ISO 3166-1 when using multiple sources.

For Aland's case, this would seem to merit inclusion, and as Finland publishes monthly statistics that detail both Aland and the mainland's population, there wouldn't be any issue finding good stats for both of them separately. Wizmut (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ISO does great work but it's a standards body and assignation of an ISO 3166 code isn't definitive for our purposes; for example, it doesn't mean that sovereign states recognise a region as a sovereign state. Still, maybe it was the existence of an ISO code that led to the inclusion in the "New fully macro-generated version of the table".[1]

The statement at List of sovereign states that "Åland is a neutral and demilitarized autonomous region of Finland" seems accurate, as does our Åland's "an autonomous and demilitarised region of Finland", "the smallest region of Finland ... 0.54% of its population." Our Constitution of Åland begins "Åland is a part of Finland". Statistics Finland publishes figures for each of its regions, Åland being one among them, together making the totals for Finland that we provide here and in Demographics of Finland, Åland being included with other regions in all the breakdowns of the total Finnish population by age, gender, etc. NebY (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree with all that - I suppose my only concern is that with the current disagreement about Svalbard at other talk pages, we might have a bit of a can of worms. Aland and Svalbard would be excluded because we found that there were sources saying that they were considered integral by their own country in some sense; I'm not sure but this may be a vague standard in other cases. Somebody may come in and quote from the law of The Netherlands to say why some or all of their Caribbean islands are not to be distinguished, but then another person will point out they have their own Olympics team or talk about defense or currency. If we remove Aland, do we have a new stopping point? Wizmut (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Humans keep creating different forms of social organisation; every taxonomy of them has edge cases. I can't promise that exclusion of Åland here would make a good or a bad precedent, but I rather think it wouldn't serve either way. It seems, in and of itself, comparatively straightforward. NebY (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

"Demographics of X" links

The links to each country page seem to have been changed to "Demographics of" that country a few years ago in this edit, so far as I can tell without any discussion.

For myself, when I click on a link for Spain I am expecting to be taken to the general page for Spain. I dislike having to click on that link and then having to find the actual country link within that page.

But it's seemingly just a preference, as there's lots of info on each page. What do others think? Wizmut (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's ingenious and it's arguably on-topic enough not to breach WP:EASTEREGG, but it doesn't seem to have caught on in the other list-by-population articles I've sampled. I'd be interested to hear what others think; I'm rather inclined to drop it. NebY (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Colors 2

A few years ago there was a very brief discussion about what colors to use in the table, if any. And as of right now there's a warning at the top of this talk page from 2020 that colors should probably not be used as they are now.

So how should colors be used? Is it bad practice? Or is it justified in that it heads off edit wars (and indicates transcontinental countries).

I'm on the fence. At the very least this table should have notes added to say what the special circumstances are for each country, which might obviate the need for any other special feature. And the colors don't look that bad to me. But then again I'm not colorblind. Wizmut (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The information could go in a new column, and it would then be possible to sort on it - and a copy-paste to a spreadsheet would carry it over, though that's not really a prority. Conveying some data in a table textually and some in colours isn't great practice, and here it emphasises the countries which if anything should be de-emphasised as less self-evidently members of the set. NebY (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm imagining a skinny column with hyperlinked notes, such as

G* : geographically entirely within Europe

T* : transcontinental country straddling the European border

C* : culturally but not geographically European

Heaven save us if the alphabetical ordering gets us in trouble, though. Wizmut (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We could leave most blank as requiring no qualification, describe some as transcontinental, and only footnote the third category, which might be "cultural". In general, the more we can make clear at once without keys and footnotes the better.

(On which note, on talk pages we don't put URLs, especially diffs and permalinks, in refs with <ref>URL</ref> as you have here. It's easier for other editors if you simply link directly as [URL] or [URL text] - [2] not .) NebY (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Current best method is on display now. I put the category notes right along with the ranks. Seems mostly unobtrusive and also hard to miss for those who care mostly about ranks.

I won't say this is the best possible method, though. I don't know what that is and would appreciate any improvements/suggestions. Wizmut (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A second possible solution that I have tried at List of Asian countries by population seems to have mostly worked, although people still try to remove things on occasion. This lists the Asia area and Total area as separate data points. Wizmut (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It may turn out well but it's early days yet. It's required a lot of repetition which doesn't help the reader. NebY (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Misc table discussion

A couple other features of this table are unique among continent tables. One of the headers is split into a second level ("Estimate" and "Date"), and the type of source figure gets its own column. I propose we un-split the two headers and move the source type info into the ref tags.

I'm also planning to change the table class to be more standard, but that wouldn't change how the table looks.

If I notice any other features of the table that could change to fit in with other articles, I'll note them here. If anybody loves these peculiarities, no problem, but I figured I'd make a note beforehand. Wizmut (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The "UN population" column is a couple years out of date and somewhat redundant. I plan to replace it with a "Europe population" column that notes the population of that country that is actually Europe, often with significant figures reduced. I would say this should also be the default sort unless there's any objections. Wizmut (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Culturally European"

This article borrows conventions from the Europe area article, which itself uses the most common definition of Europe's borders with Asia. In this model, the entire world (including the ocean) is divided into seven continents. Perhaps some of the throat-clearing on the area article can be copied over to this one. Wizmut (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your edits were fine as is. If the other editor has any issues with it, per WP:BRD, they should bring their concerns/proposals here for consensus. Archives908 (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)