|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Least densely populated place
- 2 Consequences
- 3 Alternative more detailed map
- 4 Density ranges
- 5 population density
- 6 An article in need of some structure and a rewrite!
- 7 Populations, land area, and population density
- 8 Why it's England and not UK
- 9 Sri Lanka vs. Japan
- 10 Macao
- 11 Picture file has faulty description
Least densely populated place
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.
- 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)
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)
- Why does this page get so many vandals ? --2mcm 05:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
Alternative more detailed map
I have seen a map showing world population density in detail in Wikipedia, which is more useful than density on a population basis in my opinion, as eg it shows the density of Java and the massive block of ultra density in China, neither of which is apparent here. Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it. If anyone can find it, please add it here. Sumahoy - June 2, 2006
- I found it and added it, but unfortunately it is based on 12 year old data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumahoy (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2006
The map is pretty uninformative, it just shows the average density for an entire country, I first noticed when Alaska was the same colour as the mainland USA, some countries vary greatly, whereas others like hong kong or India are generally very densly populated, the map should reflect this—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 September 2006
- I really think that we need a newer map here - 1994 is a little outdated. Moreover, that map doesn't represent Russia very accurately at all, and completely misses several major cities. If a better version of that map is found, it should be placed at the top of the article instead of in a section - after all, we already have an article called "countries by population density", with that countries map at the top. I think that the density/square km map is much more useful and explains the concept of population density better. Esn 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Average density for an entire country, colored by political boundaries, is misleading and of limited usefulness. For instance Alaska abuts Canada and looks more densely populated, because it's part of the USA and is figured in with the USA population density. The second map is much more accurate, but 1994 is very out of date--more than a billion have been added since that map. Also, the color scale is not too great; for a highly clustered factor like population, a logarithmic color scheme would be much better. As is, it is impossible to distinguish between population density among the less populous areas. Unfortunately accurate global data is difficult to get and making such a map is not trivial. NTK (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The maps don't match up well, they show one of them by cities and one by countrys. Perhaps delete 1994 one until better map found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
An article in need of some structure and a rewrite!
This article is confused. It needs a big refresh.
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.
Populations, land area, and population density
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Why it's England and not UK
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... 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
Sri Lanka vs. Japan
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Picture file has faulty description
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)