Template talk:UN population

International relations: United Nations Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Why not 2017 estimates?[edit]

This looks like a very promising template. But why is it using the 2016 rather than the 2017 estimates? Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet: To be honest, I would rather prefer to use year 2015, but this might cause uproar, as many pages already use years 2016/2017, and this might look like a step back. The point is that numbers up to the year 2015 are estimated (using the most recent data available from numerous sources), and any year after it is projected (see explanation [1]). So naturally, the 2015 data is the most precise one. For example, if there were some Elbonian famine in 2016 wiping half of population, the 2016 projection for Elbonia would not account for it. Demmo (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Demmo: I see. I didn't notice until now that the 2017 revision was still using 2015 estimates. Thanks. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018[edit]

I had a request to update old data on a semi-protected page and realised it came from here, there is a new "World Urbanization Prospects 2018" version https://population.un.org/wup/ so the data should be updated. I don't have the time at the moment but adding this is case someone feels inclined to update. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template update[edit]

It seems this template often falls out of date (as is the case now). The latest data is at List of countries by population (United Nations). I reengineered a version of it in the sandbox to fetch the data from there. If there are no objections to this change in the next few days, I'll copy it over to the live template. This version in addition is more flexible in accepting any country designation commonly accepted by {{flag}} templates, and also updates the population estimate daily based on the UN's estimates and projections. (cc: Jonesey95) — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 08:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this semi-protected template would pull data from an unprotected article, and then that data would be fed to other articles? This seems like bad programming practice, as well as an inadvertent end run around the template protection. It would make more sense for the template to contain the data and for all articles to pull data from it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's what Module:country population and Template:country populations do, though. If protection is the issue, List of countries by population (United Nations) can be made semi-protected too, no? OTOH, I don't see anyone timely updating the data here. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am holding off on updating the data until the next revision of the data comes out. The latest word is that that will happen in March 2022. There is not much value in updating the page with the current projections for 2021, since the underlying data dates to 2015: see the discussion above. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a case of being roughly right vs precisely wrong. Yes, the 2015 data is more accurate... to 2015, though! With countries growing at 3-4% p.a., estimates from 6 years ago are largely irrelevant today (that's over 25% difference!). Also, the UN did update its estimates since 2015 (e.g. Pakistan). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a case of being likely wrong in 2021 vs. ~~precisely right in 2015~~ likely right in 2019 (it is the 2019 projection based on mostly 2015 data which is presented). It is misleading to quote pre-COVID growth projections for the post-COVID era. If six year-old estimates were indeed "irrelevant", we would not be quoting census figures as old as ten years, that being how long most countries wait between censuses. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, census figures are relevant. Not to all contexts, though. Even to compare to COVID deaths 6-year old population figures are pretty irrelevant to a lot of countries (those with higher growth rates). So, horses for courses.

At any rate, WP now has a multitude of population datasets scattered around, some in lists (List of countries by population, List of countries by population (United Nations)), some hidden inside templates (such as this), and a bunch others in Commons. I was just trying to consolidate it a little, so as to minimise the maintenance work and the chance for error (and inconsistencies!). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 02:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in one case, a dispute by a factor of two in the population of the country. The "sources" bug in discussions in that particular case is that too few uninvolved people looking at the issue were willing to consider the UN DESA estimates - where the method and sources are at least to some degree documented and transparent - as being more serious than "reliable" sources (well-known institutions) that just quote a number and expect to be taken seriously. In the end, NPOV between the most serious estimate (UN DESA) and the "believe us, we're a famous institution, but we won't tell you how we got the number" estimates was accepted. I assume that this particular country is the worst case of a population dispute. Boud (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]