Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population

"Myanmar" or "Burma"?

One of the two lists says "Myanmar", the other "Burma". Which should we use? I prefer "Burma" but perhaps we should use both in both places.

Burma is no longer the official name. You should use Myanmar please--BozMo 11:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's debatable. The "official" name was assigned to the country by an illegal military junta. Which name does the legitimate, democratically elected leader, Aung San Su Kyi, use? And which name does the BBC continue to use, for that matter, or many other leading authorities?

There is nothing to discuss. The name "Myanmar" is officially recognised by the United Nations and is also laid down in the ISO 3166 standard, for example.--Bestoernesto (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify

Hi! I've tried my best to simplify this page. FYI, I've taken out one of the population lists because having two seems confusing. If you feel like I was wrong in this, please feel free to re-add. :) Miss Puffskein 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Updated for 2005

I have changed all the population numbers so that they are up to date for August 2005. If there are any errors, you know what to do. :D Terrafire 13:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EU, Britain and France

Why is the European Union included? The title says "List of countries by population", it should only include countries. And if EU is counted as a country, the members states should not be listed individually.

Is there a reason for including the figures for the British and French empires in the table? They are not countries either.--Joshua Issac (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ease off, please. It's not possible for simple labels to cover the variety of relationships between countries. The main countries have permanent seats at the United Nations General Council. Secondary countries are represented there indirectly, or have observer status only. That's the basic plan, though there will always be exceptions. The European Union is a major diplomatic entity recognized by the U.N., and it's also a helpful figure for our readers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milion/Bilion etc.

Hello, is there a point for using XXX milion or XXX bilion instead of numbers? I want to inform you that there are multiple definitions for milion/bilion/etc. in the world. That would not be a bad thing in the classic English, but people that do not know that this difference exists may use information that is correct for you (who may edited the page), but incorrect for them. Just wanted to inform you. 90.179.123.254 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use rounded numbers

As is, the page is difficult to keep up-to-date, and to review for copy editing. I suggest we move to rounded numbers. The actual facts are never correct in detail, even supposing the census method was free of glitches, which it never is. Rounded numbers recognises these difficulties and leaves less scope for vandalism. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has to be updated

There are so many things that are outdated in this article like Chinese and Indian national population clocks. I mean the list keeps going on and on. Please update this as soon as possible. RayAdvait (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be replaced with a list based on the United Nations Population Fund

This comes from a number of different sources, which are unlikely to be directly comparable. It would be better if this list was replaced by a copy of en:List of countries by population (United Nations). Before you say to just copy that page here as a different article: I think it is pointless to have this list here on Simple English Wikipedia. It's just a hassle to update and the numbers are likely wrong. All from one source, specifically the UN, would be better. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with our list, because it is Simple.--Case in point: Our article gives has a "most interesting" number. Take the top two countries on the list - they have 17.7% and 17.5% of the world's population. (The English article does not seem to have those numbers.)--Regarding updates and accuracy and sources: Simple-wiki has say 100 users that contribute quite a bit, and not so many of those contribute to this article. I am (more or less) satisfied with this article.--I might even put a source on this talk page, regarding Norway having reached the 5,5 million mark (and that information was published this month).--Another way to look at things: does it really matter if this article, has sections that are a couple of years old (as long as the article about the individual countries - have more recent numbers regarding population)? I am not all that worried - and at the same time I try to take care of other priorities on Simple-wiki. 2001:2020:303:5EC4:31DB:280C:509A:75C2 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Antarctic Territory

Should this list include the 'British Antarctic Territory' as it is officially recognised as a British Overseas Territory and other non permanently inhabited territores, such as 'British Indian Ocean Territory', are included? 195.195.244.197 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]