Talk:Area and population of European countries

UK Dependencies and Danish Autonomous regions???

Would it be more logical for the UK dependencies, Greenland and the Faroe Islands to be placed in the the Constituent Nations, Regions and Provinces of Larger Countries with Distinctive Identities table and devote the first table to just fully independent and recognised countries??

--ClungeLover69 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a 3rd List on this page for external European Territorys it would Include Greenland ,French guiana , Aruba or what ever else is ruled by a a european country out side of Europe .We could even include asiatic russia on that list for comparitive purposes. also we should exclude asiatic russia figures from europes totals. plus we should include European portion of Turkey .its called Turkish Thrace and it includes Istanbul. 76.244.154.251 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Its confusing to have (say) Jersey listed as "Jersey (UK)" since its not part of the UK. Francis Davey (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe

Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.12.208 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is partly in Europe. But what KAZAKHSTAN is doing here? That's Middle Asia!

--Profant (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably because a significant part of Kazakhstan is situated in Europe (a large portion situated to the West of the Ural Mountains and Ural River). Similar to Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan is a transcontinental country spanning both Asia and Europe. Iceland is also a transcontinental country spanning both Europe and North America. On the other hand, Cyprus is entirely located outside Europe. Their connection is entirely socio-cultural. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 14:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added to the article text some information on the European part of Turkey, East Thrace. I think it would be useful to put this detail into the table somehow, for ranking. To put in context, the population of the European part of Turkey is similar to Portugal or Czech Republic, and its size is between FYROM and Slovenia 60.240.207.146 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Denmark?

Why is Denmark omitted from population density and from area? Greenland's area (but not its population density) is shown. Snezzy (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Found the answer - insufficient rvv from the vandal who replaced Denmark, Netherlands, Russia, etc. with non-European countries. Intermediate editors may wish to restore changes I clobbered. Snezzy (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Denmark should be as Denmark proper. Faroe Island, Greenland and Denmark proper are different countries (the so called Rigsfællesskabet makes the Queen of Denmark Monarch at Greenland and Faroe Islands. Both areas has two MPs each in the Parliament. I doubt Greenland is European at all. Boeing720 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

I have reverted an edit of an anynomous user removing the entry of Kosovo. While I believe this is the correct thing to do, I do not know however whether there exists a consensus on the inclusion of Kosovo. Pietrow (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenian language is not recorded as one of European languages. 10 mln. people in the world speaks Armenian among which only 3 mln. in Armenia because of big diasphora. In Europe about 7 mln. speak Armenian. cut from the article and pasted here 79.244.126.152 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo has been resolved on this artical its found its own Sub-list called Disputed along side transnistria and a few others. 76.244.154.251 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

France

The population of France in 2007 was 63,601,002 ( and 65,031,022 if you count populations of the overseas departments and territories of France like Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and French Guiana) and not 60,000,000 etc..and her density is 111 and not 109. so I have changed the numbers. You can see and read this french article for more information:

• [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.92.63.148 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

for statistical purposes french colonies outside of mainland France need to be excluded from France's totals. they need to be on sub-list called European areas outside of Europe. someone just needs to create this sub-list and then we have a complete list here.69.208.14.60 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Languages section

The current languages section gives the lead "This is a list of 39 spoken languages (mother tongue) in Europe." The writing in bold is my emphasis. This list states there are 400,000 Irish mother language speakers. This is highly inaccurate. There are no census figures which state this. According to the 2006 census there were over 1 million speakers of the language, but this did not determine the fluency of those speakers, nor whether or not those speakers who were fluent had Irish as a mother language or learned it subsequently. According to estimates from sources such as Hindley there are approx. 25,000 fluent mother language speakers of Irish at a minimum and 75,000 at a maximum. There are many other fluent speakers of course, but not mother language speakers. Also, there are an estimated 600,000 mother language Welsh speakers but this is not included on the list. Neither is Breton with over 200,000 mother language speakers. Personally I believe this section belongs in the Demographics of Europe article and not here, with this page focussing solely on the population (number of people) rather than any of their characteristics. Anyone have any objections to the deletion of this section? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 08:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey

Russia and Turkey are the two major transcontinental countries in this article. I've added details to the text about their European parts, European Russia and East Thrace. Most of the population of Russia is in Europe, but most of the area is in Asia. Most of the area and population of Turkey is in Asia. However, the population density in Europe is much higher.

The articles dealing with European population and Area make the distinction also with these countries and their 'European' part. Perhaps, the table could include the information on the European part only. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree Boeing720 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Automating population statistics

I noticed that the Netherlands population has commas, unlike the other countries, and started editing the source to fix this difference. There I noticed that their population comes from a macro formatnum: Data Netherlands|poptoday whereas other countries' populations are plain numbers. So it would seem best to automate the other countries' populations in the same way as the Netherlands, if their country articles allow. I'll try it with a few other countries to see if it works. Someone more skilled may need to clean up after me or finish the job.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC) For some reason it didn't work when I tried it with Belgium, UK, and Germany.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The number for The Netherlands population density (421 /km²) is incorrect, assuming the figures for its area (41,543 km²) and population (17,424,978) are correct.

17,424,978 ÷ 41,543 = 419.444382929

I'm unsure if this has any significant relevance to this thread so, I thought it'd be best to mention it here instead of just correcting it without discussing it. Rickflair1017 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall European population density

The currently displayed sum of the areas (26,680,676 km2) does not correspond to the sum of the listed country areas (24,110,455). The population sum is off too, but only by 480,000 (0.5%) and the overall density would be nearly 35/km2. These numbers are pretty meaningless anyway. Indeed, the introduction ends with "The aggregate for Europe excluding Russia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the population density is 105 persons per km2 (including them it is 31, mostly due to the Russian Federation's vastness)." The table lists the latter. Neither number is right for the population density of physical Europe. Why not simply list the area, population, and density for the European parts of all countries. E.g. for European Russia that is 3,992,500 km2, 108,949,694 and 27.22/km2 (in 2015). For European Turkey that is 23,764 km2, 10,620,739 and an impressive 446.9/km2 (in 2012). Numbers for the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal are also straightforward to get (why do it this for France alone?), though they will have little impact on the total number. Only Kazakhstan will be hard (roughly 180,000 km2, <1,000,000 people west of the Ural). The density would be around 71 people/km2 (including or excluding all of the Caucasian countries and Cyprus has little impact) Afasmit (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom

It is misleading to speak of the UK as a country, when England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are distinct nations.

When you separate them out, England soars up the chart with over 400 people per square Km, whilst Scotland and Wales drop down it. LeapUK (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Done as of 2019-02-08, let's see if someone disagrees with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbarbour (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Seems to be good. LeapUK (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not (yet) independent countries, and should not be treated as such in maps unless other countries are similarly subdivided e.g. Catalonia, Bavaria, Sicily etc. Why has this been done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmg2 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are distinct countries and nations, it's more useful including them than Jersey and Faroe Islands, which similarly are not independent.

I have no objections to other areas being added if they are known as countries aswell. 2A04:4A43:8DBF:F3BB:25B7:AB20:DA9A:C9C (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Spain & Canary Islands

I don't think Canary Islands should be inculded , as the list is about Europe. Canary Islands are politically Spanish, but geographically African. Canary Islands isn't a part of the EU, but a free-trade area. Boeing720 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Spain's figure include Ceuta and Mellia, the African cities are Spanish, which might alter the statistics. 2A04:4A43:8DBF:F3BB:25B7:AB20:DA9A:C9C (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

About Turkey, France and Russia and their "parts in Europe"

If what matters in this article is purely geography, why are the entirety of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus included? These countries either have no territory in the European continent or they are transcontinental countries. Plus if the question is purely geographical then the European part of Kazakhstan should also be included.

If what matters is being considered part of Europe in *some* way, whether that's geography, culture, being in the European Council or something else, then we have to include whole populations of Turkey, France and Russia.

Plus I saw some people wanting to remove Turkey because it is "not a European country" for the following reasons:
1)Turkey doesn't speak an Indo-European language
2)Turkey isn't Christian
3)Turkey has the majority of its population and land in Asia
4)Turkey doesn't have a "European culture"

The answers to these are pretty basic:
1)Neither does Finland, Hungary, Estonia
2)Neither is Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo
3)Armenia and Cyprus have no land or population whatsoever in Europe yet they are in the list
4)Most of the Turkish culture is a mixture of Ottoman and Byzantine heritage. The country, even in the current climate, is more western than any other Middle Eastern country (except maybe Israel), and the Ottoman heritage is found in many other countries as well anyways, mostly in Balkans.

Tl;dr my point is, we have to decide whether we are looking at the parts of countries that are in Europe, or countries that are considered as European as whole, and apply the same to all countries.

2601:240:8480:51C3:C597:D9C7:BABA:7D66 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points, I'd also like to add that Turkish Northern Cyprus is absent from the partially recognised territories list, while Cyprus which claims the area of the former is included. I know neither are in Europe, but it seems strange that the same area only counts as European under one regime's claim, but not the other's. 2A04:4A43:8DBF:F3BB:25B7:AB20:DA9A:C9C (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Shaded maps

The second of the two shaded maps (the one showing density in England, Scotland, and Wales as distinct nations), is misleading because it clumps all of the 200+ countries together. Is there any way of breaking out the 400+ countries into their own shade? LeapUK (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Isle of Man

is in the list as "UK" but it isn't part of the UK. Could we change it to (British Isles)? Simon Grant (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be Isle of Man (British Isles)? Jersey isn't listed as Channel Islands etc.

I think it should just be Isle of Man without the confused brackets. Also British Isles is a controversial term as Irish peoples often dislike it. 2A04:4A43:8DBF:F3BB:25B7:AB20:DA9A:C9C (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Internal and external inconsistencies

Some parts of this table do not comport with the consensus made long ago for all country lists.[2] The gist is to use the ISO 3166-1 to decide what counts as a country or territory, or what counts as integral, and also add in partially recognized states. List articles can deviate from it, but only if they rely on a source that deviates in the same way. But this list has never had a source for most of its figures, other than "other wikipedia articles".

What's more peculiar is that the list doesn't always follow its own rules. Sometimes a country's entire area will be considered, sometimes just the Europe part. And unlike most lists, the partially recognized states are split off into their own list.

I think it makes more sense to use only the European part for all countries, noting the total figures for transcontinental countries in a note. And the partially recognized states could be included right up with them. But then, for those countries that are culturally European only, this would mean values of "not applicable" for density and zeroes for area and population - and a note would have to say what the total density/pop/area were. Then they'd be ranked equal at the bottom of the table, edifying nobody. So perhaps there should be a separate table, but for culturally European states.

I'm building these refurbished tables in excel, and it's easy to make changes in reply to comments. So please do comment. Wizmut (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of any "separate tables". Having separate tables goes against established norms found in these types of articles. Tables within Europe-related articles (see: List of European countries by area, List of European countries by population, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, Europe#List of states and territories, List of European countries by membership in international organisations, List of European countries by population, and many others) tend to list the 50/51 countries of Europe in a single table- irrespective of geography/culture. This article should be no different. Sure, we can make improvements to data within the table, but for consistency, we should keep all countries together. Archives908 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

But a table should be built to purpose. There's not much purpose in showing empty values. The alternative would be to use total area/population for every jurisdiction, but this is a distortion in the other direction - European Russia is more like Sweden than Svalbard in terms of density.

Now, another solution is to make the table twice as wide - Euro pop/area/density and Total pop/area/density. But, again, not perfect. Hard to read. Lots of repeat information. Glance at the Asia population table for a list that's trying to do (maybe) too much. And that one's all my fault :)

Maybe it would be better to see what they all look like? I'll try to finish up the notes column and post them in my sandbox. Wizmut (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please pinpoint something specific in the existing table which is factually incorrect? If any of the data is incorrect, it may be updated using WP:RS within the existing parameters of the table. I don't think we actually need to change the table itself. I think we may be slightly over-complicating this. When dealing with tables, its best to keep things as simple as possible for readability purposes. That's why I recommend we maintain the existing parameters of the table and adjust any figures which may not be align with sources. Archives908 (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The columns have a different definition depending on the row, a big no-no in data science land. Spain, Portugal, Armenia and Cyprus are all total area, despite having non-European land. Most others are just European land, which in some cases is the same as total land. But there could be others - who knows? There are no sources for most entries, and most have no notes for the needed caveats - except for some that do have notes in a separate section above or below. I'd have to check over everything by making notes for each one I've checked... and this is a remarkably similar process to rebuilding the table from scratch.

For those who want it simple and don't want separate tables, change is needed.

The whole table template should be replaced to fix the faulty ranking ("Total" meaning Europe is ranked 61 - ? And territories and partially recognized states are ranked, sorting is not possible), and notes are needed for any entry with unusual circumstances (offshore territory, UK's constituent countries, all transcontinental countries, all non-geographically European countries). Kazakhstan in particular needs an extensive note to explain the uncertainty in the point estimate currently used. That's a lot of manual labor... and I could instead do it all much more simply in Excel. We just need to decide what the best table to show is. And again, changes aren't hard. I can throw up my work on google sheets if anyone wants to toy around with it. Wizmut (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Change requires WP:CON. Which is what needs to be established.

Let's be reminded that there are various definitions of Europe. Most geographical definitions place countries such as Turkey, Russia, and Kazakhstan partially in Europe. While many modern geopolitical definitions place these countries (the Caucasus states, Cyprus, Turkey, Russia, and seldom even Kazakhstan) within Europe- partially or wholly. The current inclusion criteria (which is also recognized over at Europe) includes these countries respectively (regardless of their geography). There has already been countless discussions and consensuses reached over the years regarding this.

That is why these countries are listed on virtually every single Europe-related article. However, they are traditionally accompanied by detailed explanatory notes which highlight these countries geography either wholly or partially in Asia (and rightfully so!). Some notes I've seen even discuss these countries political, cultural, linguistic, and even sporting ties to Europe. Which is excellent for providing details to the reader and for establishing the difference between physical geography and culture/geopolitics/etc. I agree with you that the note for Kazakhstan is quite minimal and requires significant clarification.

I endorse your proposal to update the note(s) and any figures in the table which may be inaccurate (of course, every single figure will need to be verified with WP:RS).

So then, that leaves your main concern, which seems to be focused on how this information is presented. I still think that the existing parameters of the table can be refined and worked on. I'm not totally convinced that a complete overhaul is warranted, or even necessary. If any inaccurate data within the table can be updated, it would serve as an improvement to this article as a whole (it may take time and effort- but it can be accomplished).

Nonetheless, if you believe you have a genuine improvement to the table itself, then please do share it. I cannot open the link below (goes to a blank page). Perhaps you can present your preferred version of the table here, first? This way, editors will have the opportunity to discuss/review/contribute to it, and avoid making a muck in the edit history.

The only suggestion I do have, is to keep these countries together in a single table. I believe that's a fair compromise and it upholds consistency across the board. Genuine improvements to this project tend to focus less on optics and more on data anyways. So let's do exactly that. I for one, look forward to seeing what you produce :) Archives908 (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll delete this link eventually but for now, here is the data I'm using to put together possibilities for a renovated table:

link removed Wizmut (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, two possible revisions of the table are now on my sandbox: [3]. The source is the UN source used by many other lists unless otherwise specified.

The first is the one I favor, splitting off the culturally European countries/territories. Their total stats are displayed instead of just what's in Europe (which would be zero in their case).

The second is one @Archives908 might favor. The tables are combined and you see that the culturally European countries have no land in Europe proper, and thus density is undefined.

Again, changing these drafts is relatively easy, so if you want to see a version with columns or rows re-arranged or removed/added, let me know and I can try to make it happen. Wizmut (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! I'm a tad busy the next 24hrs...will respond better in a day or two. But from what I quickly gathered, the combined table looks good to me. The separate tables aren't necessarily bad, but, no other Europe-related article divides these countries by geography or culture. They are all part of "Europe" through varying classifications, with the appropriate explanatory notes clarifying geography where needed. Dividing countries by culture seems arbitrary and varies by opinion. Best to keep things consistent and streamlined. Anyways, I will have a better look at the table in the next 24/48 hrs. In the mean time, if other editors care to chime in, now is the time! Archives908 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And a big thank you Wizmut for putting in time and energy into this table :) Archives908 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look through the combined table and it looks pretty good to me. A few things I noticed is that both Georgia and Abkhazia, which do indeed have territory in Europe, have zero (0) in the combined table. We need to make sure the correct figures are added. Same goes for South Ossetia, although this one is a little more confusing. Under geography of its respective article, it states: "South Ossetia is a very mountainous region located in the Caucasus at the juncture of Asia and Europe." Not sure how much territory it does have within Europe proper, but that will need to be added too. In regards to the notes section, we need to make sure everything is accounted for and aligns. Artsakh is dissolving on 1 January 2024, which would be noteworthy. An expanded note for Kazakhstan would be helpful. Probably also for the status of Northern Cyprus (ie. only Turkey recognizes it). Also, should we continue excluding Greenland? Like Cyprus, they are both technically outside "geographical Europe", but their citizens are EU nationals and both have close cultural/historical/political ties to Europe. Perhaps we should include Greenland in the combined table just like Cyprus with "0" figures. Greenland is included over at Europe. Another thing- I see Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales have been removed and added to the UK total. While I am not opposed to this edit, are they not WP:N enough to warrant independent inclusion? I think there are a few technicalities we need to work out before this gets published. I'll have more time to further analyze the table for any potential inconsistencies in the next day or so. Good start though! Archives908 (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis! For Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the definition used by this article previously seemed to be F on this map[4] based on the Azerbaijan entry, which kept only the district north of the Caucasus entirely. Now, GAS may have sporadic territory throughout the Greater/Northern Caucasus, but I couldn't find anyone who had tried to measure it. It would a similar problem to finding out how much of Colorado is actually south of the 37th parallel. This uncertainty might be covered by a note if a source can't be found. "Nobody knows" but with more words.

The note for Artsakh in the draft has "Will be formally abolished at end of 2023." We may learn more by waiting until end of 2023. The figures for the density were simply copied from Artsakh's WP page, and are almost certainly out of date. A lot of people have been moved and are still moving. It may be better to link to Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians than to give a number.

Kazakhstan's note covers the provinces along the Ural river - what else should it include? Greenland, you're right, a lot like Cyprus, can be added.

The constituent countries of the UK are generally not included on country lists. Some consider the UK like Denmark, but the ISO 3166-1 doesn't think so. And of course people have discussed it on other pages.[5][6][7][8] This page has been an outlier by listing them separately. edit: This page in particular[9] has almost 9000 words specifically about this.

Also wanted to note that a lot of the improvements to this list could likely carry over to other Europe lists in the coming weeks. Maybe the watchers on each of those pages would have further input. Something on my to-do list. Wizmut (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! For Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I do believe that it is critical we find what portions of their territories lie in Eastern Europe. Surely, there is bound to be some figures available. Because entering "0" within the table itself is factually incorrect (regardless if there is a note). It would be a great improvement to the article overall if we could find those figures for each.

For Artsakh- I agree we should wait until the dust settles. But the state itself will be officially dissolved on 1 Jan 2024. I think it would be a good idea to add in the note the years of which Artsakh was de facto independent (I've already seen editors implement this on other pages) and also add this link (2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh) where it reads "which took control of the region in late 2023". I think that would be useful as a reference for readers. I also agree with your suggestion to someway link in Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians rather then listing population figures.

I'm glad we think alike on Greenland. Totally warrants inclusion based on established criteria.

For Kazakhstan, do you think it would serve any benefit to include the percentage of its territory in Central Asia? I think it could be good to not only link Central Asia in the note for Kazakhstan, but adding the Asian percentage provides greater detail to the reader. It's not critical, just a suggestion :)

Thanks for explaining the UK situation- I fully support maintaining consistency.

Armenia, Cyprus, and Northern Cyprus don't have much of a note, with only total density being listed. Considering this is the main focus of the article, I think it's a good idea to add their figures (most especially total area/ and perhaps population).

As for the South Caucasus countries, I think the notes for Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia can also be expanded to included something along the lines of "part of the South Caucasus on the borders of Europe and Asia"...I've seen this standardized note in one capacity or another on almost all Europe related list articles. I think it'll be good to add that here too. Some definitions, however, do include all three of the countries in Europe, while others just partially. So, I'm not sure if you want to make a brief mention of that too. Something along the lines of "some definitions of the South Caucasus include all or a portion of them within Europe". I've also seen other notes that mention their cultural, political, and historical ties to Europe. Not sure if that's worth mentioning too?

For Kosovo- do we want to make mention that it is a partially recognized state? Or leave it as is? Serbia doesn't have a note, but they still consider Kosovo as a province. Their wiki article provides those figures in the infobox so maybe it should be mentioned?

I know this is a lot of feedback, but I hope its all well received. Thank you again for putting time and effort into this. I will leave implementing changes to you. On my part, over the coming week or two, I'll be reviewing the sources one by one to fact-check and make sure everything is backed by WP:RS. Anything that catches my eye, I'll be sure to let you know! Archives908 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, latest revision is up. I added a row for Greenland, expanded the note for Artsakh and corrected the figures and notes for Serbia/Kosovo (the UN gives an area figure for S+K, but separate populations). I added a bit to Kazakhstan's note but the percent of the country that's in Asia can be inferred by noting the percent that's in Europe. Perhaps some other notes could be expanded, but no rush.

I also removed the zeroes for Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, leaving just blank spaces. I really couldn't find anyone who had calculated a figure. Would be hard to come up with one that wasn't WP:OR. And I didn't add a note for each - there probably ought to be discussion at the top of the page about why these numbers simply don't exist, why there might be different ways to calculate it depending on where you place the border (Azerbaijan and Armenia could be mentioned here too).

Much of the text in the "Transcontinental countries" section is going to be obsolete, so the focus of that paragraph could change to whatever the deficiencies of the table will be going forward. Wizmut (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Awesome- this is looking good. Glad to see Greenland added. I still think it may be worthwhile to add this link (2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh) where it reads "which took control of the region in late 2023" for Artsakh's note. Come 1 January 2024, the phrasing of the last sentence will have to be adjusted to past tense to reflect the official dissolution.

As for Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is regrettable that no figures could be found. I'd be happy to help you out with research. If you give me a couple days, I can try and find those figures. If worse comes to worse, we can always just add an explanatory note and hope that we find something that isn't OR in the future.

In regards to the notes for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is there a reason why the wordings aren't aligning with that of Transnistria? Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia (unlike Transnistria) actually do have limited recognition from UN member states, I think it may be wise to note that or at least keep the lingo the same for consistency.

The notes for Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Serbia look great!

In regards to my suggestions regarding Northern Cyprus and the South Caucasus countries above, what are your thoughts? I know I wrote a lot above, so perhaps it got over looked. My suggestion for Northern Cyprus, is just that, a suggestion. If you think the note is fine as is, then I won't push for anything further :)

However, for the three South Caucasus countries, I do believe we should add to their notes stating something along the lines of "some definitions of the South Caucasus include all or a portion of them within Europe". Historically, IP's tend to vandalize/remove these countries so having a more detailed note may help to lessen this. Thoughts?

Finally, can you explain what you mean by "much of the text in the Transcontinental countries section is going to be obsolete"? Is your goal to remove this section as it'll become redundant as that information will be in the notes section moving forward?

FYI- I have been fact-checking sources since Sunday and I've found no particular issues. I'll switch my time over the next few days to see if I can find any info on Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia's territory within Eastern Europe. Although, I'm not optimistic considering neither Georgia's article has any mention of it, or even Geography of Georgia (country). But, I'll give it a shot. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, generally about notes, versus the explanation section at the top, my first thought was to avoid repetition. Info which is particular about a state/region ought to be at that place's note, and general info about several states should be at the top. But, you mention that putting info in multiple places can prevent confusion/vandalism, I'm all for it.

For Artsakh, I'm not sure it would continue appearing on these lists if it no longer exists. Although I don't want to predict the WP:FUTURE I'm assuming a discussion will occur at the end of the year, which decides what the sources are saying - and that new consensus might be to wait a while longer even then. When I read the Artsakh discussion page, it's full of reminders to wait. But yes, also to your point, the note could mention that other page about the military action.

As far as noting the area and population of the non-geographic Europe countries, that could be used to fill out the shorter notes, but I'm just a little wary that it would inflate the other notes that already have a lot of numbers in them. The priority I set was to have the density figure available for many regions/agglomerations that the reader might be interested in, because this list is about population density - well, according to the lead sentence if not the article title. I can add a bit to a few notes that seem sparse, though, no problem.

I will update my to-do list per your suggestions and try to get a new draft done by end of day. Wizmut (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. If your goal is to reduce repetition, then I endorse removing the "Transcontinental countries" section. My point above wasn't to have information in multiple places, it was to make sure that notes sufficiently cover relevant information- especially if you plan on removing sections with explanatory text like the "Transcontinental countries" section. I just want to make sure all our bases are covered and we leave as little room for confusion as possible. Because, sadly, that gives room for IP's with a POV agenda to strike. And let me tell you, I monitor almost all the Europe-related list articles, and there has been significant disruptions over the years.

I applaud your main goal of focusing on the data. My main goal would be to ensure consistency and make sure the notes adequately cover all the necessary info. Which- seems like we are on track to complete.

And yes, you are correct, best not to WP:CRYSTAL with Artsakh and wait until the new year.

I leave the suggestions I made previously in your capable hands. I shall focus on finding information on GAS in the coming few days. Wish me luck! Archives908 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Newest version is up, but I still haven't finalized exactly what the "disclaimer" notes within the table should say. Instead, I wrote a general explanation that could go before the table (similar to the material on the list page now), explaining why certain countries are included, or zeroed out, etc.

Now, some of this could also be included in the per-country notes, but I'd like more input on how much needs to be there. Long notes are hard to read, short notes encourage disruption; it's a tradeoff. Right now the longest note is for Kazahkstan which spills into 8 lines. Not sure what the guidelines are but that's probably a good limit to set.

If you want to copy and paste certain phrases into particular notes, or re-phrase anything, I believe the Sandbox page is open to edit. Or give me suggestions here about what else should preface the table and I'll write it up.

But other than that, I did add the notes about partially recognized status, the area and population figures for all of the "zero" entries, and the added context on Artsakh. Wizmut (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Amazing! I am signing off for the evening- I will have a look at it tomorrow :)

FYI- I tried researching the percentage of Georgia's landmass that does fall geographically in Europe. Unfortunately-my efforts also yielded no results. Almost everything I did come across is extremely vague and generalized. Such as, "Georgia is a transcontinental country, located in the crossroad between Asia and Europe", "situated at the strategically important crossroads where Europe meets Asia", "Georgia is situated in the Eastern European region of South Caucasus", "Georgia is at the edge of Eastern Europe", while the WorldFactbook states "Georgia has a sliver of land north of the Caucasus extending into Europe". If only we knew how much this "sliver" was -_-

I haven't done any research for Abkhazia or South Ossetia, but I honestly doubt there would be anything if there isn't anything on Georgia. I recall you suggesting leaving the sections for GAS blank. Is this still your preferred recommendation?

Anyways, I'll have a look at your newest version tomorrow. Thanks for giving permission to collaboratively edit in your sandbox, although I'm sure it looks great as is. Archives908 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers :) I appreciate all the looking around.

Yes, leaving the values blank seems fine, even better than filler I've seen like negligible or unknown because those could be wrong. Maybe somebody in Georgia has calculated the value, but didn't make it easy to find. And anybody who lives there probably doesn't want it called negligible! Wizmut (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure :) Okay, sounds good to me!

P.s. I just need a little more time to review the updated table. So sorry- some days are more WP:BUSY than others and there aren't enough hours in the day to accomplish all my wiki to-do's. Give me 1 or 2 more days. Thank you, Archives908 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright- I finally had the time to review the revised version in full. The notes and opening statement look fine to me. I agree- capping notes around the length of Kazakhstan's seems appropriate. Otherwise, it becomes clunky. WP:SRF and H:NOTES don't explicitly state rules around max lengths, so I think we are all good!

One final remark- in the current version of the article, the countries of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus have their territories listed in full. Why don't we just continue using the expansive definitions of Europe and keep them all listed? There is already a WP:CON over at Europe which allows the inclusion of these states respectively. So, I don't think we should be removing their figures from the table. This would require no changes to your notes.

Greenland can be kept at "0" because I haven't seen any definitions (other than political, of course) which places their landmass in Europe. On the contrary, there are, as you know, a few geographical and several geopolitical definitions which do place Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus in Europe. Therefore, there are legitimate grounds, and existing consensus, to maintain their figures in the table.

It would be an easy and quick adjustment and then we are good for publishing. Thoughts?

Besides that, I have no further suggestions. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think we disagree about using a different border definition. I'll try to explain why I think it's better to use the most common geographic definition in articles about continent-specific measurements.

One is that we'd have to have different boundary definitions for each article. How do we decide which one to use? If it's the most expansive one, then we might have to include all of Russia in Europe (UN stats do so, for example). This could mean, on the Europe area list, that Europe is 75% Russian territory.

It seems that the Europe population list currently does use the full population, which is interesting. It's perhaps a good thing that there's no "percentage of Europe" column right now, or else people would fight over how much of Europe is Russian or Turkish.

If we instead try to split the difference and give transcontinental areas for what are usually considered transcontinental countries, but then give full areas for culturally European countries, then we are using different definitions for each country. This is what the current version does, and it doesn't even say when it's doing it. But even with explanations, it would be very confusing to a new reader.

If the list was not so focused on giving measurements, I'd be in favor of simple full inclusion for any country that's relevant. But this list is very data-focused, so I prefer the idea of keeping to the same continental model across similar lists.

Another option that I hadn't really considered is to list the data for culturally-European countries in a different style of text - say, italic with parenthesis. There's some trouble with this because it breaks the sorting, but it could be a good compromise option if we can't get consensus any other way. Wizmut (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid- I will table my earlier suggestion. I really like your idea regarding the italics- I too believe that would be a fair compromise. The information for these countries is already present in the notes, therefore, supplanting it within the table in a different style of text wouldn't detract from your vision/goals for this article. The distinction would be clear enough, and as an added benefit, we won't have a bunch of zeros and blank boxes (which to the reader, may give the impression of incompleteness). Thanks to your ingenuity, I think this could be a win–win. I say we proceed with your recommendation as a compromise and wrap-up this conversation. Will you be able to adjust the table? While I've dabbled with tables in the past, it isn't my strength. If you need help, however, I'm always willing to learn or contribute in any way. Let me know! Archives908 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The latest version looked good enough to publish, so I did!

Comment here and/or edit there as needed. Wizmut (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Job well done! Thank you for all your dedication to improving this article. Archives908 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

P.s. are some of the numbers messed up? Albania is 25 and then it jumps to 29 for Serbia then 27 for Spain? Also, there is a duplicate 29 for North Macedonia.

I fixed Cyprus to 50. Not sure if that was a mistake?

I'll leave it to you to review...I do not want to mess up the table. Cheers! Archives908 (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the thank you!

I saw your fixes - Serbia is corrected to 26 and I changed Cyprus back to "tie" with Armenia. Seemed appropriate since the "loser" would otherwise be determined by spelling. I've seen similar ranking with gold medals. In some ways ranks for N/A values might not make sense but there is a consensus on ranking countries and it doesn't say to exclude countries with weird values, so ranks they get. Georgia is ahead of both Cyprus and Armenia because its 'true' population/area is likely non-zero. Wizmut (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood- thank you! If we use the most liberal definitions of Europe (which include both Armenia and Cyprus) Armenia's territory would be greater than Cyprus. Would that not work for listing Armenia as "49" and Cyprus as "50"? Archives908 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the table is mixing definitions. Blank spaces are filled in with alternative definitions for readability's sake. But Armenia/Cyprus are given ranks only because they're countries, not because they have comparable values. Their Europe densities are zero divided by zero, and 0/0 is not less than, equal to, or more than anything else (not even itself) because it's not a number. If we ranked them by their overall density then they wouldn't be ranked last, they'd be 25th and 27th. But mixing definitions for rank might be too confusing.

For some reason Armenia's density was wrong, I fixed it. edit: And apologies if this sounds terse, I'm just trying to think up the best solution.Wizmut (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize- you should be proud of the great work done here! I only made that comment from a purely aesthetic point of view, as some readers may not understand why there are two "49"s in the table. I'll leave it to your best judgment if you want to adjust that or leave it as is. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed others have been confused by this; perhaps adding a label to the table indicating that the column is for rank rather than index might help. 136.33.79.48 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)