Talk:Population
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
Population was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on December 5, 2005.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
[edit] pics
Why are all the pics of Taiwan? There are a wider range of places than that... brimstone
[edit] images
Searching commons for world population, population and crowd brings up some pictures and graphs which may be useful for this article. I have picked a few, but there are others there to choose from Astrokey44 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Less developed countries
Maybe we could talk about why third world countries have a higher fertility rate than developed countries (birth control, culture differences, education diffences, etc)? Flyerhell 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Checks on population growth
This topic could be an entire page onto itself. Here's what appears to be a good reference: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations2.html For human population growth, see also: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html — RJH 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason there is a "See Also" link to 1907 world populations..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumguy8800 (talk • contribs)
- It does relate to population. Is there a reason not to have it there? ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:54, 8
December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] logistic growth
The link to logistic growth provides an article with diagrams that do not appear to match the population growth diagram in the population article. The population article diagram appears to provide actual population growth of human population; the logistic growth article diagrams provide a math-based theory of growth, which, thankfully, the Earth is not currently achieving. -hmains
[edit] A little human-centric
No mention of endangered species or extinction?? Are humans going to exist forever? --BRIAN0918 13:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree somewhat. Added links to small population size and extinction in 'population decline'. May a population become extinct, even if a species survives somewhere else? If a total world population of a species disappears, then it is definitely globally extinct. Melianis 10:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] China: Example of Population overshoot
In this article, someone mentioned that overpopulation was mostly caused by immigration. Is this true of China? Is this true of the United States? Sandy June 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult in China and Japan as the people there always used to avoid most contact with foreign people. In the U.S. it's different as the country was founded by immigrants and the U.S. government always stimulated immigration until the 50's-60's, when they started to have problems with it. exukvera 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quebec Example
What are you saying? This is VERY unclear and confusing.
[edit] Countries by Population
The chart appears to be out of date (Russia has surpassed Bangladesh). See another chart on Wikipedia in this article which gives 2005 UN estimates as its source. Should this article's chart be updated?Italic text population of math is the ,sdfjioyg
[edit] Revision As Of 23:40, 21 June 2007
I changed the text "On October 18, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Earth will be home to 7 trillion" to say "7 billion". After checking the history, I see minor revisions throughout the article from the last revisor. One of them happens to be changing "denotes a breeding" to "deonates farty breeding". Others are changing dates and numbers by small amounts. I recommend changing the article back to before the revision was made?
- Yes, I noticed the same thing. I'd support reverting it. 150.203.48.140 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Mattias
- Okay, since no one stated any objection, I've backed out those changes made on 23:40, 21 June 2007. 150.203.48.140 07:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Mattias
I think those exact times should be removed. They CAN NOT be exact, you can´t pinpoint the 6500000000 birth to one exact minute. This is just bullshit. I don´t know why the United States Census Bureau is doing this. The day alone should be enough (It probably is wrong, too).
[edit] how many is everyone?
i seem to remember a figure, and i'd like to find it again, of how many people have ever lived on earth. that's 6.5 billion plus all that have died. i suppose it's a silly cocktail-party-conversation kind of number that's mostly meaningless, especially when you get into the definition of human-do we count the neadertals? in any case, i wish i could find it; if anyone knows at least post here.
nearly 2 minutes later and never mind! it's under world population, around 106 trillion :) . 76.217.120.247 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The population of India and China
The population of [India] and [china] is very high. Bothe toghether cover 60 percent of the worlds population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.47.159 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The population of India and china
THe population os india and china are very high. They cover over 60percent of the worlds population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.47.159 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opening sentence is awkward
The intro is currently:
- In sociology and biology a population is the collection of people or individuals of a particular species. A population shares a particular characteristic of interest most often that of living in a given geographic area. In taxonomy population is a low-level taxonomic rank.
The first sentence is awkward. I suggest:
- A population is a collection of individuals that share a particular characteristic of interest, most often that of living in a given geographic area. In biology a population is a collection of individuals of a particular species. In sociology a population is a collection of people. In taxonomy population is a low-level taxonomic rank.
Comments? Suggestions? Questions? --Unflappable (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The chart described as "Time taken for each billion people to be added to the world's population" doesn't seem to make sense. It indicates that 123 years passed between 1800 and 1930 and that 33 years passed between 1930 and 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.227.56 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
