Talk:Demographics of the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demographics of the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Child mortality in London, 18th & 19th C
This article says: During the Industrial Revolution, child mortality decreased dramatically. The proportion of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5 per thousand in 1730–1749 to 31.8 per thousand in 1810–1829.
This means that the child mortality rate in the early 18th C was 7.45%, and in the early 19th C, it was 3.18%. These figures seem extraordinary low. I don’t have access to the source given, which is a book.
In an article ‘Urbanization and Mortality in Britain, c. 1800-50.’ by Romola J Davenport, in The Economic History Review , it says: “In London infant mortality was around 300–400 deaths per 1,000 births in the mid-eighteenth century, compared with the national average of c. 180 per 1,000.” i.e. in the 18th C infant mortality in London was around 30-40%. This seems more likely than the figure of 7.45% currently given in the article (which is in fact for children up to the age of 5, rather than in the first year of life). The Davenport article also says: “this study finds good evidence for widespread increases in mortality in the second quarter of the nineteenth century” which contradicts the statement in our article: “During the Industrial Revolution, child mortality decreased dramatically”.
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus to merge. I am redirecting Countries of the United Kingdom by population to the new subsection heading Population by constituent country. The main additional information in the source is the division of English figures by region; I will leave it to local editors to include that in the table here if desired.
Proposing to merge Countries of the United Kingdom by population, no need for such a short article on the population of the different countries of the UK when 1; we already cover it here 2; the two topics overlap massively and the table used on that page can be combined here so the two should be merged - Tweedledumb2 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- support. The creator of the stub was possibly unaware of this article, DMBanks1 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support, the table can be merged incorporated into the existing article. N1TH Music (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose they're separated for a reason. Great Mercian (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- But for what reason is there to keep the two separated? Again, you can find practically the same data here under the 'Population distribution across the country' table in the first section of Population currently so I don't really see the point of keeping a separate stub when a redirect to that particular section can be provided instead. Tweedle (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned of whether or not the populations of each individual country in a specific year (I.e. Population of England in 1989) will be preserved. Great Mercian (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- But for what reason is there to keep the two separated? Again, you can find practically the same data here under the 'Population distribution across the country' table in the first section of Population currently so I don't really see the point of keeping a separate stub when a redirect to that particular section can be provided instead. Tweedle (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support, I feel like this article could just be a new section near to the bottom of the page. 你好... (Community Centre) 01:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Edit
User:Tweedledumb2, what do you mean by "messing up the net change graph"? Also, the article is now way too linked again. See MOSLINK. Tony (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The vast majority of wikilink removals are fine and I have no problem with but for the pie charts please keep in the wiki-links as some you just removed England or the United Kingdom (especially the one in the lead infobox) but not the other's alongside it as well like Scotland Wales etc. I will go and change these to their respective demography pages links so they hopefully don't flag up again in the script to be removed. On the net change graph, its the graph which shows natural change overtime, after your edit it looked like this because I believe because the values were changed? I don't know what happened but it messed it up somehow. Tweedle (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That change over time graph is brilliant. Did you construct it? (If so, is it possible to slow it down a bit?) BTW, could someone go through and correct all of the glaringly wrong "overtime"s. Overtime is what you do when you stay back at work. It's "Over time".
- The script not surprisingly changes minus values from hyphen to minus sign. If the code forbids the correct typography, that's a problem. Tony (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've replaced "overtime" with "over time" or more often, date ranges, noting that some of the time axes are barely legible. I haven't renamed all the files which use "overtime" in the filename. NebY (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I did not construct them no! I believe the graph has been in their for a while but on the script that makes sense, on the files which NebY brings up I have gone ahead and corrected the 'over time' on them as they are my files, apologises on that and my shockingly bad spelling! Tweedle (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Urban Areas Population Figures
Can someone update the population statistics for some of the urban areas to the stats provided by the ONS? Specifically West Midlands seems way too high. Sargon.solo (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)