Talk:List of countries by beer consumption per capita

I've just updated the table with 2010 data, from the same Kirin source but the most recent version.

I've rounded off liters per capita values to the nearest integer because these are constantly changing (and have changed since 2010 no doubt), so having the decimal values gives an illusion of precision.

I've eliminated the rank column, because it has to be manually updated every time the table is updated or expanded, and because it's unnecessary with table sorting.

I've moved all references to non-Kirin sources to the column for the country name. This is because if references are attached to the other columns, they no longer sort numerically.

I haven't proofread my numbers against the original source, so please feel free to do so if you like.

I haven't revised the map to reflect the more recent values because I don't know how. Anyone want to tackle that? Jbening (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my most recent edit comment, the argument for making the fundamental organization of a sortable wikitable alphabetical is that it is easier for users to edit it. Also, as data are updated (which should ideally happen annually), a fundamental organization by amount of beer consumed would have to be systemically shuffled based on the new data, while an alphabetical organization never gets old (except in rare instances when countries change names), so new numbers can simply be added for each country, without having to shuffle the order of countries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting#Initial_alphabetical_sort_versus_initial_sort_by_rank_order Jbening (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am opposed to the default sort being alphabetical. Do you have a policy to reference that says it needs to be? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 00:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The policy is common sense. You should not revert work of the main contributor without consensus first on the talk page. Secondly, there is no requirement that a list be in any particular order. But alphabetical order is easier to maintain. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I alphabetized List of cities by GDP but it's received complaints so far. I have no preference for what method the page should be ranked, both have their advantages and disadvantages. From experience though, readers would rather have a page rank numerically than alphabetically. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The people who do the work should decide, not the whiners who do not do much of the work on a page. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Give me a break and go read WP:OWN. You don't own the article -- it's a group effort. I concur with Elockid. This is a page about the per capita consumption of beer. People will want to read it in order of what beer is consumed per capita. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's certainly the order in which I want to read the table. And as currently organized, we all can with a whopping two clicks at the head of the "Consumption (liters)" column; or a mere one click if you want to start with the countries with the lowest consumption and work up.

Erikeltic: since you're engaged in this discussion, can I ask, have you read through the section on "Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order" in Help:Sorting, and do you have any particular arguments against its logic? Jbening (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, actually. The article you've cited has a section about numbers. No where do I see a single thing that says "sort by letter always." It doesn't exist. The point of this article is about the total consumption per capita, which is a number. It stands to reason (common sense even) that the default view should be based on the number reflected in consumption of beer per capita. As far as basing the sort by the assumption that the "average reader" is some kind of dolt that can't figure out how to sort alphabetically doesn't exactly assume good faith. It's also worth pointing out that since 2006 the article has been sorted by the number, not the letter. That's the current consensus for the article. Its current format is against the consensus which has stood without much comment for six years. Also, please note that my decision not to revert it back is an effort/act of good faith to continue that consensus through discussion, not an acknowledgement of anything else. I am not willing to engage in the edit war that the two of you have attempted to start here by reverting the article against consensus again & again. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply, Erikeltic, but I'm concerned we're having a massive miscommunication here. Just to be completely clear about it:

1) I think the vast majority of readers would be primarily interested in reading the table in order by per capita consumption, since that is as you say the point of the table.

2) Hence, I never made or implied, "the assumption that the "average reader" is some kind of dolt that can't figure out how to sort alphabetically." Quite the contrary, I was specifically making the point that the average reader would in fact be able to sort the table by consumption, even if the table they are initially presented with is sorted alphabetically. Your faith in the average reader (which I share) is in fact an argument for organizing the wikitable code for the table in alphabetical order.

3) So given the above, why am I stumping for alphabetical order? As I've said repeatedly in this section of the talk page, and as is argued in section 24 of the Help:Sorting article, tables with wikitable code arranged in rank order inevitably are harder for editors to manage, and lead over time to disorder that some editor eventually has to come along and clean up. Please see as an example the earlier version that I linked to in my earlier comment below.

So, having reiterated those arguments again, can I ask you and/or someone else please to weigh in on the relative merits of (1) making the table more editable and less prone to disorder in the long-term vs (2) the slight hassle of having to click one column head twice to view the table in the per capita consumption order that I assume most readers are primarily interested in?

And Erikeltic, I don't find your argument based on longstanding consensus very compelling. I don't think there's actually been anything like a conscious consensus, any more than there was a consensus in favor of sticking with 2004 data for years and years before I updated it with the 2010 data a couple of months ago. Nor do I think there was consensus in favor of the disorganized table that there was until that same major update. Instead, I think there's been an inertia driven by the fact that no one since 2004 or so took responsibility for cleaning up the table, and relatively few wikipedia editors even have much experience with sortable wikitables. The table started in an unsortable format, which of course has to be in rank order if the data are to be of much use to readers. Whoever made it a sortable wikitable kept the rank column on the left (again, see the earlier version I cited below), which makes no sense in a sortable table. As further evidence for the lack of conscious consensus, I will point out that the issue hasn't been debated on the talk page till now. Jbening (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comment: A possible note to put at the top of the table:

Note: This list is sortable in various ways. Click the sort button   at the top of the column you wish to sort. Click again to reverse the order of sorting. Reload the page to reset everything to its original format.

Some readers may not know how to get rank order by clicking the sort button. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

A comment like that may be worth having for the really inexperienced readers. I was hoping to get across that idea by describing the table as "sortable". I would think that it wouldn't take long for a wikipedia user to notice the little sort buttons at column heads on some table they happen to be looking at, then try clicking on one just for thrills, and then forever after realize that tables work that way--but I may be giving people too much credit.

To Elockid and Erikeltic: I wish it were workable for tables like this to appear in rank order on first loading the page, yet to be in alphabetical order for ease of editing and updating, but the wikitable software doesn't work that way. IMO, and speaking as someone who has made non-trivial edits to the table (though I wouldn't go as far as Timeshifter does in calling me the main contributor--thanks anyway), the long-term benefit of ordering it in a way that will facilitate editing and updating outweighs the small annoyance of its being in alphabetical order when the page first loads. Jbening (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

With chipmunkdavis' reversion just now, we now have five people involved in this lovely little edit war. So far, Elockid and Erikeltic have weighed in with their simple statements of preference for rank ordering, but without presenting any kind of detailed argument why that is better. As evidence for the value of an alphabetical ordering in the wikitable code, can I present the following snapshot of what the table looked like before I did the last major edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita&oldid=490316901

Note all of the countries that are out of order as regards consumption per capita. This is because people edited values without changing where the edited countries were placed in the list, or added new countries without putting them in the right place. This sort of chaos is virtually inevitable when the code for such tables is organized by rank order. It gets worse over time unless some selflessly dedicated editor is willing to make manual changes from time to time. Organizing the lists alphabetically makes life easier for the editors on a number of levels. Jbening (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I said that I had no preference, just stating readers prefer the ranking option. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. This is clearly not going to go anywhere. I'll head on over to dispute resolution and request comment. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So now we're putting inline tech support in the article? This edit [1] is absolute NONSENSE. I'll give you the opportunity to change it to something that belongs on Wikipedia, otherwise I will change it myself and request some third part involvement here. I guess you are unfamiliar with WP:BRD. What you did was change, edit war, and dig your heels in against the norm. The lack of a discussion doesn't mean you can just change something without the D (as in discussion). As for everything else you wrote about about sorting, all of that applies in the reverse. There is no need to change it. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Erikeltic, can I ask you please to dial it back a bit? I've tried to be civil in all my comments, even though I do confess to some frustration that it doesn't seem like you're hearing what I'm saying, while you keep coming out both guns blazing in your replies. Absolute nonsense? It was an attempt to be helpful. If you disagree with it, fine. I'm not wedded to it. But I think you're being a bit over the top in calling it absolute nonsense.

And if you won't treat me with some consideration simply as a fellow wikipedian, can I point out that I was actually the guy who (15 months later) made the major update to the table that you asked for back in February 2011 but apparently weren't willing to take the time to do yourself? I am, in other words, your humble servant. Jbening (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

From WP:BRD: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." So I guess that's me, right? Jbening (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Erikeltic. Adding notes to articles is common. Look at the italic stuff at the top of many articles. Disambiguation, links to Wikipedia namespace articles, etc.. There are notes about table stuff on various tables and lists.

All this drama, Erikeltic, serves no purpose. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Initial sort should be consumption per capita as the article describes. Use excel for manipulating the data. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Fasttimes68. Lovely idea, but could you have a quick look at this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita&oldid=490316901

That's what the article actually did look like a couple of months ago, after years of rank order sorting, before I cleaned it up. Note the countries placed out of order as people updated values without updating the order (because of course most people aren't going to copy and paste the wikitable code into and out of Excel when they update a value or two here or there). If it goes back to rank order, are you willing to take charge of it, to fight back that sort of disorder in future? If so, I'll cheerfully busy myself with other affairs. Jbening (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Problem solved. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the offer, E. But the question was really for Fasttimes68, because he seems to have experience working with sortable wikitables, based on his work at List of countries by GDP (nominal), and maybe other places. Based on a quick look at your last 1000 edits, your expertise seems to run more to reverting other users' edits, contributing to users' talk pages, and seeking dispute resolution. Also, you went 15 months without doing anything about the major update you noted the need for back in February, 2011, which doesn't bode well. But looking back over the number of words spent discussing this piece of triviata, I grow weary, so I think I'm going to check out. Maybe I'll have a look at the page after the 2011 numbers come out, to see if you or anyone else has actually updated the table. Cheers! Jbening (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If somoene makes an edit without updating the order, then just undo the bad edit, or correct the order. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

...manually. Sounds like fun. Jbening (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY -- however I could create a quick Excel spreadsheet to do the sorting and send it to you for your use. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fasttimes68. So you are passing the buck just like Erikeltic has done for many months. If you two want to get off your asses and take responsibility for maintaining this page in rank order then do it. Otherwise, stop obstructing the people who are actually doing the work. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you should reveiw WP:OWN. You may find it helpful. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 04:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you should stop being a talk-page warrior, and do more actual editing of articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

How ironic that my restoration of this article to the pre-edit war version to allow discussion to continue was responded to by "Agreed--but Chipmunkdavis, rather than perpetuating this lovely non-3RR edit war, could you make a case on the talk page?", an action in which the user reverted back, clearly in opposition to their supposed agreement and, well, perpetuated the lovely 3RR edit war. A user pushing in a change hardly promotes a collegial discussion environment. That's why we have WP:BRD. CMD (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's hitting the nail right on the head. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You should have the table be sorted first by the most complete columns. At present that means you either default sort on the country name or by litres. The other two columns have incomplete data. Within the wikicode, it would be easier to maintain if it were alphabetized, since it is easier for the human editor. -- Avanu (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I would also add that sorted by L would probably more useful to the reader. So whom is more important, the editor or reader? I would submit to everyone that purpose of an encyclopedia is to be read. Fasttimes68 (talk)

I couldn't agree more. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

But both of you, Fasttimes68 and Erikeltic, missed Avanu's point: "easier to maintain if it were alphabetized." Especially since neither of you have done any significant updating of the list. And anyway, how hard is it to click a sort button to rank the list by liters? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikitable sortable#Maintaining tables sorted by rank, Wikitable sortable#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order -- Avanu (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No one missed his point. He said alphabetical would be easier to maintain. He didnt say it was more preferable, which is quite different. Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Easier" sounds close to a preference to me. "easier to maintain" and "easier for the human editor." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This entire wiki (in case anyone missed it) is called The list of countries by beer consumption per capita. Aside from the laziness/comfort of editors, why on Earth would the order not be arranged by beer consumed? That makes no sense. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is because that is the topic of the list, "beer consumption per capita." That title says nothing about whether the list should initially be in alphabetical order or rank order. People can click the sort button to rank-order the liters column. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Guns per capita, GDP (nominal) per capita, carbon dioxide emissions per capita and personal income per capita are examples of wikis with an existing sorting structure that is very similar here. Readers go there to read the ranked number of something per capita. I don't see anyone on those talk pages discussing shuffling the order to make it easier on the editor(s). Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are also many lists in alphabetical order. "Per capita" says nothing about whether a list should initially be in alphabetical order or rank order. People can click the sort button to order a column by rank. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reading your per capita citation only further demonstrates that the order should "by head". Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"It is commonly and usually used in the field of statistics in place of saying 'for each person' or 'per person'." There are many lists that are initially in alphabetical order, including "per capita" ones. On Wikipedia and all over the web. I have edited and passed on many tables and lists. On Wikipedia and elsewhere on the web. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying there isn't any out there that are in alphabetical order, but most of the articles related to the ranked order of something per capita were listed in the order of the number, not the letter. The one on GDP is especially interesting because it has multiple tables and multiple sources--and even that is by number. I think the word "by" is what suggests the order be numeric. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That does not mean anything necessarily. Many lists have "by" in the title. Whether they are alphabetical or not is another question. Sort buttons were not implemented in many lists in the past. But now most lists and tables have sort buttons. Or they can be easily added. So it is not necessary now to put lists initially in rank order. It just makes updating the list harder, and it makes the lists become incorrect over time. People do not want to change all the ranks each time they update just one entry. So they do not change the rank. They just update the data. Or they avoid updating the data altogether. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid we are delving into WP:IDHT. Perhaps we need an RfC at this point? Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If I have heard everyone correctly, the issue boils down to these two objectives. I dont think anyone is arguing that readers would NOT prefer an alphabetized list, nor is anyone arguing that an alphebetized list would NOT be easier to edit. Does this sound correct? Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is correct. Although, I still do not believe that editing the entries when sorted by litre is especially difficult, especially now that the ranked order has been removed. At this point I think we should put a pin in the discussion -- the original editor who started these issues (Jbening) appears to have walked away from the article and the only editor still advocating the sort being alphabetical believes the current version is an improvement over what was there. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It depends on whether there are a lot of entries that are changing. If so, then it is much more work. Items have to be moved all over. If in addition there is also a separate column that actually numbers the ranks, as in 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.., then it becomes insanely more time consuming. Even a change in a single number (liters in our case here) can require changing all the rank numbers.

Fortunately, Jbening removed the rank column. See this May 2, 2012 version of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita&oldid=490316901

It had a separate rank column. People had given up keeping the rank numbers correct. That table had many errors.

The current table (today, July 22, 2012) without the rank column is a vast improvement. Even if it is not in alphabetical order. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see Erikeltic, that you are ignoring my attempts to stop your rewrites of past comments that I have already replied to. That is a violation, or at least bad manners, according to WP:TALK. You added this later to your last comment:

especially now that the ranked order has been removed. At this point I think we should put a pin in the discussion -- the original editor who started these issues (Jbening) appears to have walked away from the article and the only editor still advocating the sort being alphabetical believes the current version is an improvement over what was there.

You added that at 13:51 UTC, 22 July 2012‎. See diff. You really need to make more of an effort to learn Wikipedia etiquette. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, refactoring comments that have been responded too, other than minor grammatical issues is not helpful. Fasttimes68 (talk)

The United States data is conflicting with this: http://www.beerinstitute.org/resourcelibrary/IconPDFDownload.gif

Averaging all states in the US, it would be 32.2 gallons (122 liters rounded up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.38.164 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Poor France has simply been forgotten, ranking 41st, between China and Italy. (30 L per capita.] http://www.bonial.fr/info/bierarchie/ Rabend1 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've just returned the value in the table to the value given by Kirin for 2012. My reasons are as follows:

1) The Kirin value is six years more up-to-date than the 2006 value in the Wikipedia article on Alcoholic beverages in Canada

2) The source used for the values in that latter article is no longer available online.

3) This source gives a 2011 value for Canada that, assuming 34 million Canadians in 2011, is 69 liters per capita, which is much closer to the 2012 Kirin value than to the other 2006 value: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-region/canada/consumer-trends-wine-beer-and-spirits-in-canada/?id=1422297046469#d.

4) Using Kirin values where available and reasonably up-to-date improves consistency. Jbening (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just updated the table with 2014 numbers from Kirin. I kept 2012 numbers for any countries that had been in the 2012 table but were missing from the 2014 table. The case of Russia is particularly mysterious. I see from the 2013 table (http://www.kirinholdings.co.jp/english/news/2014/1224_01.html) that there are a few more countries that didn't appear in either 2012 or 2014. If you'd like to make a contribution, you could add those to the table, citing the URL for the 2013 table, as I did for the 2012 table. Jbening (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guess I'll do it. Jbening (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by beer consumption per capita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508082709/http://www.sitioandino.com/nota/6920-una-mala-para-el-sector-vitivinicola-en-argentina-se-consume-mas-cerveza-que-vino/ to http://www.sitioandino.com/nota/6920-una-mala-para-el-sector-vitivinicola-en-argentina-se-consume-mas-cerveza-que-vino/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.assobirra.it/press/wp-content/ar2012_assobirra1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The table currently has rank numbers from 1-49, with a caveat at top that rank numbers may not reflect absolute rankings of all countries in the world. The Kirin data purport to be absolute rankings. In their most recent table, South Korea is 51 and Japan is 54. In our table, those countries are 37 and 39, because we're simply counting up from 1 for all countries in the Kirin table as well as any other countries for whom data have been cited. Alternatively, we could keep Kirin's absolute rankings and leave the rank number column blank for any countries that we don't have absolute ranks for. Having blank cells certainly wouldn't break new ground, as a number of other cells are blank for countries not listed in the Kirin table. And it wouldn't create a sort problem, because the table is already sorted by the per capita consumption value. This approach would permit us to remove the caveat sentence from the lede. What do people think? Jbening (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent edits, Timeshifter. But it's just now occurred to me that the edits by Guarapiranga that you're cleaning up after removed the global rank information, and instead replaced it by a generic rank column that doesn't change when the table is sorted by different columns. The global rank information that had been there identified when the rank worldwide of a country in the table was known (according to Kirin or whomever else asserted a global rank). When that column was blank, nothing was being asserted about the global rank of a country, since the table is necessarily incomplete. Without that column, casual readers could wrongly conclude that a country listed 50th in the table has the 50th highest per capita beer consumption globally, which will often not be true. I don't feel like manually re-adding all of that information, since it's not clear to me that Guarapiranga's edits added anything of real value to the table. (Did it look or function badly before?) So I'm inclined to simply take us back to Monkbot's edit from September. Any objections? Jbening (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jbening:

It is much easier to keep a list in rank order if the numbered rank column (1,2,3) is removed from the table, and then put next to the table in a separate column. (Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order)

Guarapiranga (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a note above the table:

Note: The row number column is fixed. So you can choose what column to rank by clicking its header to sort it.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jbening: I looked at the Kirin reference:

https://www.kirinholdings.co.jp/english/news/2017/1221_01.html

It is incomplete in its per capita list. The list here at Wikipedia has more countries. So the numbers here for rankings are more accurate. People reading the list here understand that it is an incomplete list. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Guarapiranga: See this diff.

This version is much easier for the average reader to understand. Million litres per year vs mlpy.

I have had this type of discussion many times with developers, coders, etc.. They are so deep in the weeds they no longer know what the average reader understands. -- Timeshifter (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, fine, I reverted my reversion. Guarapiranga (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noticed quite a few figures are sourced from statista.

Is Statista a Reliable Source?

The answer is: no. Guarapiranga (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is OK if the root source is also mentioned in the reference here on Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it? I don't see it. And once it is, what's the use of mentioning the middling one? Guarapiranga (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can't hurt usually to mention both the source data and the Statista representation of it. And sometimes the Statista representation of the data is easier to understand. But what is required is the reference for the source data. -- Timeshifter (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

the 2019 data is now available. should we just replace the old one or add a new column for comparisons sake? https://www.kirinholdings.co.jp/english/news/2020/1229_01.pdf jonas (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. I'm working on it. Jbening (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This source contains figures of beer consumption per capita of several missing countries in europe: https://brewersofeurope.org/uploads/mycms-files/documents/publications/2019/european-beer-trends-2019-web.pdf Should those be added? Notiklop (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely! And thanks for finding that. It's interesting to compare numbers from the two lists. In many cases they're about as close as I would expect for such estimates, but some are way discrepant. There's a bit of a tendency of your source to give lower numbers than Kirin, but it's not at all consistent.

1) One approach could be to have two columns: one with Kirin and other numbers, and one with these numbers, for comparison. An analog would be the table in List of sovereign states and dependent territories by birth rate. One problem with taking that approach here is that some countries would have a number in one of the columns but not the other. That happens only rarely in the birth rate table.

2) Or we could list two numbers in the same column, but that would prevent the table being readily sorted by that column, unless there's a way to specify how each cell in a column should be sorted, like one can specify the alphabetical sort in lists of articles in categories.

3) Or we could give the Kirin numbers (if we think those are more reliable--they're at least more global), and have a footnote with the numbers in this new source, for any countries in both Kirin and this new list.

4) Finally, we could use the numbers in this new list only for countries not listed by Kirin.

Any thoughts on which approach would be best? Jbening (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://www.kirinholdings.com/en/newsroom/release/2022/1223_01.html

I have found data for 2021 from the same source as the data on the current version. Published 23/12/2022. 2800:150:107:2B57:F447:D4A1:913C:426B (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply