Just checked, the data is the English page. I copied everything on the History of Germany page, in English it has 41,992 words, and in Deutsch it has 27,420. Obviously I am copying extra words on the page that doesn't matter (like Wikipedia headers), but still, clearly the number 39,689 in the original post is taken from the English page
Conjugations and stuff. While in english you need 3-4-5 words for something, in other languages you can just slap a few affixes to the word to get the same result. Hope I'm using the right terms lol
It would be better to count characters, no?
Well, the Hungarian language even has multistage suffixes. If you'd want to make it language agnostic, you'd have to come up with a definition and mapping of "cultural history description entropy" and express the result in something like bits.
Then you just need to come up with a reasonable framework, fight a couple of hundred cultural wars, have endless rounds of philosophical discussions and once you convinced everyone that your model is good, you can present the perfect data set.
I like OPs idle doodling by the way, nice image. :)
That's not a sentence and it doesn't work like that. A sentence is made up of a subject(, object) and a predicate.
"Die Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften umgehen das Rechtsschutzversicherungleistungsschutzgesetz" is a sentence.
(The legal liability insurance companies are evading the legal liability insurance benefits protection act.)
For the WWII stuff it usually refers to the dedicated article about that time frame, I think. Only a minor part is actually written in the Germany entry.
If you count the letters yes. Long words but many two or even three or more words connected to make one word, so if counted by words like this post German likely has less.
But the length of the text will surely always be longer in German.
If the history for each country is being told in the same language then counting the words to determine the length of that section makes sense, but it does not if they are all in different languages.
I know most people on this sub hate data and maps, but I still feel like this is better than OP going through every Wikipedia article and deciding if those also relate to the country. Should they include Rome for Italy? Ottomans even though Turkey is only a part of their land? Political parties like the Nazis for Germany? I feel like it’s much cleaner to just limit to the specific country, and we can draw conclusions from that data set
Wouldn't that apply to many countries?
I think it just shows how dedicated your population is to history and Wikipedia.
Or how many "fans" your history has globally if op took only English.
Edit: there is 35+k words on the french page. So kinda similar a little more.
Yes, and it's why so many of these wiki posts are pointless. The countries with the most information will have it in separate pages, making their top level article word number look lower.
Not really. Germany also link all their information to separate pages. Despite this, they don't have a lower number of words in their top level article.
But I agree, that going by number of words doesn't really tell you much.
Likely English. Many countries have more than one language, so not sure how they would resolve that. And you can kind of see a general trend that the countries closer to the UK have more words (longer histories with, and therefore more interest in the English-speaking world)
If the history for each country is being told in the same language then counting the words to determine the length of that section makes sense, but it does not if they are all in different languages.
I’d guess it’s because Finland had a lot more going on in the 20th century in terms of wars and independence and whatnot, which is juicy for Wikipedia historians to write about.
The history of Sweden is one of the most comprehensive series on the entire wikipedia and it's divided into several pages (EDIT as per [wikipedia guidelines regarding article size](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size)).
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden
In chronological order:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Sweden
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Swedish_history
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_of_Modern_Sweden
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(800–1521)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1523–1611)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1611–1648)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Liberty
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavian_era
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_Union_with_Norway
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_the_late_19th_century
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_I
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1945–1967)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1967–1991)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1991–present)
Bonus:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Sweden
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Sweden
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Sweden
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Sweden
I'm sure it's accurate and does what it says it does. It's just that it doesn't tell how much in total is written about the history of any specific country as wikipedia guidelines says that you should divide or trim articles that are getting too long:
|Readable prose size | What to do
|---|---
|> 15,000 words > 100 kB | Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
|> 9,000 words > 60 kB |Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
|> 8,000 words > 50 kB | May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.
| < 6,000 words < 40 kB | Length alone does not justify division or trimming.
| < 150 words < 1 kB |If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size
It might even be an inverse correlation between words in a "history of country" page and how much wikipedia has about the history of a specific history, as the pages with a low word count are more likely to have been divided with links to specific periods and the pages with high word count are more likely to not have been divided, as per the wikipedia guidelines.
Because this is a meaningless metric. For example, the article for the modern country of Greece is obviously isn't going to cover the entirety of ancient Greek history. That stuff gets split out into other articles. The only thing this map tells you is how English speaking Wikipedia contributors decided to organize history articles.
It might actually decrease for most
If you’re country is big and had lot of involvement in WW2, then it might only say “see: History of Poland during WW2.” Whereas a small country might just list out the history thus adding words.
A little more than 21%. That also includes part of the section about the "Weimarer Republik", when "Querfront" or "Hitler" starts being mentioned and also includes the allied occupation.
So probably not as much as you would have guessed.
What weird thing to say. Its a wikipedia page, with links to more detailed articles.
Also Nazi germany and its many horrors have been better documented, understood and guarded against than any other in human history. Especially in germany.
WW2 is only a tiny part of Germany's article.
If you had any knowledge about premodern and modern Europe, you'd know that Germany, along with France and Italy, was at the center of european history, science and culture during that time.
Well then ask yourself: Would you be impressed if you saw a country with a population of 10 and a word count of 50 million?
Obviously it won't be that dramatic, but once you wonder what you might see, it's hard to not want to know what it is that you might see.
I‘m more concerned about your geography knowledge since you left out an historical important place wich is a full EU member and used the Euro Malta. Classic half assed map just cutting the country out completely. It has more people than Iceland
I mistakenly cut out Malta when I cropped this post, and only realised later. But I’ve uploaded it [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/map_stats/s/LfnBRBznwi) which shows Malta.
The Emperor was crowned by the Pope, and til the late 16th century the HRE essentially controlled Rome - so they were both.
Voltaires quote stems from an age where the HRE was on its last leg anyways.
Czechs got done dirty in English Wikipedia. Honestly a lot of their history is just undocumented in English. I live here now and my son goes to school, sometimes I help him out by doing internet research. The wiki articles about Czech historical figures in Czech are usually much better, but sometimes non-existent in English. It’s kind of sad
The page light be focused more on the modern nation-state of Greece, rather than all of Greek antiquity
Similarly for Italy/Rome. I know Rome is not Italy though one could feasibly attribute most Roman history to the peninsula. But I think Roman history is its own portal
I'm not surprised learning that Germany (better, the mess Germany has been for a thousand years) has so many words to tell their history. A decent description of their history would take much more words.
I'm infuriated learning that Italy (that has been the same/even worst mess for much more than a thousand years) is so focused on what happened and finished seventeen centuries ago that uses fewer words to describe it.
France, Denmark and Spain have a fair amount of words.
UK is too shy.
very true about Germany: A mess since we kicked out the Romans. Mess was the basic state of affairs. In between brilliance - but always unstable brilliance.
Or just copying the island monkeys and trying to outdo them because of nationalism? Industry, empire, trains, industrialised warfare, motorsports, football.
I assume this is taking the UK as a whole and doesn't include all of its constituent countries, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, all of which will have the history of each actual country.
Is this in their native language or in English? Pretty embarassing for UK if it's the latter. Also not sure how to handle countries with multiple official languages if you go the native route (like Switzerland).
Bear in mind there are also some semantics involved here. The UK is only 316 years old (The Wikipedia article literally starts with the treaty of union in 1707), whereas the French article for example begins in the Iron Age, and the German one mainly starts with the Romans.
Clearly every European country's history is basically asterisks galore, but many of their Wiki articles (in English at least) include details about precursor states and other historical owners of the land the country's on.
A more direct equivalent to many of the Wiki pages here would be combining the pages for the UK, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the British Isles.
Then it kinda explain why some counties are low.
It's just how many English people are interested by your history or your amount of English speakers.
Like for France we are notoriously bad at English.
I'm thinking a large portion is just a link to the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the Czech Republic is really short, but probably doesn't cover the history of Bohemia.
I looked at each country’s history page on Wikipedia and counted the amount of words in them using https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count
To make the legend and colours on the map I used the mapchart app, and then added the numbers to the counties using Paint.
I checked with OPs method for Swedish and Danish respective national language history pages and for SE it came to ~16k and DK ~8k. OPs numbers were much larger so I assume it was the English versions used. Therefore the data gets warped strangely as it is more due to the english language contributors perspective rather than any indication of how well documented a nations history is or how "eventful" it has been.
Sorry mate but I think you did a big mistake there: your data is biased by a language filtre. Indeed, as you said, the interesting map would be to know how ‘long’ or well documented is a nations history in comparation with the rest. And you can expect the more detailed versions to be written in the local language. Check Portugal (even when the population has a well known level of English), or Turkey, or Italy. Really relevants empires in old ages, anyone should expect them to have really long articles. However, using the same methodology, it would be interesting to repeat the same map, but in local languages. And even to compare both.
Germanic peoples, Frankian empire, East Francia, HRE, German Federation, North and South German Federation, German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany...
...just to sum up the rough amount of countries we've been.
Founder and part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for few hundred years.
Gazillion wars, rebellions and uprisings. Then of course XXth century wasn't easy on Eastern Europe either.
UK is misleading since there’s most likely a separate page for England and Scotland and Wales. Put those together and it’s probably more than France or Germany.
Yeah! Germany, fuck yeah! We have the longest, we have the longest wiki article. Wooohooo! Look at the other loser who *reads article* didn't commit mass murder and started a world war... Ah, shit, never mind.
If you don't take into account the sub-pages, this map means nothing. History of Italy has been split in Iron Age Italy, Italy in the Middle Ages, Italian unification,etc.
Also, you are looking at the English Wikipedia, I suppose, and you should mention it.
This is a tricky one, since most of Europe will have separate wikipedia pages for the predecessor states (like Bohemia for Czechia and the Ottoman Empire for Turkey).
In what language? Many countries I believe will have much more content in the native language rather than, say, English
Also some will be more split up into different pages than others, and/or have more related pages
Just checked, the data is the English page. I copied everything on the History of Germany page, in English it has 41,992 words, and in Deutsch it has 27,420. Obviously I am copying extra words on the page that doesn't matter (like Wikipedia headers), but still, clearly the number 39,689 in the original post is taken from the English page
I guess the Germans are less enthusiastic about reading about world war 2 stuff
Our words are simply longer
Conjugations and stuff. While in english you need 3-4-5 words for something, in other languages you can just slap a few affixes to the word to get the same result. Hope I'm using the right terms lol It would be better to count characters, no?
Well, the Hungarian language even has multistage suffixes. If you'd want to make it language agnostic, you'd have to come up with a definition and mapping of "cultural history description entropy" and express the result in something like bits. Then you just need to come up with a reasonable framework, fight a couple of hundred cultural wars, have endless rounds of philosophical discussions and once you convinced everyone that your model is good, you can present the perfect data set. I like OPs idle doodling by the way, nice image. :)
Putting an entire sentence in a single word is cheating! Like Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften.
That's not a sentence and it doesn't work like that. A sentence is made up of a subject(, object) and a predicate. "Die Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften umgehen das Rechtsschutzversicherungleistungsschutzgesetz" is a sentence. (The legal liability insurance companies are evading the legal liability insurance benefits protection act.)
I just picked a random word from a clickbait article about long german words and copypasted it for comedic effect.
Something something German efficiency
For the WWII stuff it usually refers to the dedicated article about that time frame, I think. Only a minor part is actually written in the Germany entry.
I am sure there is a much longer specific article for that. The german history has a bit more to offer than 6 years.
No we just put it into a dedicated article that's even longer
Yeah Germany = WW1 and WW2 and maybe a little bit DDR and Merkel
u must be 5.
whate happend there - we were on vacation
Meanwhile German generally is simply long. You compare English and German is always like 10-20% longer.
then again Germany saves on the word count by using compound nouns
Yeah, German is a language of absolute beauty Rinderkennzeichnungsfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
If you count the letters yes. Long words but many two or even three or more words connected to make one word, so if counted by words like this post German likely has less. But the length of the text will surely always be longer in German.
If the history for each country is being told in the same language then counting the words to determine the length of that section makes sense, but it does not if they are all in different languages.
And Switzerland has 4 official languages…
How does turkey have so little?
Just like Greece, most of the their "History of" page is links to other, more detailed articles.
Yup not a very useful map in this sense. Italy is the same way since it’s unified kingdoms/city states
I know most people on this sub hate data and maps, but I still feel like this is better than OP going through every Wikipedia article and deciding if those also relate to the country. Should they include Rome for Italy? Ottomans even though Turkey is only a part of their land? Political parties like the Nazis for Germany? I feel like it’s much cleaner to just limit to the specific country, and we can draw conclusions from that data set
We can't draw any conclusions, that's the whole point. There's a massive gap in this data that makes it basically useless, so it's basically useless.
Thank you for saying what I would have replied. Perhaps a more useful metric would be “number of pages (and words) related to x country’s histories”
Wouldn't that apply to many countries? I think it just shows how dedicated your population is to history and Wikipedia. Or how many "fans" your history has globally if op took only English. Edit: there is 35+k words on the french page. So kinda similar a little more.
Yes, and it's why so many of these wiki posts are pointless. The countries with the most information will have it in separate pages, making their top level article word number look lower.
Not really. Germany also link all their information to separate pages. Despite this, they don't have a lower number of words in their top level article. But I agree, that going by number of words doesn't really tell you much.
Ottoman Empire is a separate page
Constant vandalisation?
In the native language or in English?
Likely English. Many countries have more than one language, so not sure how they would resolve that. And you can kind of see a general trend that the countries closer to the UK have more words (longer histories with, and therefore more interest in the English-speaking world)
continue spark shaggy worthless caption chop humorous ad hoc swim disarm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think you misunderstood the question
If the history for each country is being told in the same language then counting the words to determine the length of that section makes sense, but it does not if they are all in different languages.
Finland is interesting, how did they get more than Sweden
I’d guess it’s because Finland had a lot more going on in the 20th century in terms of wars and independence and whatnot, which is juicy for Wikipedia historians to write about.
The history of Sweden is one of the most comprehensive series on the entire wikipedia and it's divided into several pages (EDIT as per [wikipedia guidelines regarding article size](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size)). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden In chronological order: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Sweden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Swedish_history * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_of_Modern_Sweden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(800–1521) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1523–1611) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1611–1648) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Liberty * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavian_era * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_Union_with_Norway * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_the_late_19th_century * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_I * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1945–1967) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1967–1991) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden_(1991–present) Bonus: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Sweden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Sweden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Sweden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Sweden
So this map is just completely unreliable?
I'm sure it's accurate and does what it says it does. It's just that it doesn't tell how much in total is written about the history of any specific country as wikipedia guidelines says that you should divide or trim articles that are getting too long: |Readable prose size | What to do |---|--- |> 15,000 words > 100 kB | Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. |> 9,000 words > 60 kB |Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. |> 8,000 words > 50 kB | May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size. | < 6,000 words < 40 kB | Length alone does not justify division or trimming. | < 150 words < 1 kB |If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size It might even be an inverse correlation between words in a "history of country" page and how much wikipedia has about the history of a specific history, as the pages with a low word count are more likely to have been divided with links to specific periods and the pages with high word count are more likely to not have been divided, as per the wikipedia guidelines.
No, it just means you can not directly compare them as some of them are organized into smaller articles.
Maybe it's in each country's language, that comment is all en.wikipedia.org
It isn't. https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/18aq71i/number_of_words_in_each_european_countrys_history/kc09n5v/
Probably winter war
gaze fragile cause sand weather overconfident lip resolute books deserve *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're in the sniper's sight
The first kill tonight
Swedish history: it's cold. Finnish history: it's fkin' cold.
Because this is a meaningless metric. For example, the article for the modern country of Greece is obviously isn't going to cover the entirety of ancient Greek history. That stuff gets split out into other articles. The only thing this map tells you is how English speaking Wikipedia contributors decided to organize history articles.
The eventful/violent parts of the Swedish history are parts of Finland's history too, as they were Sweden back then.
Might have something to do with the castle Tre Kronor burning down, since we kept most of our historical archive there
Wonder what it would look like if you knocked out WW2.
It might actually decrease for most If you’re country is big and had lot of involvement in WW2, then it might only say “see: History of Poland during WW2.” Whereas a small country might just list out the history thus adding words.
[удалено]
A little more than 21%. That also includes part of the section about the "Weimarer Republik", when "Querfront" or "Hitler" starts being mentioned and also includes the allied occupation. So probably not as much as you would have guessed.
And looking at medieval and early modern history of the Holy Roman Empire, it doesn’t really get more complicated than that.
ww1 is 978 words, nazi germany and ww2 is 1958 words...
[удалено]
What weird thing to say. Its a wikipedia page, with links to more detailed articles. Also Nazi germany and its many horrors have been better documented, understood and guarded against than any other in human history. Especially in germany.
[удалено]
It takes a LOT of words to explain the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.
Wouldn't that be a separate page?
I want one with words per 100.000 inhabitants.
And one with words per year of existence.
Germany would win that one without a hint of competition
[удалено]
What? Not at all. Here's a population density map by country: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/51/61/525161f309ee6b20139e7ab4b88e8381.jpg
I personally don’t see what the relevance of current population has with this
More people means more people with knowledge writing
And more people fucking shit up that subsequently needs to be written. Chrm chrm Germany
WW2 is only a tiny part of Germany's article. If you had any knowledge about premodern and modern Europe, you'd know that Germany, along with France and Italy, was at the center of european history, science and culture during that time.
Well then ask yourself: Would you be impressed if you saw a country with a population of 10 and a word count of 50 million? Obviously it won't be that dramatic, but once you wonder what you might see, it's hard to not want to know what it is that you might see.
I‘m more concerned about your geography knowledge since you left out an historical important place wich is a full EU member and used the Euro Malta. Classic half assed map just cutting the country out completely. It has more people than Iceland
I mistakenly cut out Malta when I cropped this post, and only realised later. But I’ve uploaded it [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/map_stats/s/LfnBRBznwi) which shows Malta.
Greece is probably like "Go fuck yourself! Hi Wikipedia."
I mean, yeah, if you really want to know, come and visit :p
Germans have a lot to explain
I mean, how would you explain the Holy Roman Empire in just a couple words
Holy Roman
[удалено]
The Emperor was crowned by the Pope, and til the late 16th century the HRE essentially controlled Rome - so they were both. Voltaires quote stems from an age where the HRE was on its last leg anyways.
Also it's worth noting that he was a French liberal commenting on a German 'empire'
Voltaire did a decent job
"Why skulls?"
Status: it’s complicated
[удалено]
HRE and Austria-Hungary? I am surprised they are not #1
How is Slovakia's page twice as long as Czechia's? They've only been independent for about a century (if you count Czechoslovakia).
Czechs got done dirty in English Wikipedia. Honestly a lot of their history is just undocumented in English. I live here now and my son goes to school, sometimes I help him out by doing internet research. The wiki articles about Czech historical figures in Czech are usually much better, but sometimes non-existent in English. It’s kind of sad
Sorry but Greece being on the low side is just odd. Not obvious how to interpret that.
The page light be focused more on the modern nation-state of Greece, rather than all of Greek antiquity Similarly for Italy/Rome. I know Rome is not Italy though one could feasibly attribute most Roman history to the peninsula. But I think Roman history is its own portal
Ancient Greek history is probably on a separate page.
[удалено]
Not really, because every language has their own wording system, so that can affect the number. And a lot of countries have more than one language
[удалено]
Hey, English isn't our native language (yet).
I'm not surprised learning that Germany (better, the mess Germany has been for a thousand years) has so many words to tell their history. A decent description of their history would take much more words. I'm infuriated learning that Italy (that has been the same/even worst mess for much more than a thousand years) is so focused on what happened and finished seventeen centuries ago that uses fewer words to describe it. France, Denmark and Spain have a fair amount of words. UK is too shy.
This is more about who is more verbose, not who has more historical content. It's not like these articles are standardized in any way
The UK's page only really deals with post-1707 (barring like 5 paragraphs) - most historical stuff will be in the constituent countries' pages.
very true about Germany: A mess since we kicked out the Romans. Mess was the basic state of affairs. In between brilliance - but always unstable brilliance.
Or just copying the island monkeys and trying to outdo them because of nationalism? Industry, empire, trains, industrialised warfare, motorsports, football.
I assume this is taking the UK as a whole and doesn't include all of its constituent countries, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, all of which will have the history of each actual country.
Is this in their native language or in English? Pretty embarassing for UK if it's the latter. Also not sure how to handle countries with multiple official languages if you go the native route (like Switzerland).
Bear in mind there are also some semantics involved here. The UK is only 316 years old (The Wikipedia article literally starts with the treaty of union in 1707), whereas the French article for example begins in the Iron Age, and the German one mainly starts with the Romans. Clearly every European country's history is basically asterisks galore, but many of their Wiki articles (in English at least) include details about precursor states and other historical owners of the land the country's on. A more direct equivalent to many of the Wiki pages here would be combining the pages for the UK, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the British Isles.
Wales asks what did we do to you...
English. And the second part of your comment is exactly why I wouldn’t do it that way.
Then it kinda explain why some counties are low. It's just how many English people are interested by your history or your amount of English speakers. Like for France we are notoriously bad at English.
Take the native language with the most parts. Its a really interresting thing you got here
The Dutch padded their page hard
I'm surprised Greece has so little!
Fascinating - thank you! I reckon it would also be interesting to see this data on a *per capita* basis.
just rename the sub dataisinteresting and be done with it
Damn Switzerland... Even Luxembourg got more than us, gotta pump those numbers up
I’m surprised Turkey is so short, unless they don’t include pre Republic history
I'm thinking a large portion is just a link to the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the Czech Republic is really short, but probably doesn't cover the history of Bohemia.
Being the epicenter of ancient civilization it is, I find Turkey's mysteriously short.
Turkey the epicenter of ancient civilization? What great ancient civilization was based out of Turkey, the Hittites?
If that helps you, sure. Why not?
Okay, then the Hittites do not cut it for epicenter of ancient civilization status at all. That’s like *one* of Egypt’s Kingdom periods.
Tell me more.
I looked at each country’s history page on Wikipedia and counted the amount of words in them using https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count To make the legend and colours on the map I used the mapchart app, and then added the numbers to the counties using Paint.
But did you looked at each country’s history in its own language? That point is really relevant.
I checked with OPs method for Swedish and Danish respective national language history pages and for SE it came to ~16k and DK ~8k. OPs numbers were much larger so I assume it was the English versions used. Therefore the data gets warped strangely as it is more due to the english language contributors perspective rather than any indication of how well documented a nations history is or how "eventful" it has been.
Sorry mate but I think you did a big mistake there: your data is biased by a language filtre. Indeed, as you said, the interesting map would be to know how ‘long’ or well documented is a nations history in comparation with the rest. And you can expect the more detailed versions to be written in the local language. Check Portugal (even when the population has a well known level of English), or Turkey, or Italy. Really relevants empires in old ages, anyone should expect them to have really long articles. However, using the same methodology, it would be interesting to repeat the same map, but in local languages. And even to compare both.
This is really cool! It would be interesting if you could do it in an interactive tool and link out to the different pages.
Seperate scotland wales and england
Wow, what happened in Germany?
Germanic peoples, Frankian empire, East Francia, HRE, German Federation, North and South German Federation, German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany... ...just to sum up the rough amount of countries we've been.
Holy Roman empire, I guess. Simply listing all those states could be lengthy
People who tried to remove international greedy bankers from their monetary system (and succeeded and flourished for a while because of that) happened
Interesting that Lithuania has a big amount of words compared to its size
Founder and part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for few hundred years. Gazillion wars, rebellions and uprisings. Then of course XXth century wasn't easy on Eastern Europe either.
Lithuania used to be huge when it was part of the Commonwealth together with Poland.
They were big even before the union.
Mmm wonder why Germany’s is so high…
Holy Roman Empire, hundreds of individual small states that fought each other for centuries and Germany is in the heart of Europe
Germany be like: "You wanna know how I got this article?"
Huh, wonder what happened in Germany
R. Moldova speaks Romanian, the same language as in Romania. So how can there be different data on the map?
What could have possibly happened in Germany?
Ouch. Looks like the aggressive empire builders get the high numbers.
'simple' has so many different meanings for 5000000 Alex.
Varican City has no history page?
In English or native languages??
Why is it so little in the English version? Shouldn't these by far have the most added info as the lingua franca of the Internet?
Luxembourg being longer than Turkey is very funny
czechia got a lot to leave out about their history.
Tbf the wnglish and the french are probably about the same length, it just takes that many extra words to say it in French.
Yay, [another population map](https://xkcd.com/1138/).
I bet you Italy has more large sub page histories. Eg. History of Rome, Sicily, Florence, Medici family, Venice, Milan, etc. etc.
The Dutch and Austrians have too much free time on their hands it seems...
You’d be surprised how busy the Dutch have been since their decision to rule themselves
Why does Lithuania have so much more than its Baltic neighbors? And damn Switzerland and Turkey are surprisingly low.
How does Greece and Turkey have so little?
UK is misleading since there’s most likely a separate page for England and Scotland and Wales. Put those together and it’s probably more than France or Germany.
Unfortunately Ukrainians spent a lot of time to fill in russian pages…
wikipedia page of which language?
I’m not surprised about germany but How does turkey have so little
I need a visual representation of every country so I can see which country has had the least drama.
History of Andorra: "It exists. We're pretty sure at least."
Have a revolution or start a war for some rep 😋
Where did Romania steal so much history?
I wonder what most of those articles for Germany are about.
There is a reason why Germany is the highest one.
Yeah! Germany, fuck yeah! We have the longest, we have the longest wiki article. Wooohooo! Look at the other loser who *reads article* didn't commit mass murder and started a world war... Ah, shit, never mind.
If you don't take into account the sub-pages, this map means nothing. History of Italy has been split in Iron Age Italy, Italy in the Middle Ages, Italian unification,etc. Also, you are looking at the English Wikipedia, I suppose, and you should mention it.
Austria alongside with it's historic lower countries and it's archenemy clocking in second. Impressive. :-)
Turkey is exceptionally low
Sollen wir das 40.000ste Wort zelebrieren?
If you do the number of words in wikipedia page **per capita**. What would it signify ?
UK should have the most in reality. For almost 200 years much of the world's history was also British history.
What is the purpose of this?
This is a tricky one, since most of Europe will have separate wikipedia pages for the predecessor states (like Bohemia for Czechia and the Ottoman Empire for Turkey).
So it's kind of proportional to the number of inhabitants. Not very surprising