Talk:Smallest cities in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

shouldn't Canterbury be on this list? I'm not sure how exhaustive this list is but at any rate the page for Canterbury gives a population of less than Salisbury, and is listed on City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom 82.3.91.188

Hi. I created this page by going through the list of cities on the City status in the United Kingdom page and checking their individual pages for the populations stated. Then I checked the council websites for more up-to-date census information. What I should have done is put my sources up here, sorry about that. Can't do that right now as don't really have an hour free but will get around to it in a while, in the meantime if anyone wants to do this instead it would be very much appreciated. Thanks. --Sachabrunel 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also I notice quite a few of the populations have been changed, wouldn't know where those came from. --Sachabrunel 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smallest cities in the world

If you want small cities - try Golovin, Alaska, supposedly a city with 144 inhabitants. The rest of the settlements around the Nome area also claim to be cities and are nearly all under 600 inhabitants. Can this be correct? Jack 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the USA pretty much any settlement can be called a "city". In the UK it has a formal definition dependent on the grant of city status by the crown. Hence, it's not surprising there's a massive difference between the smallest "cities" in the two countries. Cheers, DWaterson 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article is about areas with city charters. Indeed, its utility may be in exposing and exploiting the fact that some very small settlements are officially classified as cities (St David's and Wells are famous for being so small). There is the use. However, the population numbers are not for the official definition of the city, as City of Durham, City of Carlisle, City of Canterbury, City and District of St Albans etc don't conform with the boundaries of the towns to which the population numbers refer. Hence, to use the populations of the towns contradicts the purpose of this article: to detail the smallest official cities. Bastin 12:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population of Wells?

So unless there were two separate 2001 censuses in the UK (there weren't) either this topic or Wells' own is incorrect. This puts it at 2nd in England, 3rd in the UK with 10,000 inhabitants; whereas its topic buts it at 4th in England (linking to this topic) and 7th in the UK with C.15,000 inhabitants. Any particular reason? Has someone included outlying areas in one of the statistics, or a typo made? Either way, both cannot be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.64.97 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)