User talk:GhostInTheMachine

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

GhostInTheMachineTalkAllHelpMiscModulesOtherLayoutPhotosProjectsScriptsTidyingTidyingSDTODOUBXWIP2024-04-20 09:11:27

20062008200920102011201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

This user knows that it can become a challenge to keep AGF in mind.

A silly reversion. I could call Twickenham a large town, which it is; it used to be a borough, and I can still find manhole covers and street signs lettered "Borough of Twickenham". I don't believe in edit wars, however. Donnanz (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. I know that Fraisthorpe is indeed not huge – I have been there. The problem is that there is no clear external RS for concepts such as "small village", "large village" etc. Do we even agree that we are talking about population or might it be based on land area? We have enough trouble with edit wars over "village" vs. "town". We even have fights over "town" vs. "city" when there is an absolutely clear distinction (for UK at least). So it is a lot safer / wiser / more reasonable / Wikipedialy to not use "small" / "large" and the like, but state what the population was at some specific moment and let readers understand that, at moment X, village Y was smaller (or larger) than village Z — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you have the advantage. I can only base my judgment on what I see on Explorer map 295, the built-up area of Fraisthorpe is considerably smaller than that of Barmston. The surrounding area is much larger, extending to Fraisthorpe Sands. The population would no doubt be included with the whole of Barmston parish. As for cities, I often come across US cities with a population of less than 1,000, more incredibly even less than 100. I prefer to call them "minor" cities rather than "small", as the land area of the city may be large in relation to its population. Donnanz (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]