Category talk:Towns in Luxembourg

Towns or villages?
Many of the places in this category would seem to be better described as villages than as towns. As just one example, Surré has only 180 people living there - and having walked through it recently, it certainly looked like a village rather than what I would describe as a town. Is there a good reason for not describing these as villages instead? --David Edgar 10:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's my fault. Basically, I decided that every settlement with over 100 people was notable enough for an article.  Thus, I created one for each, and called them all 'towns'.  However, when some had to be created that were smaller than 100 but were still notable (e.g. former communes, administrative centres of communes, sources of significant rivers), I called them villages.  Hence, the current definitions are:
 * 0 - 100: Village
 * 100 - 1000: Small town
 * 1000 +: Town
 * Of course, I'm regretting it now. I'd prefer 'village' to be taken as anything smaller than 250, which seems more in tune with my understanding of a village.  However, that would be a lot of leg work unless one used a bot.  Hence, I've just left it as is.  It's not a disastrous definition at the moment, as it seems to chime with the definition of a 'traditional village' in the village article (i.e. 5 to 30 families).
 * I've created a category for villages, which can be populated with such settlements. I think the categorical definition should remain in line with the article's definition in the introduction.  Hence, unless there is an agreed redefinition (e.g. under 250 inhabitants), I think this category should be left as is and not depopulated piecemeal. Bastin 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had my conscience pricked, I'm now making the change. It may take a little while to complete.  Bastin 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)