This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
The figures and rank for Horndean are totally wrong. Per the source cited on that village's article, the 2011 census figure was 12,942, which would rank it 31st place, below Blackfield (another suspiciously high population, in my view, but not one I can locate a source to disprove) and above Hook. As for Locks Heath/Warsash/Whiteley, a glance at their articles and simple maths reveals a combined population of roughly 17,000, nowhere near the 43,000 suggested here. Then, of course, there's the issue that the source this article relies on for its 2011 figures doesn't show any of the figures cited when you open it, nor is it apparent where you're supposed to click to find the desired information. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to correct these, but if someone would like to do so, and also provide a direct inline link to the original figures as published by the ONS (preferably before the 2021 census is published!), please do.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The figures are taken from the urban area ONS statistics and subdivisions, search on the Nomis website for built-up area (2011) or urban area (2001) details for each area. And I would watch the article population numbers as those sometimes use parish counts which are different in various cases. A urban area name can encompass a much wider area than you would expect. The Locks Heath urban area is here for instance:
If I may suggest some improvements to make all of this clearer to readers, they would be:
state in the intro that the figures cover the urban areas, not just the parish/town boundaries as many people would probably assume;
cite each figure (or at least the 2011 ones) individually - presumably each entry on the table has its own page like the one you helpfully linked - as it's still not clear to me how the reader gets to there from where the source lands you.
The lead paragraph does mention these are built-up areas which is the term ONS use, and it is hyperlinked to an urban area article so it really is not misleading in any way.
Nomis in their early iterations only offered the database and web page scripting format to create a report of data, so you couldn't originally directly link to specific location populations, that citation link was to the page where you chose the location to the place and depended really on you having a semblance of knowing what to look for, as was all that was available at the time. The link to actual stats webpages like the one I provided in my last comment was a later addition to their site (you can tell from the more modern look of the Nomis area reports page), after this article had been had been created.
So you have to recognise that these articles have to initially make do with what citations are available at the time, and it's not always easy to keep tabs on new developments which allow for better referencing. But hopefully the volunteer Wiki army would eventually have updated it.
