In the United States, I’d probably name Oregon City, the famous end of the Oregon Trail and the first city founded west of the Rocky Mountains during the pioneer era. Its population is only 37,000.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Germany:

    Bielefeld. Everyone recognizes the name, it’s marked on all maps, officially it has a football club.
    But in reality, it doesn’t even exist.

    • 404@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      33 minutes ago

      I’d go with Port Arthur, Tasmania. 251 people from the 2016 census and the massacre is still burned into many people’s memories.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Probably Dildo, Newfoundland.

    You know why.

    Edit: Actually, I think Dawson City is smaller. It’s famous for being a big city back during the gold rush, despite being up near the arctic circle.

  • Wolf314159@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    In the US it must be Springfield because there’s so fucking many of them that they named made a TV show after it.

    Stupid sexy autocorrect.

  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The smallest Indian city that (almost) all Indians would know would be the hill resort of Shimla (pop 170,000). However, this is because a place is expected to have a population of about 100,000 to be declared a ‘city’, so for example New Delhi is only a town.

  • ben_dover@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    we have a town called “Fucking” with only a few hundred people living there. the town sign gets stolen once a month

  • guillem@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Puerto Hurraco. Population 100. Everybody in Spain recognises its name because of a shooting that got burned into the collective mind.

  • Storspoven@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    World recognition or in-country?

    If world I’d guess Huskvarna (pop 24 000) for Sweden.

    Known for having a company making chainsaws (among other things) named after it (Husqvarna). It is one of the two main brands of professional chainsaws (the other being Stihl).

    • LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I definitely recognized “Huskvarna” for some reason, but didn’t know its location or why I would have recognized it before reading your comment. I haven’t lived in Sweden or a place that would have been very easy for me to get to Sweden from.

  • rmuk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    In the UK it’s got to be the City of London. Famous for being an ancient city established by the Romans and awash with history, now one of the world’s biggest financial centers with a modern skyline of famously distinctive skyscrapers. It’s home to some world-famous landmarks like Saint Paul’s Cathedral and Tower Bridge, and has a population of about 10,000.

    The City of London is not to be confused with London, London, London or London.

  • Fondots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    For the US, I’d say a pretty strong contender is Woodstock, NY, with a population of around 6,000, and of course famous for the music festival of the same name (even though the actual festival was something like 60 miles away in Bethel)

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      A good number of these are examples where most people don’t actually know that the name comes from a town. I feel like they shouldn’t count.