Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/March

Infobox

Would anyone favour using an Infobox like the ones used in Manchester and Wolverhampton instead of the current one. Personally I prefer them, and as a rule all major cities seem to be getting them, while suburbs and smaller towns tend ti use the current one. Any ideas? Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For info, the one used at Manchester is {{Infobox Settlement}} and the one in the current Leeds is {{infobox UK place}}. Ah... have just found guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Infobox.2A, where they say:

All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement..

So if/when we agree that the Leeds we are writing about is "coterminous with a local govt district", then we are recommended to change to the {{Infobox Settlement}}. Can I suggest we leave it for now until that's resolved? PamD (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of the things causing problems on this article. If you look at pretty much every other major city in the UK they use the settlement infobox. If we did that here then we can leave the definition of Leeds ambiguous. At the moment there are no signs of the definition of Leeds being resolved, so why not ignore it instead?! As far as I know there is no obligation to stick to the UK geog guidelines, particularly in tricky situations like this. Quantpole (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, an info box is needed. It certainly adds clarity and improves ease of reading, and I cannot see any compelling reason not to have an infobox. Adding it now, before the Leeds page is eventually altered to adhere to the core policies, doesnt appear to offer any disadvantages either, only advantages in aiding clarity. --Razorlax (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

population data in infobox

Joshii, giving a reson to remove the population clarification in the infobox, you said "Thats not what the article is about and is already included in the lead". With respect, the same could be said about all other places. For example, The page Manchester is about Manchester, not the Greater Manchester Urban Area which already has an article, so why is it included in the infobox? And why again, given that it is already included in the lead?

The reason you gave is not compelling in any slight way as justification to remove something that adds much clarity. Infoboxes are to provide quick glance data on key elements that are in many instances already in the lead --Razorlax (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Leeds vs Leeds

Where is it written officially that anything other than the city of Leeds is defined as Leeds? I must stress, officially.

Until the admins and contributers learn to get along fully, Leeds could suffer, both article and city. Wikipedia is the main source of information for most of the world when it comes to learning about cities and it's just stupid that, to a degree, Leeds may suffer because of this.

In my opinion the articles should be merged, and even the city region population should be put in there. Either way, the national statistics define the population of 'Leeds' as the word Leeds, not '(The) City of Leeds', just Leeds, as 715,404 as of the last census, and so any article entitled 'Leeds' should have the population 715,404.

If the figure '443,247' has to be written, or if the public has to be informed of this near 'non figure', then a separate article should be created named 'Primary Urban Area of Leeds', or something along those lines in which this figure can be expressed.

It just makes sense to merge the articles. --Tubsuk (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The 443,247 figure can only be found on Wikipedia. If someone was to use any other source, they would be given the accurate figure which is estimated (mid-2007) as 761,100. The Leeds article also says that 443,247 is from the 2001 census. This is incorrect. The 2001 census said Leeds' population was 715,404.

This is not incorrect, the 443,247 figure is the correct population of the Leeds Urban sub-division according to the 2001 Census. --Statsfan (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has basically made up it's own rules and definitions of a city. It shouldn't do this, it should list the facts neutrally as they are given. Some people on here don't like the fact that Morley is in Leeds- that doesn't change the fact that it is though. Therefore, the population should include the outer suburbs like Morley and Otley.

Like some UK articles and articles of foreign cities, the Leeds article should list the city population and metropolitan (City Region) population. Original research shouldn't be allowed to be used instead of official figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.200 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I fully support the merging of The City of Leeds and Leeds, because they are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.200 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Like most, I'm in complete agreement, but this debate has seemingly been running for years. There's an almost cult-like fixation with the "urban core" (I know - comical as it is, rules don't appear to apply to the Leeds article).

Common sense, of course, would suggest that the article should encompass more than it currently does. At present, clear facets of the city, in any sense of the word, such as Horsforth and Pudsey are excluded as they don't fit with pre-1974 boundaries. No-one could reasonably assume that these places are any less a part of Leeds than Cross Gates or Bramley in 2009, but due to the fact a City of Leeds article demands the inclusion of outlying towns such as Wetherby and Otley, outdated ONS data has been used as a basis for the article.

Many, many people have advocated change, but a select few have resisted this. Little has been argued FOR the status quo - it seems the only real stumbling block is a continued lack of consensus, and as we all know only too well, no consensus = no change. My guess is that a lot of work has been put into early incarnations of the article by those resisting a merge, and pride sometimes prevails.

Until common sense prevails, this embarassingly flawed shambles is set to remain.

Thisrain (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP guidelines, one does not need concensus to remove unsourced or unverifiable information. Unsourced material can be removed at any time although reasonable time to find verifiable sources is expected. One guideline page on deletion even suggests just giving editors 3 days to find verifiable NPOV sources, before removing such information if no sources can be found (not waiting 5 years!). It has already been shown with extensive evidence that "Leeds" is City of Leeds officially, on the internet, in newspapers, encylopedia, and the government (see evidence), and any deviation from this breaks the core policies particularly Minority Point of View (which comes under the core policty of Neutral Point of View (and Original Research). Nobody has refuted this, and no counter argument that takes precedence over core policies has been put forward either. Thisrain (or admin JeremyA), I would suggest removing the lead sentence that still lacks a source, and using the correct lead that starts "Leeds is a city.." which is both verifiable and not original research or minority point of view. If anyone objects to this please exlpain why minority point of view should take precedence over the strict core policies of wikipedia, or if you do not believe the article breaks core policy then actually refute the evidence found here that shows that the current article very clearly breaks the core policies. If no refutals are given by editors after a number of days and Thisrain or admin JeremyA edits so that the article ceases to break core policies, I would ask editors not to revert the change under grounds that "no consensus has been made" as adviced in the WP guidline WP:DRNC as this is not a valid reason especially when such a revert would lead to an article that breaks core policy again...

( WP:DRNC states: "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". While not forbidden, this is rarely helpful. In the first place it discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection".) Razorlax (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Leeds Charter Trustees and Independent Towns?

If the City of Leeds Council is abolished or renamed, which area would have Charter Trustees to protect the city of Leeds? Just the urban sub-division of Leeds or a larger area? Does this help to ultimately decide the definition of the city of Leeds?

Incidentally, it appears there has been a change in the wording of the announcements which suggests city status is now bestowed on the "town" and not the "borough" or district as it seems was the case for Leeds and other 1974 cities. In the London Gazette of 5 February 2001 the wording of the Wolverhampton announcement says "...to ordain the Town of Wolverhampton shall have the status of a City" and for Brighton and Hove says "...the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City."

Have the people of places like Horsforth, Morley, Otley and Pudsey been asked whether they are part of Leeds or consider themselves independent towns? Should they be consulted before assumptions are made? --Statsfan (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Statsfan. With regards to your question, which area would have Charter Trustees to protect the city of Leeds if Leeds City Council was abolished.. well I dont think anyone knows, and it doesnt really help define what Leeds is by guessing. Besides, it would be original research to define what "Leeds" means on that basis. Only verifiable sources can be used (that do not constitute minority point of view), and so far the current article still lacks a reliable source to support the lead sentance for over 4 years now.

The only source for the population of "Leeds" is that of 761,200. The 443,247 figure is for "Leeds urban subdivision", which is not the same as the official and widely accepted interpretation of the word "Leeds". They are two different things. When not specifically refering to "leeds urban subdivision", whenever ONS refer to just "Leeds" (the same name as the wiki page Leeds they are always refering to the city, not a subdivision of leeds.[1][2]. Infact, the government, newspapers, encyclopedia, 99.6% of google instances, as well as multinational organisations such as EuroStat all interpret the word "Leeds" to mean the entire city, not a "subdivision", see evidence here. To have wiki go against all this and interpret the word "Leeds" differently constitutes Minority Point of View, breaking the core policy of Neutrality - which is non-negotiable. So far this still hasnt ben refuted. Thus to adhere to NPOV, NOR, and V, if a wiki page is going to discuss the area defined by 'leeds urban subdivison', that page must be called Leeds Urban Subdivision or something similar, not misleadingley called Leeds, whilst Leeds needs to start with the lead "Leeds is a City..." . --Razorlax (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Following a distinct lack of input from those opposing a merge over the past few months, I would suggest consensus has now been reached. The evidence of primary usage is irrefutable, and arguments that the article should continue to focus on an urban core based on virtually unused statistical constructs have all but been discredited. This is due in no small part to the sheer amount of work that Razorlax has done, and to which no rebuttals (as far as I'm aware) have been made. Whilst we all wish the MB had a different name (or Wetherby was that little bit closer!) I can see no further point in delaying a move towards making this article something we can all be proud of - something we can all work on to improve and one that no longer ostracises large chunks of the City, or one that's littered with contradiction at every turn. Leeds is a city, after all, and is what this article should always have been about. I think the time has come to make it so. Thisrain (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because people have given up commenting doesn't mean that they've changed their minds. Rebuttals have been made and ignored. This whole episode has been about the worst of Wikipedia - he who shouts longest and loudest wins, and let's be honest here, it's really all about the Leeds - Manchester rivalry. Leeds is the larger in the majority of statistics, so get over it.

The so-called "overwhelming evidence" is nothing of the sort - a number of the references given as showing that the word "Leeds" infact means the whole city may or may not refer to either variant of the use of "Leeds", and some quite definately relate to the urban area, whilst others do refer to the local government district.

The Google searches have been seeded to deliberately exclude terms harmful to the case that has been attempted and so it is not from a neutral POV. A simple search of +leeds +443247 gives 12,400 Google hits, yet +leeds +761200 gives only 11,200. Now, that's not a fair test, as it only uses the number for the 2007 estimated population for the local government district, and addition of the 2006 figure will result in more results for the local government district; but again it shows that the argument used is flawed.

The use of the ONS's statistics as being an argument that Leeds solely means the local government district is flawed. The ONS use the term "Leeds" to refer to the urban subdivision when showing statistics based on Urban Areas, use the term "Leeds" to refer to the local government district when showing statistics for local government districts, and use the term "Leeds" to refer to the Travel to Work Area when showing statistics based on TTWAs.

EU bodies do not always refer to "Leeds" as being equal to the local government district - the Leeds Functional Urban Area (from an ESPON report part written by Leeds Metropolitan University), for example, has a given population of 424,194. Whilst I'm not for a minute suggesting that that is a particularly relevant item (though interesting statistically), it gives the lie to another of the stated so-called "facts" above.

Having said all that, a single well-written article containing data about both variants of Leeds would not be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned. In that case I would see, for example, a demography section something like that on Eccles, with one section that deals with the local govenment district, and another for the urban subdivision. I rather suspect that the article will then become too large and will need splitting (again).

Currently no-one seems to want to do any work on the articles Leeds and City of Leeds, and the behaviour of certain individuals has done nothing more than drive away contributors - I've certainly got better things to do with my limited time than spend it all on here discussing with people who won't listen. Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the version of "Leeds" which the new Google Streetview covers - nothing north of the Ring Road! (Go to http://maps.google.co.uk/maps, search "Leeds", and drag the little golden pinman over the city to see what goes blue).

The above remark about Leeds/Manchester rivalry may apply to some editors but certainly not myself - I live in Leeds, know that Leeds exists as an entity smaller than the Metropolitan District (and difficult to define), but have already said that I'll go along with a single unified article. As Fingerpuppet says, this row has driven many useful potential contributors away. I'd be happy to see (a) a unified article, (b) clarity in all definitions of Categories etc to indicate that "Leeds" is a unit parallel with "Kirklees" rather than with "Huddersfield", (c) clarity in articles such as History of Leeds which might well define their subject matter as "the ancient settlement and former county borough of Leeds, a smaller area than the current city" or similar, and (d) some progress towards improving the shambles that is the current pair of articles and associated template. PamD (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree entirely with PamD. I also live in the city, but having only lived here for little over two years, this supposed "rivalry" has no bearing whatsoever on my views. I would say that beyond the ring road, Holt Park, Adel and Alwoodley are parts of Leeds, but beyond the Eccup reservoir and Bramhope we're beginning to clutch at straws. However, I've said from day one that I'm more in favour of inclusion over exclusion. I don't believe for one minute that a Leeds article could ever by complete by exempting Horsforth/Pudsey/Morley etc on the basis of pre-1974 boundaries. It's 2009, and Leeds has changed dramatically over the past 35 years. That a City of Leeds article warrants the inclusion of Wetherby/Otley etc, whilst far from perfect, is the lesser of the two evils as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the modern definition of Leeds is on a par with Calderdale or Kirklees, but this IS the modern definition of Leeds, and what I believe the primary Leeds article should represent. Thisrain (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Who officially decided this "modern definition" and where does that leave Halifax and Huddersfield?--Statsfan (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer those two questions: (a) Local Government reorganisation act 1974 or thereabouts (can't be bothered to check exact title) and (b) they are towns within Calderdale and Kirklees. Yes, in some ways the smaller "Leeds" many of us recognise could be treated in the same way, but in the interests of making some progress I'm willing to let it be absorbed into one article covering "Leeds" with its modern boundaries (ie including Otley and Wetherby). PamD (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Counter Rebuttals

User:Fingerpuppet said: The so-called "overwhelming evidence" is nothing of the sort - a number of the references given as showing that the word "Leeds" infact means the whole city may or may not refer to either variant of the use of "Leeds", and some quite definately relate to the urban area, whilst others do refer to the local government district.

Firstly it is not a number of references, but rather a sample set of references from across the board, from government bodies, encylopedia, news stations, newspapers, internet, health boards, universities, dictionaries etc - to show that in all areas, Leeds is interpreted as being a city, not a subdivision. Secondly, and most importantly, your refutal is that you state that these sources may or may not refer to urban area. Erm, how? They all state Leeds is a city (not a subdivision/urban area of a wider city) - Are you sure you are looking at the right references? They are here. All these sources clearly state "Leeds is a city" and they clearly state Leeds' population being that of the city.. eg "Leeds is a city with a population of 750,000". Now in which way can they possibley be refering to the urban area - because the urban area is not a city, and the urban area has a population of around 440,000. The evidence is nothing short of unanimous and is just a short but comprehensive list from across the board as adviced in WP:Naming_Conflict and WP:Widely_Accepted_Name..(it would be impossible to list all the millions of examples). And just to re-iterate, we dont have a comprehensive list of evidence from across the board to support the view that "Leeds is the urban core of the city of leeds" - infact, we dont even have a single source, and havent found one for 4 years! Wikipedia guidelines suggest 3 days as reasonable time to find NPOV sources before remove said unsourced statements.

User:Fingerpuppet said: The Google searches have been seeded to deliberately exclude terms harmful to the case that has been attempted and so it is not from a neutral POV. A simple search of +leeds +443247 gives 12,400 Google hits, yet +leeds +761200 gives only 11,200. Now, that's not a fair test, as it only uses the number for the 2007 estimated population for the local government district, and addition of the 2006 figure will result in more results for the local government district; but again it shows that the argument used is flawed.

If you are going to rebutt this evidence by suggesting that the google search phrase I used has been engineered to be biased, please point out which parameters within the search string is biased and why you believe this to be, so that I can refute it. However, even using your simpler (and less accurate) search parameters for google, you forgot to use "-wikipedia" to omit counting instances from wiki itself. Using ( +leeds +population +443247 -wikipedia ) gives 506 hits. Of the results, you'll find most of them actually are websites that have unwittingly just copied the information from wiki Leeds, word for word. Using the following parameter in google to help weed this out ( -"According to the 2001 UK census, the population of the Leeds urban area was 443247 whereas the wider city" ) drops the results down to 96 hits. And even then, most of them are *still* results whipped straight out of wikipedia! In stark contrast, using the phrase ( +leeds +population +750000 -wikipedia ) gives 13,500 hits (99.3% of instances!!). This is ignoring all the other years' mid-year estimates which give over 40,000 hits together. Incidently, there is no flaw using google to find basic popular usage in naming convention, infact wikipedia guidlines specifically recommend it in WP Naming Disputes. And incase there is still ambiguity (there really isnt here), it suggests the combination of other methods too, which is consulting other encylopedia, newspapers, and official sources and bodies.. all of which I have done).

User:Fingerpuppet said: The use of the ONS's statistics as being an argument that Leeds solely means the local government district is flawed. The ONS use the term "Leeds" to refer to the urban subdivision when showing statistics based on Urban Areas, use the term "Leeds" to refer to the local government district when showing statistics for local government districts, and use the term "Leeds" to refer to the Travel to Work Area when showing statistics based on TTWAs.

Yes this is true ONS use the term "Leeds" to refer to the urban subdivision when showing statistics based on Urban Areas, and use the term "Leeds" to refer to the local government district when showing statistics for local government districts, however when not refering to Urban Areas, or Local Gorvernment Districts, all throughout ONS they call Leeds a city, and never a subdivision or core of wider City of Leeds. If you feel this is not true, by all means please find a single a source on ons.gov.uk, census.gov.uk, or statistics.gov.uk that asserts that Leeds is the core of the government district City of Leeds, as opposed to "Leeds is a city" (something that is stated throughout ONS, and numerous government linked bodies).

User:Fingerpuppet said: EU bodies do not always refer to "Leeds" as being equal to the local government district - the Leeds Functional Urban Area (from an ESPON report part written by Leeds Metropolitan University), for example, has a given population of 424,194. Whilst I'm not for a minute suggesting that that is a particularly relevant item (though interesting statistically), it gives the lie to another of the stated so-called "facts" above.

This is easily refuted. The "Leeds Functional Urban Area" is about the "Leeds functional urban area' - which is not the same as "Leeds". Moreover, Eurostat isnt just any old group or body or university study, it is the official and sole EU statistics board much like a massive ONS for Europe. It works in collaboration with ONS incidently, with numerous joint reports being published.

Fingerpuppet if you feel there are strong counter rebuttals to my replies, please respond. I would like to hope now that we can move forward and change the lead from being a minority point of view that breaks core policies and lacks a verifiable source, to return to admin JeremyA's edit, that being a comprehensively sourced verifiable NPOV lead that starts "Leeds is a city..". I'd also like to point out that under wikipedia guidelines and normal circumstances, a contentious statement can be removed with little discussion if it does not have a verifiable source to back it up. And, actually, the burdeon of evidence lays with those wishing to keep an unsourced contentious statement by providing verifiable NPOV sources to back it up, not the other way round as has been done here. Razorlax (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we move on?

Razorlax has just quoted various extracts from Fingerpuppet. But here's another quote from him/her: "Having said all that, a single well-written article containing data about both variants of Leeds would not be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned.". That's really helpful, thanks. It begins to look as if we do have consensus (reluctant, on behalf of some of us, but as a better option than another few years of constant rows) for a single article. But I stick with my suggestion, of some time ago, that we need a nonstandard section directly after the lead, called "definitions of Leeds" or similar, which discusses the historic (ancient, county borough, etc) and current (the various statistical entitities, postal addresses, popular usage) uses of "Leeds" which may not correspond to the current city boundary - before going on to an article which covers the whole city unless for any particular topic there is a well-founded reason for a section of the city to be treated separately. PamD (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting things on an even more constructive track. This sounds like an excellent way forward. While I am still not convinced that Leeds is so special in this respect, such a section seems reasonable for most big cities and if it can serve to make the compromise more acceptable I will be happy with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PamD, I'm happy with that too. I feel it would be most productive making the change to "Leeds is a city" live and then making live edits over time jointly to the article in the spirit of wiki to work on a continually improving 'Definitions of Leeds' subheading rather than attempting to come up with a paragraph within the talk page before making a change. --Razorlax (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think attention should be paid within the article to the different definitions of Leeds. It's clear that there may be some readers who come across the page and read how Otley has suddenly become part of the city, despite swathes of countryside separating the two. Issues such as this obviously need to be addressed with clarity and conciseness, though I think this would be less difficult than it has been attempting to define Leeds as its 'urban core'. I don't believe in which order changes are made is of paramount importance, as long as the changes are made. In addition, I don't think there should be any further delay. Once the floodgates have opened it will develop organically as editors, dismayed by years of wrangling, are attracted back. I do hope this isn't another false dawn. Thisrain (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we actually getting somewhere now? It's starting to look like there could be a decent article--Tubs uk (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

...Moving Forward

okay, here goes..( big deep breath :P ) In mutual agreement, and concensus by those above and over the last 3 weeks, I have changed the lead from being a minority point of view that breaks core policies (see evidence here), and lacks a single verifiable source, to return to admin JeremyA's edit, that being a comprehensively sourced verifiable NPOV lead that starts "Leeds is a city.." To those considering a revert, I'd like to remind editors of the following:

1. Reading WP guidelines, even though a consensus from the interested parties above has come about, one does not actually need concensus to remove unsourced or unverifiable information. Unsourced material such as the lead "Leeds is the urban core and administrative centre of the City of Leeds can be removed at any time although reasonable time to find verifiable sources is expected. One guideline page on deletion even suggests just giving editors 3 days to find verifiable NPOV sources, before removing such information if no sources can be found (not waiting 5 years as we have patiently done here!).
2. It has already been shown with extensive evidence that "Leeds" is City of Leeds officially, on the internet, in newspapers, encylopedia, and the government (see evidence), and any deviation from this breaks the core policies as it is a representation of Minority Point of View (which comes under the core policty of Neutral Point of View (and Original Research). Despite reasonable time and oppurtunity gievn, there has been no conclusive refutals of this, and no counter argument that takes precedence over core policies has been put forward either.
3. I would ask editors not to revert the change under grounds that "no consensus has been made" as this is against the WP guidline WP:DRNC which states "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". While not forbidden, this is rarely helpful. In the first place it discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection"
4. Moreover, using BRD to simply revert would lead to an article that returns to having an unsourced lead that breaks the non-negotiable core policies of wikipedia again.
5. And finally dilligent editors will know that actually, the burdeon of evidence lays with those wishing to keep an unsourced contentious statement by providing verifiable NPOV sources to back it up, not the other way round as has been painstakingly done here.

I would like to hope that we can all now move forward and dedicate more time to improving Leeds into becoming a FA (which may start with correcting the spelling mistakes which I have probably added :P ) Razorlax (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

merger logistics

Just looking at what is left on the City of Leeds page, it appears that it is virtually the same type conent as Government of Birmingham and Manchester City Council now, although the history section is obviously a little longer to explain the expansion from county borough to metropolitan borough (which could potentially be expanded further at some point). Would it make sense to rename the page to something along the lines of Government of Leeds / Leeds City Council ? I had initially thought the page would end up being called something like Leeds Metropolitan District or something "district" related, however it seems that what has organically been left after copying thing across seems more suited to one of the latter titles. What do you guys suggest/propose? --Razorlax (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I favour a move from City of Leeds to either (a) Local government in Leeds or (b) Leeds city council, with City of Leeds re-directing here. Truly, though, excellent work by everyone involved so far. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should probably avoid Leeds City Council because that was the name of a previous page whose history might complicate matters. Government of Leeds might be best, but let's hang around a bit and wait for further input, there's no rush on this. Somewhere we need to mention about the few things which are still done at West Yorkshire level, too (inspired by the Brum page). PamD (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PamD. Using Government of Leeds would offer wider scope, and just like Government of Birmingham can be split into subsections such as history, birmingham city council, wards, regional assemblies, and westminster etc. Essentially, it is the main article for the Governance section of Leeds and is the perfect home for all the information that is now left on the City of Leeds page. That said, whichever name is used for now can be changed easily (i dont think there is any contention amongst anyone). I think what is important is a speedy change from City of Leeds whose name, now being redunant - and the page now only covering governance, is likely to confuse people who visit the page with its current name. --Razorlax (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of implementing some of the suggested changes (which can be reverted if need be). To summarize, I've renamed the page to Government of Leeds, and sorted all the re-directs. I've done a re-jig of the remaining paragraphs what were left on the page as a temporary measure until the page is fully developed, which i think may entail a re-write with inspiration from the birmingham and manchester equivs. It may be an idea to start using the article's own talk page now for discussions on changes and improvements to it (provided all are ok with the changed name etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorlax (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC) oops --Razorlax (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)