Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/September

This is an archive of past discussions about Leeds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nightlife section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While the ensuing arguement is continuing, does anyone agree the nighlife section needs rewriting. There is a subpage - 'Nightlife in Leeds' which could take a lot of the detail. This section is unencyclopedic and needs taking out and rewritting. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not just nightlife

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I think the whole shooting match needs a good overhaul!!! The regular editors have done a valiant job of trying to modify, defend, improve and maintain against tremendous odds and maybe the discussion above is a good chance to clear the air and start an article drive. Whatever the outcome of the split/merge discussion I would be willing to assist.--Harkey (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree there are underlying issues with large parts of the article. It is not a bad article but ones with so many edits (often from inexperienced/casual users) need a clean up from time to time. The nighlife section I would say is by far the most shambolic and needs rewriting as our first priority. Mtaylor848 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And however we may disagree with those from the wrong side of the pennines, it must be said that they do tremendous article work. Quantpole (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement on that point. --Harkey (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The split-off articles such as Economy of Leeds (totally unsourced) and Architecture of Leeds (GA but lacking quite a lot, especially if "Leeds" means the district) also need some attention. PamD (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Leeds navbox and it's linked articles. As so many of the links refer back to the main Leeds page and many articles depend on it for a definition of scope, it might be as well to wait for the outcome of the above debate before proceeding with any major revisions. I am able to try a copyedit on Nightlife in Leeds but my idea of nightlife is a cup of cocoa (really sad) so I'm unsure of what the organisation and content should be.--Harkey (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take it upon myself to try and develop the Economy of Leeds page. Perhaps some changes could be made to Architecture of Leeds to bring it in line with the whole city (this should be done carefully as it took many of us a lot of work to get it to GA and then have it peer reviewed and if any changes made are not of the right quality we could lose GA). Architecture of Leeds does make an occasional reference to Wetherby and Otley but it could be more balanced (although most of the notable content is in Central Leeds). Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to hold off until we know which "Leeds" the Economy is of! Unless we know what WikiPedia means by "Leeds", we can't produce a sensible "Economy of Leeds" article. PamD (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This might help with the economy. See also Leeds City Region.--Harkey (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Leeds

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There has been a wikiproject Leeds page (see top of page) which has largely gone unnoticed (I only found it recently). Might I suggest anyone interested in Leeds or Leeds based articles joins. Wikiproject:Yorkshire is now far too broad to focus on Leeds based pages (of which there are probably a couple of hundred now). Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there will be more active contributors to Leeds articles once the present issues are healthily resolved.--Harkey (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Split

Latest comment: 15 years ago240 comments15 people in discussion

Split/merge discussion

I would like to suggest that the current Leeds article should be split to create Leeds, West Yorkshire and City of Leeds. My rationale is as follows:

The built-up area of Leeds is much smaller than the district boundaries and the district has a considerable rural hinterland.
There are a considerable number of other distinct settlements in the district.
The ONS population figure for Leeds does not include the whole district.
The boundaries are relatively recently established, indicating the district is an amalgamation of settlements.
There are civil parishes in the district, indicating distinct places for the purposes of local government.
The district is the geographically large (82 out of 326) indicating it covers a much wider area than a single settlement.

I understand that there is potential confusion between the two areas, and this can be avoided by using Leeds as the disambiguation. There are around 150 settlements that share the name of a district in England. We have combined only 45 of these as a settlement that occupies the same area as a district and looking at the criteria these have in common, Leeds stands out as an exception. MRSC (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While I fully agree with you that the article should be split, as your table shows very clearly, this talk page and its archives (at least as far back as November 2008, possibly earlier) show that until very recently this was two articles that were merged following a very acrimonious discussion. My memory and a cursory glance at the archives don't lead me to finding any clear consensus to merge (it seems that like me the other people on the side of keeping them separate got tired of the debate before the merge proponents did). This has led to the odd situation where the Leeds article purports to be about an area that cannot be subdivided, we have the article Places in Leeds that demonstrates otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Since when can a city not be subdivided into constituent settlements? Pretty much every city has been formed from an agglomeration of settlements. Quantpole (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while geographically there is of course a settlement called "Leeds", there is no legal entity that approximates its area. In fact, the legal entity that best approximates the settlement is the City of Leeds. Supporters of what was then the two-article status quo were unable to prove that it is normal to make the distinction. And they could not point to a precise definition other than 1) the "Leeds Urban Area", a construct that exists only in official statistics and on which there is no literature other than statistical data; or 2) the rigid (and by now outdated) definition in terms of those wards which were part of Leeds before it was extended. The best way to treat such an ambiguity which is usually glossed over is to put both topics into the same article and gloss over the differences where appropriate. For a similar example, consider France. Does it include Réunion? Politically, yes (except it's outside the Schengen area and the European Union Value Added Tax Area). Geographically, no. And yet we have only a single article for the political and the geographical country, which glosses over the difference where appropriate. And it's the same on the French Wikipedia. (I would have used the UK with its overseas territories and the Channel Islands as an example, except it's less convincing since the analogy is less clear in that case.) The schizophrenia also led into severe difficulties when trying to talk about the settlement, since pedants objected to referring to the settlement as a "city" since it doesn't have city status (and can't, because legally it doesn't even exist)! And the twin towns were listed in both articles, since they are formally twins of the City of Leeds, but generally thought of as twins of the settlement. (Otley has its own twin towns, for example.)

Anyway, even among cities this situation is not unique to Leeds. Almost all (probably all) cities have similar demarcation problems, although to varying extent. This tiny village is part of the city of Mannheim. Freiburg im Breisgau is Germany's city with the greatest differences of altitude (> 1000 metres) because Mount Schauinsland [1], one of the highest Black Forest summits, is officially part of the city. Of course the city area also includes a number of distinct villages such as de:Günterstal [2], which is connected to the city by a tram that runs through a typical Black Forest village. [3] What's so special about Leeds that it needs to be among the vanishingly few cities that get two Wikipedia articles? Hans Adler 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not again, please! - While I agree that Leeds and City of Leeds district are different entities, after the horrors of previous debate I came to the conclusion that the future of Wikipedia is better served by combining the two into one article - it's difficult to define what many of us "know" to be Leeds, and the opposing voices were loud and stubborn. Please let's not waste time going round all the "split" arguments again. Our collective energies are better spend on improving the existing, somewhat shambolic, article. PamD (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the split, and opposed the merger with equal conviction, for reasons that can be veiwed in the archives. There simply was no consensus to merge the two (as there was opposition that was not just catered for). But, putting that aside, I think MRSC you make a sound case about meeting verifiability; we were promised and promised again that this merger would be a good thing for Leeds and that its article(s) would improve - it hasn't happened. Contrawise, a disambiguation system I suggested has produced GAs from City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester and vastly improved pages for Carlisle and City of Carlisle, results that Leeds should emulate. --Jza84 | Talk 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see broad agreement with the criteria I have outlined and concerns about the articles being previously merged against consensus. I have sympathy with the desire to have an easy life. Based on this, I suggest that we move:

Government of Leeds to City of Leeds (in effect it is the outline of that article now)
Leeds to Leeds, West Yorkshire (in line with Salford, Greater Manchester and City of Salford)
Leeds (disambiguation) to Leeds

When the moves are complete we can then copyedit information relating to the whole district from Leeds, West Yorkshire to City of Leeds. MRSC (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to go back and read the archives. There was very strong evidence against such a system. What you are proposing is far more confusing than what we have now, and is not needed. I also suggest that you do take the alleged 'merge against consensus' with a very string pinch of salt. Quantpole (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read that archives, and I cannot see consensus for merging the articles (although neither can I see consensus for keeping them separate. The latter was though the stronger case (imho) and was the status quo). I reiterate my support for the split, but I disagree with moving the disambiguation to the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the archives, and the basis (if not the rationale) for the merger was pretty thin. MRSC's evidence is very strong. I would again point out that the two Salford's are both GAs, and the disamibugation has helped clear the issue. --Jza84 | Talk 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I cannot see is an alternative set of criteria emerging to justify the split/merger. Does one exist? MRSC (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been off wikipedia for some time now, after the initial forced merge of this article I just gave up hope and decided not to bother anymore. I have just come back on to voice my support for this split but I am not willing to go into a huge debate about it for the second time. The evidence for keeping it as two articles was outlined when there was first a proposal and it is still in the archives. There was only a merge because a small minority of users claimed consensus. I hope those users will see reason and opt for the correct way to display information rather than the current state of affairs. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The crunch question, I think, is: "If "Leeds" (or "Leeds, West Yorkshire") is not equal to "City of Leeds" district, then what/where is it?" Unless we can define it (verifiably and unambiguously), splitting the article will lead back to chaos. I'd prefer to see the articles split, but only if we can define our subject - and last time round we couldn't, so the "mergers" triumphed. PamD (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To echo what Pam has said, (and if you look back through the archive, you will notice this as well), I am happy for separate articles on the administrative area and the settlement. The problem I have is then defining this settlement as the ONS Subdivision. The ONS make no claim that this defines what Leeds is, and neither should we. I also think having a disambig page at 'Leeds' is terrible. The article at the moment clearly defines what is being talked about, and it is in the lede about how it includes Wetherby etc. This is all verifiable and reliably sourced. Quantpole (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

From memory (I'll need to check the archives again when I'm more awake) it was verifiable what all the parts of the district that are not part of the settlement called Leeds were. i.e. it is verifiable what area the district covers, and it is verifiable what parts of the district are not the settlement of Leeds, which means that we knew what area was Leeds by a process of elimination (if D=A+B+C and you know the area of D, B and C then the part that is left must be A) but nothing more than that. I cannot remember if this area matched the ONS area or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It was verifiable that there were separate settlements in Leeds the borough, but it was not verifiable that these could be 'knocked off' the borough to give Leeds the settlement as the remainder. Quantpole (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

We need criteria to decide if an article should be merged or split. I have identified the criteria above and it points to a split on the same basis as 100 other articles in a similar position. I suggest we move it according to our de facto policy on districts named after their principle settlement. MRSC (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, doesn't work with the current article? We shouldn't be trying to wedge an article to fit some arbitrary system, which may work very well for Greater Manchester articles, but it doesn't for Leeds. Quantpole (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is outlined in my first post. Can you explain in what way the problems I have outlined are untrue? MRSC (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually said why any of those things is a problem. The article is very clear that it is about the metropolitan borough, not some unverifiable settlement in the middle of it. Quantpole (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean Pudsey is unverifiable? Or even better, Salford in the city of Salford? --Jza84 | Talk 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because there aren't sources that describe Pudsey in different ways. Of all the sources about Leeds, the vast majority refer to it as meaning the metropolitan borough. I don't actually think that is correct, but it is more correct, and more in keeping with the sources than to take an ONS figure out of context. I don't know much about Salford so couldn't comment. Quantpole (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point entirely. I asked if Pudsey is unverifiable to which you said "No, because there aren't sources that describe Pudsey in different ways"; that doesn't answer my question. You then say the only "the vast majority refer to it as meaning the metropolitan borough", which not only is unqualified (you have not done or provided an audit) but also concedes that there are sources that describe Leeds in more than one way, like um, Pudsey? I would like you to explain this again, as I'm deeply concerned here that there are double-standards and weaknesses in your conjecture. --Jza84 | Talk 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in trawling through a whole load of sources again. It is verifiable that Pudsey exists, and it is verifiable that Leeds (the settlement) exists. What is not verifiable is defining the boundaries of the post 1974 Leeds (the settlement). The difference is that Leeds expanded to become the borough whereas Pudsey was simply incorporated it. Quantpole (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh! Sorry, this opens up another wound and really, I'm afraid, allows an attack from another angle.... now then, you say clearly in black and white that "Leeds expanded to become the borough". Proof please? What part of the LGA72 extended Leeds? I'll spare you the time and effort, and tell you now that there is no proof, but I'm interested in your response to this. After which I'll come back to your admission that a "verifiable" settlement called Leeds exists. --Jza84 | Talk 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the city status and name was transferred from the county borough to the metropolitan borough, is pretty reasonable to describe it as expanding even if it's not on the legal statutes. I don't deny that a verifiable Leeds (settlement) exists, but what we do not have is a verifiable definition the extents ot the place. Quantpole (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case I assume the village of Sefton, Merseyside was expanded to become the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton? ;) --Jza84 | Talk 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In the earlier debate, I was heavily in favour of a merge on the basis that a Leeds article based on pre-1974 boundaries didn't reflect the city today. This remains my stance. The article at the time was riddled with inconsistencies, and by extending a Leeds article to include all areas within the MB, these were addressed. Rehashing decades-old boundaries serves only to confuse; they may sate the needs of ONS fetishists, but have little relevance in 2009. What do we say to the five year old from Horsforth that discovers, on reading wikipedia, that Leeds doesn't quite extend that far when in truth, and by the current definition, it does? Our children will know Leeds only as the Metropolitan Borough, and an article exluding parts of the built up area simply because we don't like that there's a rural element to the City does a complete disservice. If there were recent definitions of Leeds as the built up area we all know exists (inclusive of Pudsey/Horsforth etc, but that doesn't extend as far as Otley and Wetherby), then of course, that would be ideal. This is not an ideal situation, however. An article based on outdated definitions would be wholly unrepresentative, and in my opinion, a split would prove regressive. Thisrain (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see broad acceptance of the criteria above, and an acceptance of the existence of Leeds the settlement. However, we appear to be tying ourselves up in knots about boundaries. UK settlements do not have verifiable boundaries outside of parishes, districts and counties. In London for example we have over 600 articles in Category:Districts of London, but not one has any evidence of boundaries beyond what boundaries it had in the past, often going back to the 1930s or earlier. As with all other settlements, you have to work with the information that is available. You have the ONS population figures, including demography; and the defined unparished area of Leeds. In terms of history you also have a defined area pre-1974, with a body of literature describing that. MRSC (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm half in agreement with you, but I don't understand how your proposed split helps things. Rather than clarifying things it confuses it. To get around this confusion you are proposing a disambig page at 'Leeds', which is far from ideal. Quantpole (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially the same situation at Salford - City of Salford - Salford, Greater Manchester. MRSC (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I realise that, I just don't see how that is of greater benefit to our readers than the current situation at Leeds. Quantpole (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, looking at content for example (which is what this should really be about), look at Leeds#History, compared with City_of_Salford#History and then Salford,_Greater_Manchester#History: it's no contest. Putting asside the fact that they should never have been merged, and a criteria supports this, the split would provide fruitful for Leeds anyway. It really would be fantastic, and not the muddled mess we have now. --Jza84 | Talk 14:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Further notes - the 'defined area' pre-1974 was the county borough, which itself had been formed from previously distinct settlements. What evidence is there that the county borough adequately defines what Leeds was/is. The last changes to the county borough boundary were in 1928, so if we are to use this as Leeds we are relying on a definition that is 80 years old. London is different because there is not one settlement that dominates the city, and the neighbouring settlements effectively constrained each other. With Leeds there is one city that has absorbed surrounding villages and towns. This process didn't just stop in 1928. I also don't understand what the parished areas have to do with anything. Some of the parished areas in the metropolitan borough were part of the previous county borough, and others were not. Quantpole (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can some of the current parished areas have been in the county borough if you are claiming the current unparished area is the same as the county borough? MRSC (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All I know is the places such as Alwoodley are civil parishes, yet were in the county borough. I didn't think I had claimed that the current unparished area is the same as the county borough. Quantpole (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Parished areas represent distinct places for the purposes of local government. Looking at districts that are entirely filled by their main settlement, there are very few or no parishes. An unparished area surrounded by a number of parishes indicates a main settlement distinct from its hinterland. MRSC (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But with Leeds you have some unparished areas (Pudsey, Guiseley etc) that were not part of the previous county borough. My understanding of parishes now is that any area can apply to become a parish. This happened with Horsforth in 1999 [4]. The situation is a messy one that does not lend itself to a blanket policy. Quantpole (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 2

Thrydulf's argument above that we can define "Leeds" by subtracting every other settlement from the metropolitan district just does not work for this place. Consider Headingley: long-established township, mentioned in Domesday book, still has a very distinct identity though well within the ring road. Hunslet was a separate registration district until quite late. Alwoodley has a parish council. Subtract all of those (and Sheepscar, Hyde Park, Leeds etc) and you aren't left with much, certainly you have much less than the urban area people now know as "Leeds". Leeds has historically had a multiplicity of definitions, and was, if I remember right, historically one of the largest civil parishes with multiple identified townships within it.

But life is too short for another round of this saga. If you decide to unmerge the article then please treat very carefully the table at Places in Leeds which was created after the decision to merge the articles, and take care to roll back all the other changes which various people introduced at that stage. I don't think I can bear to stay around. (But no promises!) PamD (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Places in Leeds is a list of places in the whole district, so there is no problem with the article. It is quite common to have such lists organised by local government district. MRSC (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep them together - We have allready had this discussion when wew merged. As a result of the merger we have, I believe a much better article. There is no broad Wikipedia consensus, but most cities are merged. No one could define this area of 'Leeds' but apparantly Horsforth, Pudsey and Morley were not part of the urban sprawl, even though they have long since been swallowed up. We can not have an article that has vague boudaries which none of us can ever agree on. While Leeds in its official entity does include outlying villages and two outlying towns, they all have little independent identity and are by and large commuter towns economically dependent on their proximity to the city's business districts. Uisng the official boundaries for the article gives it a clear concise definition, and that is why I would strongly oppose any split. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose splitting the article. (Just in case it wasn't clear from my lengthy explanations above.) Almost all cities in the world have a discrepancy between their political and geographical definitions, and almost all cities of the world have only a single entry in just about every encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. In the case of Leeds this discrepancy isn't so unusually big as to justify special treatment; it's merely more present in some people's minds, since there was a relatively recent very significant expansion of the political boundaries. Even if it were feasible to have two separate, reasonable articles, it wouldn't be necessary. Encyclopedias are different from dictionaries in that they tend to discuss related topics in a single article. We can save our readers the confusion. Hans Adler 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Although it is an option to voice opposition, it isn't really grounded in much substance when one realises there was never a consensus to merge anyway; the split should be restored. This also doesn't take in to consideration WP:UKDISTRICTS. Again, too, what part of the LGA72 "expanded" the County Borough of Leeds? - because I keep seeing this as 'the' arguement that the merger hinges on. --Jza84 | Talk 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This opinion is not grounded in fact. We have 100 settlements in England alone with split articles. "Almost all cities in the world" is simply not true. MRSC (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am only familiar with the situation concerning Leeds, because I happen to have lived there for 2 years. But it's conceivable to me that WP:UKDISTRICTS is simply wrong and that a number of UK related articles get it wrong. If a district is called "City of ..." and has a "Lord Mayor" at the top, if it is dominated by a huge settlement for which no other legal entity comes close to being an approximation, then only pedants will make the distinction outside contexts where it actually matters. In this situation a split article is unnatural and utterly confusing.

I have never experienced such pedants outside Wikipedia. But here I have been told by some of them that in the UK the word "city" cannot possibly be used to refer to a settlement unless that settlement happens to be a legal entity with official city status or town walls. A claim that is verifiably wrong, but which was promoted vigorously and (at a time when I was the only one opposing it with some energy) with the insinuation that I am unable to read dictionaries (where "big settlement" is always one of the definitions, often the first, and never with any warnings that it doesn't apply in the UK) because I am not a native speaker of English. I am not looking forward to a repetition of all this nonsense, or to a repetition of the edit war against the myriads of anonymous IPs from Leeds who try to complete the main article on "Leeds" by adding areas of the City of Leeds that are not part of the settlement. Hans Adler 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose a split for the reasons outlined above, and over the course of the previous debate. The confusion would alienate editors, as happened before, and would doubtless result in a re-merge in time. That MRSC has "been away" and dislikes the change is not a reason in itself to create upheaval. Indeed, I disagree from memory that the merge came about without consensus; there was certainly more consensus to merge than there is now to split. Our efforts would be better put into making the Leeds article a good article as it stands, and not by creating disambiguation pages purely for the benefit of the statistics obsessed. The last thing we need is a Halifax, Nova Scotia scenario. Leeds IS the Metropolitan Borough. Any other definition should have been discarded 35 years ago.Thisrain (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I have some observations:

I also strongly oppose a split for the reasons outlined above

What reasons?

The confusion would alienate editors, as happened before,

That isn't a substantive reason to make changes to any article one way or another, it should be based on fact

That MRSC has "been away" and dislikes the change is not a reason in itself to create upheaval.

Where has this been given as a reason do anythingt? Why are you singling me out like this?

and not by creating disambiguation pages purely for the benefit of the statistics obsessed.

What does that mean? Who are you saying is obsessed? What is the substantive underpinning of this, or is it just an attack?

Leeds IS the Metropolitan Borough. Any other definition should have been discarded 35 years ago.

Says who? You? That isn't good enough for our purposes.

Can you elaborate on this? MRSC (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I should just the original rationale point by point:

The built-up area of Leeds is much smaller than the district boundaries and the district has a considerable rural hinterland.
- The article is about the whole borough not just an urban area of it.
There are a considerable number of other distinct settlements in the district.
- Something which is clearly explained in the article. Why does it matter?
The ONS population figure for Leeds does not include the whole district.
- There is more than one figure for Leeds in the ONS data. One of them is for an ONS urban sub-division of the West Yorkshire Urban Area - effectively this is a subdivison of a conurbation. The ONS make no claim that this is representative of a settlement called Leeds, but is based on the County Borough of Leeds boundaries from 1928, over 80 years ago.
The boundaries are relatively recently established, indicating the district is an amalgamation of settlements.
- All large settlements are an amalgamation of settlements. The history of Leeds shows that it has grown and encompassed other settlements. Wheres the citation to say that the amalgamated settlements are not called Leeds?
There are civil parishes in the district, indicating distinct places for the purposes of local government.
- Civil parishes are a tier of government below the district council, and any area can choose to have a council if they want. You can also have settlements within settlements.
The district is the geographically large (82 out of 326) indicating it covers a much wider area than a single settlement.
- The population density is pretty much the same as Sheffield, and is higher than that of Preston. In any case, I don't think people are arguing that it is a single settlement. Quantpole (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds has a rural hinterland. This is being nostaligic at best. In between the closely built suburban villages there are a small number of farms, etc but I hardly think this can be called a rural hinterland. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to get drawn into another lengthy debate on the issue. However, to take your points:

i) My reasons were outlined at 1.23am
ii) Wikipedia as an entity should involve as many people as possible. It's this input that makes it what it is.
iii) I assure you, this wasn't intended as a slur. There is, however, a correspondence between the initiation of the debate and your return, as per your talk page. We have had this debate, and the result was a merge.
iv) Similarly, this is not intended as "an attack". The reasons outlining why the pages should be split, however, seem based on ONS statistics, and those statistics alone. I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong, but there are few (if any) other sources that relate Leeds to anything other than the metropolitan borough. The urban core alone is not representative of the city, and an article based on such would be mired by ambiguity, as it was prior to the merge.
v) As per iv. Should sources exist that Leeds in primary usage excludes recognisable suburbs, such as Horsforth, then I'd be open to change.

I'm certainly not against change, per se, but the City extends beyond Kirkstall. Any article otherwise would not be reflective, in my view.Thisrain (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, to summarise so far:

That there was a consensus to merge the articles in the first place is false.
That the Local Government Act 1972 expanded/extended Leeds is false.
That all sources refer to Leeds and the City of Leeds as coterminate is false.
That the promise that at merged-, mega-Leeds article would stimulate progress is false.
That city status in the United Kingdom can refer to "big settlements" is false.
That the system I proposed months ago and had support for has produced Good Articles is true.
That no alternative criteria for WP:UKDISTRICTS has been suggested is true.
That no-one can provide evidence to keep the non-consensual, national-breaching, ineffective merged articles based on the ellusive fact that Leeds and the City of Leeds always mean the same thing is true. And given there was no consensus the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to keep the merger, not those who seek to restore the original.

--Jza84 | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But no-one has yet defined "Leeds, West Yorkshire", about which one of the proposed pair of articles is to be written. Please do so, someone, to enable sensible discussion. Without a clear definition we will be in for endless disagreements. PamD (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- This still strikes me as a very odd argument. Leeds (proper) is most likely the settlement that was coterminate with the former county borough - I imagine that when you cross Morely into Leeds there is a welcome/boundary sign saying so? Indeed, I have cited sources in the archives to this effect - that Leeds is the City of Leeds minus the other towns (which brings us back to the extent of the former county borough). But by all means.... define Denshaw. What are its boundaries? What is its extent? If you can't, then, well, does it not exist? Should it be merged into Oldham? Funnily enough, if you look at the Ordnance Survey (THE authority on geographical naming in the UK - and here's the source for that claim) you will see settlements are marked in black, and districts in grey. Liverpool and Manchester do not have two markers, but one. Not my words, but the work of the sole and ultimate authority on British geography. --Jza84 | Talk 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly !!!--Harkey (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, County Boroughs can be written about as though they still exist with their pre 1974 boundaries but counties can't "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." This seems a bit inconsistent.--Harkey (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fair comparison. Until the reforms of the 1960s/1970s borough boundaries for the large towns were broadly the same as the settlements, with periodic extensions to keep up with sprawl. The Local Government Act 1972 tried to follow this principle where it could, but it had fairly strict minimum populations for certain services. This meant that in the designation of districts there was a battle between creating efficient units for administration and respecting political geography. On the whole, efficiency was the overriding factor. With the designating of counties, the modus operandi was to retain the existing counties and adapt only where needed, hence the tightly drawn metropolitan counties. There is a body of literature pointing to this. MRSC (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go further and say it was an intellectually weak counter-arguement. Firstly WP:UCC is about counties, and for good reason. Secondly, nobody is claiming that Leeds is still a county borough, but it is a settlement. The Municipal Borough of Sale existed, and, surprise surprise, Sale, Greater Manchester exists. What's inconsistent? Are we saying that Sefton, Merseyside and the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton should be merged per WP:UCC? --Jza84 | Talk 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds has long since outgrown any previous administative definition and attempting to use one would be in contravention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) as has been pointed out. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No substantive explanation of why the above criteria should not be used
No alternative criteria for merge/split articles offered
Article was merged against consensus

Based on this and following WP:UKDISTRICTS this article is now ready to be moved to Leeds, West Yorkshire and Government of Leeds to City of Leeds. Copyediting can then commence. A protracted discussion without substantive basis is not required. MRSC (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 3

As one who objected to the merger of the articles in the previous debate, I came to realise that adhering to current legal boundaries was more logical and less open to POV edits. Also, it is difficult to source current and accurate information about the old county borough areas. However...--Harkey (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shamelessly (or shamefully?) repeating my point about City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester being far better than Leeds (on Wikipedia, in terms of quality), and not causing any confusion whatsoever. On the contrary, it allows for things like "Eccles is a town in the City of Salford, 2.7 miles west of Salford" as opposed to "Eccles is a town in Salford, 2.7 miles west of Salford". Much clearer, and more logical for sure? --Jza84 | Talk 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The first stage in following such as approach would be to move this article to Leeds, West Yorkshire. This would be a redirect reversal. MRSC (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this, as yet.--Harkey (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for a merge; on this basis no consensus = no change and the article should be returned to a split state. MRSC (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to move the article to another name that breaches wikipedia policy. The common name is 'Leeds' and should remain as such. Creating dab pages is a horrible solution, and yes, I do think the same applies to Salford etc. To avoid confusion, if there are separate articles for the settlement and the district, then the district should be called xxxxx Metropolitan Borough. This is unambiguous, and does not lead to confusion, as it is immediately clear what the article is about. The current system is terrible. That doesn't mean that the articles are bad - far from it. But people searching for Carlisle (for example) shouldn't have to go through a dab page to get to the article. Quantpole (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlisle is ambiguous is it not? So is Leeds. So is Lancaster. So is Salford. And look at the archives - there's no such thing as "Leeds Metropolitan Borough" - I have cited both primary and secondary sources that prove the name of the district is "City of Leeds". That's in the city's charter. My stance is based on research and fact, your's, I'm afraid, is based on convenience and warping of the truth. --Jza84 | Talk 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A name can be descriptive, and it is no warping of anything to describe the City of Leeds as a metropolitan borough. I realise there would be a conflict with the official name, and I'm not massively bothered about it. I just think it is clearer. In all those examples I think the main page should be the settlement, with dab links to the district. I don't think it unreasonable for places to take precedence over administrative areas. Also, with just one main alternative page, I think it better to avoid the dab page. Quantpole (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose a split. My position has not changed from those given in the previous merger discussions. —Jeremy (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose a split - unless and until someone can unambiguously define the "Leeds, West Yorkshire" about which the article will be written. PamD (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the insistence on boundaries? Districts have boundaries, not settlements. MRSC (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a definition, not a boundary: does your "Leeds" include, for example, the places I mentioned above: Headingley, Hunslet, Alwoodley? And Horsforth, Shadwell, Gildersome, Calverley? PamD (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article should be the same as any other settlement article under WikiProject UK geography. Presenting facts as they exist, and should not seek to synthesise a definition. If a locality was part of the parish of Leeds, say so. If a place was in the county borough, say so. If a place split off as a separate chapelry, parish etc. say so. If there is a population figure given for Leeds, give that figure and explain the area it relates to. Take a look at Romford, recently promoted to GA. It at no point explicitly defines what Romford is right now or what it was in the past. It presents the facts. It demonstrates that areas around it have been considered part of the town for some purposes at various times in history and others are not, either as part of the parish or borough. The same approach is used for every other GA and FA status settlement. Leeds should be dealt with exactly the same way. MRSC (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Look at all these award-winning settlements that have no definition and most have no boundaries. The Ordnance Survey does not put boundaries around settlements/places, only districts. The OS shows there is a district called Leeds within which a place called Leeds dwells. --Jza84 | Talk 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except pretty much all of those are defined extremely precisely. If a population figure is quoted, then there is a corresponding area that goes with that figure. That defines the settlement exactly. This is the problem we had with the Leeds article, and it is one that won't go away. Quantpole (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The only "synthesis" being done is by those wanting to define a settlement by a method of subtraction. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Except pretty much all of those are defined extremely precisely.

No. There is not one "definitive" definition given in those articles. The facts are presented as they are. Romford has three populations: the former parish, the area committee area and the figure from the 2005 Urban Strategy. The area of the improvement commissioners is detailed, the area of the 1851 local board of health, parish and borough, including extension is detailed. At no point does the article say, "But the real, definitive boundaries of Romford are..." And it shouldn't. And neither should the Leeds article. It should reflect the sources we have. MRSC (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Right here in the infobox there is one figure. If there are different possibilities for the population, then they should also be defined in the infobox. Having that one figure there makes it look 'official'. The same applies to Salford and so on. This was discussed previously, but there were objections to having more then one figure in the infobox for Leeds (which is odd, considering that many other large settlements have more than the one figure). I personally would be happy to have numerous figures, and an explanation of what the different things mean. For Leeds we could have the ONS Sub-division (and call it exactly that, with an explanation that it is based on boundaries of the previous County Borough), the primary urban area population, the metropolitan borough population, and possibly the west yorks urban area population. I personally wouldn't object too much to that, though I would still be very much against the proposed name change. Quantpole (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Do we have broader agreement to a split on this basis? MRSC (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to convince a few others than just me! And just to be clear, I still do not think a split is necessary, but I'm interested in getting to an article that hopefully doesn't have the drama that goes on here. Before any split, you also need to explain the rationale behind the naming. As I said above, the proposed names are incredibly confusing and provokes the need for a dab page, which we should be avoiding unless there is clear need. Quantpole (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are intended for instances where names are confusing. So, if Leeds and City of Leeds are confusing as article names, we should consider using a dab page. Do you think they are confusing as article titles? MRSC (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think City of Leeds is confusing full stop, and it should be Metropolitan Borough of Leeds. I do not understand why the 'City' title takes precedence over the borough on wikipedia. The most common meaning for city is basically a large settlement, so putting it in the title when it is talking about a district is very confusing. People reading will not necessarily know the ins and outs of the pecularities of city status in the UK. It would be confusing to use 'City of...' whether we have a dab page or not. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that trying to find proper boundries and using official definitions is tantamount to pedantry. We could never agree on where Leeds started and finished before and the article became a nonsense. Even if we could agree consensus on the area, it would only be our definition and a good article will use a pre-existing definition.

Where the articles are usually split are towns like Harrogate or Selby, which have a borough much larger then the town itself (indeed there are settlements within the borough of a similar size to the main settlement, like Ripon and Tadcaster respectively). Cities like Leeds and Bradford have merged articles as the boundries take in the city and minor outlying suburban towns and villages, the area of the city is difficult to define (Many would say that Horsforth is not in Leeds and Shipley is not in Bradford, but these days they are very much part of the urban sprawl - indeed the urban sprawls of Leeds and Bradford have met) and all the areas within 'the city' are to some degree mere outlying suburbs. Fifty years ago Otley and Wetherby were Market towns and each an economic centre for the surrounding rural villages, neither Otley or Wetherby now has an agricultural market and both are entirely dependent on the business districts of Leeds. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since 2004, where articles have been merged, this has followed a very clear criteria (as detailed above). This was first detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions/English districts and is now found at WP:UKDISTRICTS. Leeds is no exception to these criteria. MRSC (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a scan down the talk Page, but more seem to be in favour of a joint article then a split one. There is certainly not enough support to instigate change. I would be inclined to say we have a better article since the merger and a better basis for writing an article then pages regarding Salford do. One thing we can all be certain about is whether split or merged this is one issues that we will never get closure on. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And since 2004 when the article was split there has been consistent opposition to it. These criteria are not wikipedia policy, and a wikiproject does not own the pages within its scope. Quantpole (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not change the facts:

The built-up area of Leeds is much smaller than the district boundaries and the district has a considerable rural hinterland.
There are a considerable number of other distinct settlements in the district.
The ONS population figure for Leeds does not include the whole district.
The boundaries are relatively recently established, indicating the district is an amalgamation of settlements.
There are civil parishes in the district, indicating distinct places for the purposes of local government.
The district is the geographically large (82 out of 326) indicating it covers a much wider area than a single settlement.

On this basis the article should be split. No satisfactory evidence is being presented that justifies special pleading. MRSC (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 4

I don't know why we keep going back to the subject of "definition". It is not our job to create a definitive Leeds. We know that several definitions of the settlement exist, both past and present. We need to describe them in the article. It is not our job to synthesise them into one, or ignore them just because it is complex and decide that "Leeds doesn't exist". This is what we do in ALL geography articles. MRSC (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm waiting for a user to define Denshaw. --Jza84 | Talk 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While we are at it, let's merge Westminster into City of Westminster, as we can't tell where Westminster ends and Soho begins, too complex to leave them split! Brighton should probably redirect to Brighton and Hove, unless someone can give me a solid definition of Brighton that is unchallenged by any other sources. MRSC (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Huddersfield should also be merged into Kirklees as it is also obvious that Huddersfield was extended to become Kirklees, no longer has "boundaries" and is clearly the district's dominant settlement. This is inline with the "vast majority" of sources I have seen and is obviously what readers want and will cause less confusion..... I jest of course. --Jza84 | Talk 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The principle arguments I see here are:

The merger caused a lot of upheaval and a split will too - we should not do anything "just for an easy life"
There are concerns that a split into two articles will be confusing - the reality on the ground is perhaps confusing "What is Leeds?" but that is not grounds to merge two distinct entities together
Any use of disambiguation will be confusing - disambiguation is designed to stop confusion by presenting alternatives to commonly confused names of thing

We have to accept that we are not going to 'fix' the reality of Leeds settlement vs City of Leeds by conflating them into one article. Where there is ambiguity, Wikipedia uses disambiguation. MRSC (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Quantpole for informing me of this debate. As per the arguments at the time of the merge I would be in favour of a seperation of Leeds and City of Leeds; at the time I felt the argument was not so much won, rather, it seemed to me, one side out-hectored the other. I would like to see a greater attempt being made to deal with the more nebulous nature of the term Leeds; as a clearly defined entity, the City of Leeds would probably be best put to one side of this. A disambiguation page discussing the slippery nature of the term could then useful spin off a variety of articles: City of L, historical L, modern-day L City Centre, etc; this disambig page could also direct towards other things that are sometimes called plain "Leeds" eg the football club. It also might be worth pointing out that thanks to the definition of "The City of Leeds" the word "City" is now pretty nebulous: a city that's two-thirds countryside ...?! I hope this split debate will not contain the intemperate ridicule from which the merge debate suffered. almost-instinct 13:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So far the debate has been lengthy, but on good terms. I think this as mainly because it is underpinned by a substantive issue. That is, Leeds the settlement is not the same as Leeds the district. This is demonstrated using the same criteria we judge the other 150 or so settlements that share a name with the district. Would the debate be any more or less easy if Harrogate/Selby had been incorporated into the district in 1974, or would they also be dismissed as "just suburbs"? It is an accident of history that there is confusion. But it is not the job of this encyclopaedia to "iron it out". We have to present the world as it stands, or rather as the source material presents it. MRSC (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons with Huddersfield/Kirklees are academic. Kirkless has two administrative centres, Huddersfield and Dewsbury. Dewsbury is by no means a commuter town/dependent suburb etc of Huddersfield. The idea that Leeds is an exception to the rule is rubbish. Loads of cities have combined settlement/'city of' pages, Sheffield, Manchester, Bradford, Newcastle upon Tyne, Kingston upon Hull, Birmingham, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Derby, Nottingham all have merged pages, as far as I can find, every single major English city has such. This enables us to quantify the subject we are writing about. I know people who live in Birstall who consider it to be Leeds, as do Ikea, yet the area lies in Kirklees. We could argue forever over where Leeds lies if we split, sometimes excluding areas within 'the city' and sometimes includuding areas in neighbouring administrative regions (although usually within the same built up sprawl). When the aregument split, editors could never agree on what defined Leeds and everyone edited to their own rule, no-one with more knowledge or authority then anyone else, there was no continuity regarding this definition across Leeds based pages and it all lead to articles with differing definitions on Leeds. The current MD regions are the only definable modern definition of what is Leeds. The confusion from the split articles is documented in the countless edit wars and talk page arguments. There is no doubt in my mind the Leeds article and other articles relating to the subject have improved considerably since the merger. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Endless arguments and countless edit wars like, say, those that are yet to happen on Salford, Greater Manchester and City of Salford? I know people in the City of Leeds (and, um, Ikea?) who don't consider it to be Leeds, but that's no good for our purposes here, is it? And perhaps Milnrow is a commuter suburb of Rochdale? --Jza84 | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is it being said here that Leeds has be split because all districts named after settlements are. We know there are 150 districts-named-for-settlements in England. On Wikipedia, merged settlement/districts are in the minority, 45 out of about 150. They are merged because of meeting six criteria, of which Leeds meets none. MRSC (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong split - I have left this for a while but thought that I should throw my hat into the ring without getting involved too much in the arguments. Having looked at it I still think that the best way forward is to split the articles, though retaining City of Leeds as one of them as that is what the authority calls itself. As it stands the Leeds article has gone downhill dramatically sine the merge. For example the lead section is now a whole lot of statistics about the population with tons of references to justify this position while the lead should summarise the whole article in about four paragraphs with little or no references. Secondly the article as it stands marginalises all of the other settlements in the area. If it is a merged article then I would expect balance covering all of the settlements in the area, with explanation of the settlements and their relationship to each other. Finally the article is getting too long as it is and to cover the subject adequately there needs to be a splitting out of material and this is an ideal opportunity to do this. Keith D (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mtaylor848 - can you explain how the article has improved? We have the opposite position to yours here saying it has gone downhill, with an explanation, but you have not told us how it is currently better? You seem certain of it, so can you tell us how and why? MRSC (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve merged article At the time of the merge discussions I suggested that we need a section, immediately after the Lead, in which different definitions/interpretations of "Leeds" are discussed - I offered to write it but never did so. I still think it's needed, and might have a go later. This would in part address Keith D (no relation!)'s valid point that the lead is overburdened with stats and references. I think it needs to include the splendid Patrick Nuttgens 1979 quote: "The first and most constant problem with the City of Leeds is to find it. There never was a more faceless city or a more deceptive one. It hasn't a face because it has too many faces, all of them different." (He was an eminent architectural historian and principal of Leeds Poly, predecessor of Leeds Metropolitan University). PamD (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at London#Scope for an example of such a section. However, I would note it links to all the different definitions given and if we were to emulate that, the City of Leeds description should link to such an article. MRSC (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the light of the suggestions/comments made by PamD and Keith D above, I would like to suggest that the current Leeds article should adopt a more WP:Summary style and that a more productive use of our energies might be to sandbox an outline of such an article and to include sources of information. My main concern in splitting the articles is that there are very few reliable sources about Leeds urban area for some topics that are normally included in urban settlements such as Salford, Greater Manchester etc. A summary style article would show up the need for other sub articles/split articles. It would, however need constantly to be watched for well meaning IP users who are not familiar with summary style and believe that it needs "padding out", but what's new?--Harkey (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Which sources exist for Salford that do not for Leeds? MRSC (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know and I would prefer to end this dispute constructively and positively by you/others telling me, please. I am looking for a resolution, not combat.--Harkey (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted you to qualify what you meant by My main concern in splitting the articles is that there are very few reliable sources about Leeds urban area for some topics that are normally included in urban settlements such as Salford, Greater Manchester etc. . Perhaps we are at crossed purposes. I thought you were saying that sources exist for Salford, but not for Leeds. I want to understand these differences. MRSC (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A start would be anything published before 1974 that discusses Leeds, or anything that discusses Leeds in a context that prior to 1974, otherwise we are being anachronistic. Cooper, Glynis (2005), Salford: An Illustrated History, The Breedon Books Publishing Company, ISBN 1-85983-455-8 is an interesting book that discusses both Salford and the City of Salford as separate entities, giving histories of all the city's towns. There are surely examples of this for Leeds right? (looking at editors in the area). Better still would be local history books on Morley, Horsforth, Rothwell etc? - I imagine they assert the difference between the two more than any other. --Jza84 | Talk 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I share your concern about anachronism. There is a History of Leeds article which cites some sources. I was more concerned about sources for the current urban area. ONS does provide some demographic information. Can anyone help with other sources related to just the current urban area, please?--Harkey (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This source is quite good, though it only describes up to 1974. Quite a lot of the end pages are available to view on google, and highlights the problems that were associated with the formation of the new district. It also details the issues with what 'Leeds' actually means - even before 1974 it was far from clear. Quantpole (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is perhaps a similar situation as we have for London. Various definitions available, including various administative divisions. As we have sources say Leeds (settlement) was not equal to the county borough, perhaps we should create a County Borough of Leeds article. I've written a few of these and would happily do this one. MRSC (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to Metropolitan Borough of Islington I presume? I can see the value in that. Quantpole (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

County Borough of West Ham, County Borough of Croydon, County Borough of Salford are all examples. MRSC (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lozleader is a fantastic user who seems to have endless resources about former districts. He'd be worth approaching too to help make a County Borough of Leeds page (he did most of the c.b. of Carlisle and Salford, and Oldham and others too). --Jza84 | Talk 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)I too see this as a way to resolve the issue. Having looked more closely at some of the other "urban area in the middle of a City" articles I find, without wishing to detract in any way from their merits, that they deal largely with the history of the core settlement. The CB of Leeds ceased to exist in 1974 so there is a definite cut off point. --Harkey (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. Salford, Greater Manchester, Westminster, Winchester, Lancaster, Lancashire, Carlisle, Cumbria all have information that is contemporaneous, and past 1974. We have to remember too that city status is only an honorific title for a district, so really the examples that have no cut off point include Oldham, Dudley, Rochdale, Sefton, Merseyside and even those places that were not used for the names of districts (Denshaw, Shaw and Crompton, Huddersfield and tens of thousands of other towns, villages, suburbs, wards, hamlets....). I think users are still getting confused here. All those links I've just provided are about places that don't need to be local government districts to exist. Local government districts (including boroughs and citie and civil parishes) are a system of demarcation for administration superimposed onto the land that encompass a mixture of places-rural and urban-within them. My point is that Leeds is one of several places within a district that happens to be called Leeds, but could've been called anything really; Leeds is still a living, contemporary place. --Jza84 | Talk 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 5

If/when the County Borough of Leeds article is written then may we refer to the former area (current urban area) as the "former county borough" as we would say, Pudsey or Wetherby.--Harkey (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a possiblity in some contexts, but not all. It's like saying the "the area that is the former municipal borough of Morley" when we really mean Morley. The rest of England seems to get around it: we say "Eccles is a town in the City of Salford, 2.7 miles (4.3 km) west of Salford" not "Eccles is a town in the City of Salford, 2.7 miles (4.3 km) west of the area that is the former county borough of Salford" for instance. --Jza84 | Talk 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A common way to describe things is in relation to the city centre. Quantpole (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Salford (verifiably) doesn't have a city centre. Not being combative, just pointing out an interesting fact. :) --Jza84 | Talk 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)::Not wanting to start being contentious again, but this is the root of the problem Leeds urban area as a current legal and administrative entity is hard to tie down/verify with reliable sources. I really, honestly, would welcome clarification. What has the old county borough become since 1974? Is it a collection of districts, wards, places: or has it some sort of unity that can be captured and written about? This is a sincere question not polemic.--Harkey (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(to Harkey) No, no, that's quite alright - these are all legitimate questions, and I think this is a healthy discussion. I do think we're getting hung up on county boroughs and city status though, and confusing their place in the whole framework of things. Is there a problem with a place called Chadderton existing after the Chadderton Urban District was abolished? What has Chadderton become since 1974? If the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham was granted city status in 1974-the City of Oldham, an idea which tickles me!-would Oldham proper no longer exist?

An interesting thought has just stuck me though. In addresses, in all areas I believe, we would put "street name > place > postal town" correct? "place" is, as I understand (and I know MRSC will correct me here) coterminus with a place. You put "Morley, LEEDS" if you live in Morely, but put "LEEDS" if you live in Leeds (proper) correct? I imagine that puts Leeds' scope again back down to 1973 limits.

Another point would be, say, if we suddenly have a consensus to split the two articles indefinately and for ever more, what content exactly would we be having edit wars over? What aspects are we frightened or confused about adding? Is there a landmark we think could be in Leeds (proper) and in Pudsey? These questions apply to Halifax and Sowerby Bridge do they not, since the LGA72 took effect? --Jza84 | Talk 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. LS postcode area has some relevant info. There's a lot of variation in what people use, affected by local loyalties as well as by Post Office preferred versions, but it would certainly be interesting to map the Post Office addresses! Trying a few examples in the address finder at http://www.royalmail.com : "Adel Primary School, Tile Lane, LEEDS"; then "Bramhope Primary School, Tredgold Crescent, Bramhope, LEEDS", "Morley High School, Fountain Street, Morley, LEEDS" and "East Garforth Primary School, Aberford Road, Garforth, LEEDS "; then there's "Prince Henrys Grammar School, Farnley Lane, OTLEY" and "Pudsey Grangefield School, Mount Pleasant Road, PUDSEY" (though the school's website shows the address as including Leeds!). So three levels - "LEEDS", "place, LEEDS", "OTHER". There might be a postcode geek out there who could find us a map showing the three kinds of places! PamD (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(Totally my own opinion) I suspect it varies slightly depending on the area. I imagine people in Wetherby might not put Leeds at all, despite it being an LS22 postcode, but then people in Horsforth might not mention 'Horsforth' in the address at all, or would be no more likely to than people in (for example) Roundhay. This probably corresponds somewhat to the 'cloud' effect that was mentioned quite a lot last time. For myself, sometimes I'll put the area of Leeds, other times I won't - probably depending on how lazy I'm feeling. Quantpole (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal Mail address finder only reports "dependent localities" when they are a required part of the address such as when there is an operational reason to include them (usually where there is potential for confusion between places). However, Royal Mail are pragmatic enough to know not everyone puts the address down the way they are supposed to and there is a list of potential "localities" they expect people to add, for cross-referencing purposes to the post town. I've got this list for Leeds:

LS1-4 have no localities
LS5 has Kirkstall and the Wyther Park Industrial Estate
LS6 has Headingly, Hyde Park and Meanwood
LS7 has Chappel Allerton, Meanwood, Penraevon Industrial Estate and Potternewton
LS8 has Roundhay
LS9 has Cross Green
LS10 has Hunslet, Beeston Park, Belle Isle, Hunslet Business Park, Middleton
LS11 has Beeston, Holdbeck
LS12 has Armley, Beeston, Farnley, Lower Wortley, New Farnley, New Wortley
LS13 has Bramley and Rodley

List goes on! Each locality corresponds with only one or two sectors, but you probably don't need that level of information. MRSC (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What people use is very variable, but what I was looking at above was to see what the official Royal Mail version of addresses is. People use their address to signify all sorts of things: "We don't live in Chapeltown, this is Chapel Allerton", or "We don't recognise ourselves to be in Leeds, so it's xxxx, West Yorkshire", or "This is Weetwood, not Far Headingley which sounds like student-dominated Headingley", etc. But I'd love to see a map of the Royal Mail's three zones! PamD (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The County Borough itself changed from its creation in 1888 to its abolition in 1974: Roundhay, Seacroft, Shadwell and part of Crossgates were added in 1912, Middleton in 1919, Adel-cum-Eccup in 1925, Alwoodley, Temple Newsam, Eccup and part of Austhorpe in 1927, and part of Pudsey with some or all (souce isn't clear) of Austhorpe, Barwick, Swillington, Wigton and Arthington in 1937. (Burt and Grady, Illustrated History of Leeds, 1994). An article on County Borough of Leeds could describe its boundaries and perhaps its administrative history, but would not form a useful topic on which to base an article on the settlement of Leeds. (The same book says that the Leeds council leader in 1907-1928, Charles Wilson, "made it plain that his ambition was for Leeds to control everywhere from the Pennines to the sea."!) PamD (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pam. Apropos your quote see Leeds City Region.No comment.--Harkey (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting quote. The County Borough of Oldham also tried to swallow up Crompton Urban District, Royton Urban District and Chadderton Urban District several times in the early-20th, and we're variously described as greedy and expansionist. I couldn't possibly comment.... --Jza84 | Talk 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Imagine that I want to write about Leeds settlement from 1974. The suggested headings are:-

1 Article structure example for a U.K. settlement

1.1 Infobox

1.2 Lead

1.3 History

1.4 Governance

1.5 Geography

1.6 Demography

1.7 Economy

1.8 Landmarks

1.9 Transport

1.10 Education

1.11 Religious sites

1.12 Sport

1.13 Public services

1.14 Notable people

1.15 See also

1.16 References

1.17 External links

2 Optional headings

2.1 Industry and commerce

2.2 Culture

2.3 Politics

2.4 Media

2.5 Invention and discovery

2.6 Future plans

2.7 Cultural references

2.8 Filmography

2.9 Community facilities

2.10 Culture and community

The history can be dealt with but:How do I know how to write about about the geography of the area without defining it's boundaries? Where do I find accurate information about the economy, say? How do I calculate how many schools there are? The list goes on... These are all honest questions.--Harkey (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, "Leeds lies on the River Aire. It is located in the centre-east of West Yorkshire, several hundred miles north of London. It has a elevation of ???, being amoungst eastern foothills of the Pennines, and experiences a damp-maritime climate. Leeds is bound on all sides by other settlements [ note it doesn't have to say at what atom it becomes a different town], including Pudsey in the City of Leeds. It shares a common boundary with Bradford." For economy, "During the Middle Ages Leeds had an ecomony based on wool processing... Leeds city centre is a major financial centre. There are business parks in Wigton and Arthington (I don't actually know if that's true or not - just an example". Again, we don't need boundaries and definitions. If a source says "Morley's town centre is full of shops", then that would be something for Morley to have, not Leeds. We've got to imagine (or reimagine) that Leeds is a place - imagine Leeds and Morely were villages for a moment, with the city of Leeds, we'd just report on them as we found the facts.

We would only be reporting on what the published domain says. If a figure relates to the economy of the City of Leeds, then that would go in that article. Schools are clearly more difficult, but do we have schools that we are unsure if they belong in Morely or Pudsey as opposed to Leeds (proper)? Surely Morley High would be in Morley, not Leeds, as an example? --Jza84 | Talk 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"We would only be reporting on what the published domain says." What does the published domain say? Where are the sources? This is my problem with writing a separate article. It says so little that I would be relying on WP:OR or WP:POV for post 1974 information and would soon have citation needed or fact slapped all over it. With defined boundaries I can concoct information from other sources.eg ward, constituency etc.--Harkey (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have sources to hand about Leeds specifically, but this simply is not a WP:OR or WP:POV issue as can be evidenced by tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of articles about places including the comparable Salford, Greater Manchester article. What do you believe is OR or POV about the above examples? Do you believe the Denshaw article has OR and POV statements because it doesn't make it clear where Denshaw ends and Delph begins? --Jza84 | Talk 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about a Leeds settlement article, not other areas, and I certainly was not implying any criticism of other articles or suggesting they have any WP:OR or WP:POV issues. I apologise if you thought that I was being critical. I have no wish to be combative. This combativness (if such a word exists) is why, in my opinion, the Leeds article as it stands has not improved much. People don't want the hassle. As I said earlier, during the last bout of debate about the split/combine issue I was in favour of a split until I started to resarch the topic. I found there were too few sources about the post 1974 development to make a good, or even moderately good, article. The History of Leeds already exists and the County Borough of Leeds is to be written. So, it is the post 1974 information that is missing. I am appealing to anyone who does have sources to help out here. Then maybe a split would be feasable.--Harkey (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I shoved Morley High School into gnews, and out popped this. I think this highlights the difficulties we face quite well. If this was something relevent to be added to an article (which it clearly isn't), how do we decide which 'Leeds' the article means? Quantpole (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And here's another similar example. Quantpole (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

strongly oppose a split Splitting the article would lead to breaking core policies. The word "Leeds" in 99% of instances from media, other encylopedia, international bodies like EuroStat, internet sources, government, and even the ONS, means the entire city of leeds, not a virtually unused subdivision or vague undefined settlement within City Of Leeds, see comprhensive evidence here. To have an article entitled "Leeds" that then suggests that "Leeds" is the (historic) settlement within the city of leeds would be a huge Minority Point Of View, breaking the policy of neutrality. It also goes against stems of the core policies such as WP:Naming_Conflict, and as per WP:Widely_Accepted_Name. If a proposal is put forward to splt the article, then at the very least, a proposed article that asserts that Leeds is a settlement within City of Leeds, needs to demonstrate that 1) this is verifiable and not minority point of view - which would conflict with the core policy of Neutrality if it was just minority view. Unfortunately this task is impossible given that less than 1% of instances of Leeds discuss Leeds as a subdivision of the City of Leeds, (rather than Leeds actually being the city itself).

On another note, one thing proponents of a split have issue with is that the current article makes very little mention of the historic settlement. To remedy this, there is nothing to stop us putting an Other-Uses marker at the top, like the Manchester page for example, which could state..

This article is about the City of Leeds metropolitan borough. For the historial settlement of Leeds that lies at the heart of the City of Leeds see Leeds(settlement)

Also, there is nothing stopping us from developing the History section further in the Leeds page, to explain further the city's expansion from county borough to metropoltan borough.

In summary, to bring forward what someone said about shall we merge Huddersfield into Kirklees? Well no. The word "huddersfield" in 99% of instances on the web, media, and the government etc, refers to the towm Huddersfield, just like the word "leeds" in 99% of instances always refers to the the entire city - even if that does include distinct localities within its boundaries. Shall we have Leeds go straight to a disambiguation page? Again, no imo. Reffering to naming convention guidelines again, such implementation is only needed if the widely accepted interpretation of the word Leeds meant both the City, and the settlement within the city. It doesnt, and that said, an Other-Uses sticky at the top of the article would suffice in directing those interested in the historic settlement to view the apropriate article anyway. --Razorlax (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say something to balance this claim that official sources always mean Leeds=City of Leeds; while this may be true, if you ask non-officially minded people (ie 99% of the population) the opposite view will be found. For example, I just asked a resident of Cookridge where Wetherby is. Answer: near Leeds. almost-instinct 12:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the use of the term "historical settlement" is very odd. Chadderton is a settlement, not a "historical settlement" - historical settlement is complete original research. Furthermore disambiguation is "PLACE, CEREMONIAL COUNTY" per WP:PLACE, not "PLACE, PLACE TYPE", hense, Leeds, West Yorkshire. Leeds should be a dab page because if there's anything that's agreed upon on the talk page, it is that the name is completely ambiguous. Readers should be allowed to pick the article of their choice, not have it forced upon them. --Jza84 | Talk 21:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 6

Jza84 has asked what the difference is between the problem of defining Morley and Leeds (the settlement) separately to trying to define the difference between Denshaw and Delph. To answer, I'm going to use my wonderful tool called "common sense" (disclaimer: the following may neither be common or sensible). Looking at the ordnance survey map of denshaw and delph, there is clear countryside separating the two, and they look like individual settlements. I am not aware of the administrativ ehistory of the area, but it seems relatively simple to say that they are separate entities. To pick an example which is slightly more complicated, lets look at Farsley and Pudsey. The map of the area is not conclusive. Pudsey is written in a large font, but Farsley is over the main road, so they could be separate. It gets more interesting when you look at the history. Farsley used to be an urban district, but was merged into the Pudsey municipal borough in 1937, which was then amalgamated into the Leeds MB. The wikipedia article currently regards them as individual settlements, though the ONS still do a population count of Pudsey based on the old borough, which includes Farsley (and also Calverley). How do we decide whether Farsley is part of the settlement of Pudsey or not? Quantpole (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

--But commonsense, backed up by fact tells us that Leeds is a place in a city called Leeds. Your commonssense is infact, an opinion that defies the proof of this fact from the Ordnance Survey and every other city in England. --Jza84 | Talk 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, all common sense is an opinion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I don't think that the 'settlement Leeds' is the same as the district. The problem is trying to work out what this settlement actually is to write an article about it. This is where my common sense tells me that it includes places such as pudsey and horsforth, but your common sense apparently disagrees on this point. The reason I am for a merge, despite my agreeing that the district and settlement are different entities, is because of the difficulties that arise from trying to separate them out, especially when most contemporary sources do not distinguish between them. Quantpole (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am managing to define similar areas with changing boundaries as I am tackling the areas of

Astley, Atherton and Leigh in Greater Manchester. It is not easy but it is possible.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, just looking at the first of those, Astley does appear to be part of Tyldesley. Quantpole (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As attested by evidence. --Jza84 | Talk 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure if you're agreeing with me there or not! (I can but hope....) Quantpole (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"--- WP:Verify. If a split article can provide sufficient reliable sources, then fine. Let's try to add them to an outline of an article, as proposed.--Harkey (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While Verifiability is indeed a core policy, so is equally NoOriginalResearch, and NeutralPointOfView. Any article that describes Leeds as being anything other than a city very clearly breaks NeutralPointOfView, whilst simultaneously, any article that suggests that "Leeds is the admnistrative core of the wider City of Leeds" or something similar as the previous split-article did, very outrightly breaks NoOriginalResearch, given that there is not a single source available anywhere that suggests this. --Razorlax (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No not think we need to get hung up about verifiability, for all of the split articles we will have the same problem of defining the boundaries. If we have a single article because of this then we would have to visit every split article and apply the same criteria to them. Keith D (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

discussions of what to include in summary

Have I missed anything? What I suggest we do is add in any others and then try to work out on a point-by-point basis the extent to which we agree with each item, and then see where we end up. MRSC (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple more arguments for a merged article:

- A split article would treat Leeds differently to settlements of comparable size and history. It would be an exception in the English Core Cities Group. On the List of towns and cities in England by population (an article which I have serious concerns with anyway), you have to get down to Milton Keynes at number 25 to find a split article (I think that's correct). Milton Keynes has a population about a third of that of Leeds.
- It is not reasonable to use set criteria on settlements of wildly varying size and history. Each article should be looked at on a case by case basis.
- If we really want to go the full hog and have separate articles on settlements and districts, then we also need to look at cases where the settlement is larger than the district. It is inconsistent to focus on one side of the 'problem' but not the other. Quantpole (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to exclude whether consensus was reached in the previous discussion. There are clearly raw feelings on this from both sides, and I think both have some justification for feeling that way. It would not be in our interests to rake this over, and could lead to disintegration of meaningful communication. Basically, this discussion has to reach a consensus, because otherwise we'll have the "no consensus=no change" argument leading to acrimony over what we should default to. Quantpole (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Another arguments for split - Marginalises the other settlements in the borough and a consistent approach through articles as we should not have exceptions. Keith D (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All added. I'm not taking anything out. It is not my/our job at this stage to discount arguments that have been put forward, only to summarise them. MRSC (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds settlement is not a current legal administrative entity.--Harkey (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is point 3 of the merge argument. MRSC (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a separate fact, is it not? I am willing to be proved wrong. It is probably the reason why there is so little current information about the settlement.--Harkey (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. MRSC (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note MRSC, but I do not think the criteria you have set out are flawed. I think they are most certainly useful (with possible the exception of no. 6), but not definitive. Quantpole (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess they are flawed if they come up with a result for Leeds of "no merge" if others do not agree. But you are right, they are not definitive, or meant to be. Each one is a pointer, as is number 6; just an indicator of what is likely. It just so happens Leeds has all six indicators, so it is like an alarm bell ringing that we should be listening to. MRSC (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Another three arguments for split: The merged article means that places like the small village of East Keswick are a "core city" of England. If the district was called "Greater Leeds" (which is what it is) we wouldn't be having this debate in the same way we aren't having it over Greater Manchester. Merging them also means that East Keswick gets coverage in two articles - East Keswick for the settlement and Leeds for the local government district it is in, whereas the far larger and more important settlement of Leeds (about which there is more to say) has to make do with one that covers both. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf, but the East Keswick only has one article that covers it, it is merley referenced in the Leeds article, in exactly the same way that Headingley is referenced in the Leeds article, but has its own seperate page. Or Didsbury is referenced on the Manchester page, but has its own article too. Anything can have a seperate article if there is enough to write about it. By all means we can have a seperate article that deals with historic settlement at the heart of leeds, or the leeds-urban-subdivision, but it needs to be named accordingly, not called just Leeds, as this refers to the city. --Razorlax (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep it coming people. Let's get it all out! MRSC (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think point 1 in the arguments for a split can apply equally to a merged article:

SO: There are a variety of definitions for Leeds and the article should deal with them.--Harkey (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

done! MRSC (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great pity the Leeds article hasn't been split. Sections such as Sport and Religion

are biased to what I would say was Leeds the Settlement. After reading good and featured articles Leeds just comes across as confusing. Friends live in Headingley, Leedsand also in Aireborough in the Metropolitan Area, ie City of Leeds. I think many residents have an understanding of what they consider to be the settlement, ie the pre 1974 Leeds and those from the West Riding surroundings consider Leeds to be their "county" in the way residents of say Stanley belong to the Metropolitan County of Wakefield, NOT Wakefield the settlement. Just because Leeds dominates the City of Leeds by it's size isn't a reason for merging.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi J3Mrs, but a merged article doesnt in any way diminish what Airborough is. The Airborough article still explains that airborough is within the metropolitan district. The only difference is that the Leeds page is about the entire city & metropolitan district, rather than the undefined settlement in the middle. --Razorlax (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My reasonong for saying the article has improved spans several points: + ===arbitrary section break 5===

The article 'Leeds' now refers to a quantifiable area which we can all agree on.
For the reason above there is continuity on all Leeds based pages.
Since the merger of the article there is a much improved layout of the page, information is clearer, we can use an infobox which details information relevent to Leeds (regardless of the form of Leeds you are refering to) such as council and political information.
The details on the 'City of Leeds' page were pertinent to the subject across the board, and should have been on the main page.
Since merging the pages there is one umbrella page for all Leeds based articles rather then two. This provides an overview of information regarding pages relating to Leeds (see Wikiproject:Leeds). Further more as editors we have only one main page rather then two relating to the subject which has lead to an motable increase in quality editing to the main page. Under the split system both the 'Leeds' and 'City of Leeds' pages were poor, however a marked increase in editing has lead to a better written and cited page. We could never achieve this under a split system.

The main reason I believe that the pages should never be merged is no one could quantify what 'Leeds' meant before and this lead to endless edit wars and no consensus was ever reached on what it did mead (hence the petty edit wars). When writing encyclopedic articles refering to officialdom in all its forms gives us a clear platform on which to base our articles.

I would support a suggestion after the lead that refered to the different definitions of Leeds, although I fear one would be had to write. We could refer to pre and post 1974, but we all have different definitions on where Leeds starts and finished. Some believe it places within the outer ring road are not Leeds while some would say in encompasses the whole of the Metropolitan district. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaylor848 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 September 2009

I think the argument that states "The ONS figure for Leeds settlement is somehow bogus, or does not represent Leeds and should not be taken as such" is misleading. When not specifically refering to "leeds urban subdivision", and when not specifically reffering to Local Authorities, 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. Thus to adhere to NPOV, NOR, V, if a wiki page is going to discuss the area defined by 'leeds urban subdivison' it needs to be named that, and not named "Leeds". Not a single source exists from ONS or Census that states something along the lines of "Leeds is a settlement within City Of Leeds", yet there are scores of sources from ONS that refer to Leeds as a city. This means, the only key source we would base this whole split on, is a source that doesnt even assert what we are trying to imply it asserts.

argument for a merge Is fitting Leeds into our own subjectively defined WKCities/districts categorization more important than adhering to non-negotiable core policies, and at the expense of confusion? Even putting core policies aside... what should be the next priority, surely it is to provide the reader with an article that is not confusing, and an article about what they expect to see; that reflects reality, and reflects 99% of other sources, rather than an article that pleases some editors who feel all things in life are better if they fit a uniform categorization. It may be better categorization processes, but not for readers. As such, there should be no defined elements which decide whether an article is to be lumped into the split-articles or the single-page-articles. It seems some are prepared to let the leeds article go back to suffering, just so we can have a structured categorization process.

argument for merge When two split articles existed, anonymous editors were editing the Leeds page on an almost daily basis due to the confusion of the split article system that didnt appear to work for Leeds. They navigated to Leeds to find out about this uk city, only to be told it was the settlement at the heart of City of Leeds. People found this problematic, and confusing. Since the merge, not a single anon-editor has attempted to make edits that infer they are confused.

for merge Whilst the 2-split-system existed for over a year, the articles were the most further away from FA than they could ever be. Due to the lede being an explanation and attempt to try to un-riddle why the article is about a settlement called leeds within leeds(city of), yet is going to talk mostly about the city of leeds, it meant it was impossible to even be considered for FA. --Razorlax (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. MRSC (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The merged article could be improved to address all the concerns, including appropriate weighting to the various sub divisions, areas etc., by adopting WP:Summary style.--Harkey (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for merged article:

Because there is no definition of "Leeds" in 2009 other than the metropolitan district, if there were two articles there would be endless edit wars about whether a particular area, building or facility is, or is not, in "Leeds", and no way to resolve these. A grim prospect.

The article on the settlement would lack many of the fields expected in an info-box or in any article about a settlement, as statistics don't exist or lack of defined boundaries makes them impossible to produce. (population, highest point, ...)

"Leeds was voted 'Britain's Best City for Business' " (quote from current article): which "Leeds"? Statistics refer to the district, but the skyscrapers are in the urban core. It will be difficult to write sensibly about the economy of the two different entities.

General comment on categories: There are many categories which are "x in Leeds". To be logical, especially if we do end up with a split article, these all need to be clearly defined (note on category page) to show whether they refer to the district (ie parallel with "x in Kirklees") or the town/settlement. (If an x is in Otley, is it in "Category:x in Leeds"?) Category:People from Leeds (district) is already subdivided into 26 categories including Category:People from Leeds, but I don't think any others are so divided (so the other "x in/from Leeds" categories cover the district). Ambiguities over category names can be resolved - there are plenty of categories which make clear whether they are about "Georgia (state)" or "Georgia (country)"! PamD (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

~~===Vote===~~ I would propose a vote (although not a binding one) just so we gauge roughly the overall feeling of the editors. Taking the split as a proposal, 'Support' would indicate a preference for a split article and 'Oppose' for a merged article. To keep things simple I suggest we simply state either one (without use of useless adjectives like 'strong' or 'weak') and sign afterwards without leaving comments (of which we have hundreds of).Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

~~*Oppose~~ -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil. It's pretty clear to see from the discussion who is for or against a split. Discussion is still continuing, and I hope, getting somewhere. Quantpole (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We are definitely not voting. I think the most logical thing to do is to take complete the summary then do one of two things:

As an external uninvolved group to help; or
Each interested editor prepares a paragraph explaining why they beleive each of the points raised is true/false

I think 1 is probably the most likely. MRSC (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not oppose a binding vote, however there are many users engaged in this argument and it the reams of text make it had to gauge the level of support from the number of users users. I would not suggest we act on the vote in itself, at least however it may give us a better gauge of the numbers in favour. Everyone is stubborn and no one is going to change their opinion and I wouldn't expect them to. I fail to see the point in propogating the same arguments over and over again. We have got this far and not found concensus for a change, surely it is time to bring closure to the matter (at least for now).Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why were summarising our arguments, to stop going round in circles. Let's get it all out once and for all and then take it to someone external. MRSC (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the debate has come a long way and distilling the points is helpful. Its not about win/lose its about what is the best way forward.--Harkey (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be very sad to believe, as Mtaylor says, that "Everyone is stubborn and no one is going to change their opinion and I wouldn't expect them to. ". There would be no point in debate. The idea of having a discussion is to present arguments constructively with a view to people changing their well-informed minds sufficiently to reach a consensus. PamD (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly believe that I will not be convinced that a non-consensual, baseless merger, than makes content worse for our readers was or ever will be a good thing. I perhaps am one of those "stubborn" ones. But, there are editors here who genuinely seem undecided or are exploring various avenues and debates. This is sound debate and very worthwhile. --Jza84 | Talk 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have fully summarised the views now. Several points could easily be merged, but let's leave it as it is. MRSC (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to archiving our discussions up until this point to Talk:Leeds/Archive /September 2009, leaving the summary box on this talk page? I think it will help focus our minds. MRSC (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature - although it may not feel like it, this discussion has only been going on for less than a week. There may well be interested parties who are on Wikibreaks and have not yet had a chance to join in discussion (it's prime holiday season for the child-free), and the points made flesh out the brief points in the summary. PamD (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One objection is enough. I'll leave it as it is. MRSC (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To summarise the criteria and how we dispute it:

'The built-up area closely matches the boundaries of the district with no rural hinterland' - Would for instance fields inbetween Whinmoor and Thorner constitute a measurable rural hinterland and is rural a reasonable term to use in relation to this?

'There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district' - Again this is arguable. Probably the two most notable settlements are Wetherby and Otley. Are these still distinct settlements or are they just in the Leeds commuter belt?

'The ONS population for the settlement is roughly the same, or larger than the district' - Imposible to say, being as no one can identify the boundries of the settlement.

'The current boundaries of the settlement are long-established and predate reforms in the 1960s and 1970s ' - No, the current boundries date from 1974, which although it quite old (older in fact then I am), Leeds does not meet this criteria. Does this then mean we are to use defunct boundries? The problem here being, although Leeds clearly fails on this one (the only one we can't dispute), there are no other currently existing boundries we can use.

'The are very few or preferably no civil parishes in the district' There are civil parishes within the area that most of us, I suppose, consider the actual settlement. How many constitutes very few is completely open to interpretation. I think this point is almost redundant considering there are civil parishes well within the urban belt of Leeds.

'The district does not cover a geographically large area' - Certainly the most ambigous of the points. Leeds probably is large for a metropolitan district. Taking into account all types of district then it is actally probably pretty small. Surely if the city is large then the district must also be large (when does a city become large?). Is Leeds as a settlement a large city? None of us know because none of us can agree on the boundries.

As a result (disregarding my stance on the matter), I think it is unrealistic for us to come to a concensus regading whether Leeds passes or fails these points. The pertinence, ambiguity and relevence of all but one of these points is questionable. For us to determine whether Leeds passes or fails on any of these points we need clarification on the guidelines. That is before we get into the 'ignore all rules' debate. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

discussion of what to do next

We'll give it a little longer to see if others want to add anything, although I believe we have summarised everything that came up in discussion. We need to find some editors who are completely uninvolved to review what we have come up with. Wikipedia has formal and semi formal channels for us to do that it. We could invite some people from WikiProject UK geography, Wikipedia:WikiProject England or something more remote such as WikiProject Geography, we could initiate a peer review, request informal mediation or request formal mediation. As our dispute is focussed on one key issue and our discussions have been good natured, I suggest we opt for the lower-down-the-scale options. I'm not entirely sure which would be appropriate. MRSC (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC. Although I do think bringing this up again has oepned up a can of worms that was largely resolved, even it it did mean a compromise on the pro-merger part, and a compromise on the anti-merger part with a bitter taste left for some, it has resulted in a huge improvement from the problematic twin-system we had before with thankfully no uninvolved readers to date finding any confusion anymore (in start contrast to the previous twin-system), and moreover, concerns raised in the last few days by the small number of editors who have pointed out specific reasons why they are unhappy with the merged article can actually be remedied and addressed by making alterations to the merged article, rather than a complete split that would bring about the huge issues faced before that are unsolevable. However, that said, wikipedia articles are never static, and people have every right to dig up a loosley-solved issue if they feel so - and to that I would like to commend the manner and direction you have chosen to take this. :-)

Couple of questions though. With regards to bringing an uninvolved nuetral party, wouldnt one affiliated to one of the england/geography projects have a greater desire to fit articles into these editor-defined projects, rather than being totally objective? Also, once concern I have is that irrespective of all the arguments brought forward for a split-article, if such a split means core policies are broke, than it is not feasible anyway, and a lot of hard work by the pro-split editors will be wasted. During the previous merger discussion, I did ask an uninvolved admin who pointed out that minorityPOV cannot take precedence over the core policies. So, maybe finding a proposal that involves a split article, but that doesnt break core policies, and then putting that proposal forward would stand more much more chance of resulting in a change from any form of arbitration. --Razorlax (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much why I have presented a choice of external involvement. Someone from a UK project will have understanding of UK geography, but will have preconceived ideas already about what Leeds is, someone from another project (most likely someone in the USA given where most non-UK users are based) will not have native understanding of UK geography, which will be both a strength and a weakness! MRSC (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to come to some idea on what the split article would look like, before exploring mediatory options. This may (or may not) help to alleviate some of the concerns of those opposed to a split. Quantpole (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can resolve this without resorting to these measures that would be the best outcome. At least now we have a road map to follow if we find ourselves getting caught in a feedback loop. I was going to suggest earlier starting an article in draft form, and I'm glad you have also suggested it. I think this would be an excellent way forward. MRSC (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a more amicable way of proceeding.--Harkey (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The quality of this discussion makes for heart-warming reading :-) almost-instinct 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary

18 November 2001: Single Leeds article created
4 May 2004: Leeds split into Leeds and City of Leeds (as part of WikiProject UK subdivisions)
24 March 2009: Leeds and City of Leeds merged into Leeds (following this discussion)

Arguments for a merge:

There are a variety of definitions for Leeds and a merged article should deal with them
Aside from factual concerns, splitting the article will cause upheaval and/or resentment
It is confusing to have two articles
Leeds settlement cannot be verified in external sources, or if it can "99%" point to the borough, not the settlement
There are not adequate statistics produced for Leeds settlement
Leeds settlement is not a current administrative subdivision
The definitions we have for Leeds settlement are unsatisfactory or conflicting
WP:UKDISTRICTS is flawed because Leeds is a special case, a very large settlement that dominates its environs
WP:UKDISTRICTS is flawed because English districts vary too much
WP:UKDISTRICTS is flawed because it does not deal with settlements that are larger than districts
The article is in a better condition merged
Leeds simply expanded in 1974 to include new settlements
The ONS figure for Leeds settlement is somehow bogus, or does not represent Leeds and should not be taken as such
We have discussed this before and there was consensus to merge
Because Leeds is a city it should be dealt with like other cities on Wikipedia, which means no split
It should be merged because all article in the English Core Cities Group are merged (it is important and has a high population = merge)
The split is trying to shoehorn the article into a policy just to please some editors
A merged article stops anonymous editors from getting confused between the two entities
A merged article prevents edit wars about where Leeds ends and the rest of the city begins
The name and city status being transferred to the new district is an indication that it was Leeds being expanded, and this is how it was viewed at the time
A merged article meets NPOV as it does not try to define the settlement, which has in the past been a POV issue
Other 'merged' articles which do not meet many of the WP:UKDISTRICTS criteria have achieved FA (Sheffield and Peterborough)

Arguments for a split:

There are a variety of definitions for the Leeds settlement and a split article should deal with them
WP:UKDISTRICTS gives us a method for working out if articles should be merged, and Leeds should clearly be split on that basis:
1. Rural hinterland
2. Distinct settlements
3. Civil parishes
4. Settlement population figure less than district
5. Recent boundaries
6. Large area of district
The article is in a poorer condition merged
The article was merged against consensus in the first place
Creating a merged article with confused scope has been a barrier to its development to GA/FA
The merged article marginalises the articles about other settlements in the district
Outlying settlements get incorrectly identified as being part of a "core city"
Splitting the article will restore a consistent approach to dealing with settlements
The discussion that led to a merge did not have wide enough input or involve the relevant Wikiprojects
There is an element of bolsterism where vanity has resulted in the article being written to make the settlement sound as impressive as possible by including the whole district
There is an unhealthy need to establish boundaries or single definitions of Leeds that simply do not exist in UK geography, unlike other countries the UK only defines administrative divisions
The whole is issue is an accident of naming: if the district did not share the name of the settlement this problem would not exist
The merged article for Leeds has to try to wear two hats: describing whole borough and main settlement. Paradoxically outlying settlements get a longer article than the Leeds settlement itself
A split of sorts already exist at Leeds city centre "Leeds" and Government of Leeds "City of Leeds"
The merged article is biased towards the inner city area
The split exists in some categories: Category:People from Leeds and Category:People from Leeds (district)
Leeds was not "expanded/extended" by the Local Government Act 1972. A new district with city status was superimposed upon it, and its outlying towns that happened to have the name Leeds.
A split article stops anonymous editors from getting confused between the two entities
Split articles exist for other cities in England and have achieved GA status.
Split articles meet WP:NPOV.

draft stage

I suggest we now work on a Talk:Leeds/draft and Talk:City of Leeds/draft as a proof of concept. MRSC (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Its gone quiet so I guess we are all happy we've said our piece. We now need volunteers to prepare the draft articles. I'd prefer to work on the Talk:City of Leeds/draft article. MRSC (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to be of assistance, particularly for the Talk:Leeds/draft. --Jza84 | Talk 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've made a start. If we are working on them at the same time it will be easier to collaborate on what should go where etc. I propose we use here as a discussion space. MRSC (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, a list of existing articles is:

History of Leeds

Leeds city centre

County Borough of Leeds

Leeds

Government of Leeds

Places in Leeds

Any more that we need to include?--Harkey (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Government of Leeds would become redundant with split articles. Leeds city centre might be absorbed into the settlement article. MRSC (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally be inclined to keep Leeds city centre as a seperate article, but will be happy to go with the flow if there's strong will to merge it. I did once write a draft lead for the Leeds article, but will have to have a dig around as I've lost it somehow. --Jza84 | Talk 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It might need an edit with the main article. What is becoming clear is that the some sections are quite bloated and the daughter articles are not doing their job (i.e. expanding on the *summary* on the main article). There is also a fair bit of weasel and peacock that needs editing out. MRSC (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am currently researching the History of Leeds, using more modern sources, with a view to overhauling much of the article. A watchlist of changes related to List of places in Leeds shows how little/much editing activity there is on the places mentioned.--Harkey (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some history in Government of Leeds, although some is replicated in County Borough of Leeds. I don't see this article surviving a split. MRSC (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree, although the constituent parts information is useful.--Harkey (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As it comes to mind, we will also need to take a look at {{Leeds}} and the Leeds categories at some point. MRSC (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Any decent sources for introduction of water, power, gas and phone? MRSC (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

relevant points for consideration during drafting stage

Hi Guys, firstly apologies for bringing this up. Just looking at the drafts for Talk:Leeds/draft and Talk:City of Leeds/draft. Good work taking place here. However, I can already see the problem that was evident before the merge. I am mentioning this now rather than waiting as it relevant to those working on forming the two new draft articles. The Talk:City of Leeds/draft article as it taking shape now is essentally the Government of Leeds "district" article, that discusses the local authority district in terms of admistrative remit and nothing else. The draft Leeds article (against core polcies) discusses not Leeds, but the Leeds Urban Subdivision, and due to the constricting nature of what it can discuss, means it is hard to discuss many issues for examlple the economy or crime - because no such area legally exists.. Leeds only exists in real life as a city, therefore any discussion on the economy for example (or indeed on virtually anything other than a historical context) discusses Leeds as a city, not a settlement within the City of Leeds, and so either these things haphazardly and incorrectly end up discussing the city, or they rightly should be left blank.

This means, just like before, we are left with one article that deals specifically with administration of Leeds as a district (replacing Government of Leeds), whilst the other article deals with the historic settlement / hisoric county borough / urban subdivision. Therefore, we are left again without an article that comprehensively covers the "Leeds" what people expect to find and what 99% of other sources in existance discuss too, be it other encylopedia, national papers like the Times or the Guadrian, national media such as the BBC or ITV, and indeed, the Government itself, who, when not specifically reffering to Urban Subdivisions, or Local Authorities, only *ever* refer to Leeds as a city, not a settlement within the City of Leeds. This was why there was confusion with the split article system in the first place, and why so many new anon editors weekly used to try to alter what they beleived was incorrect (because technically it was).

Whilst Jza84 has not started the lead for draft Leeds article, it is worth remembering that any such lead that disccusses Leeds as anything other than "Leeds is a city" will break the uncompromisable core policy of Neutrality, and as such is very likely to fail independent arbitration or mediation. Also, if the article avoids disccsuing what Leeds actually is, it will be at the expense of the reader, and the integrity of wiki articles, just so that Leeds can fit into the neat categorization boxes of the editor-formed wiki england project, which, imo is wrong.

Why we havent primarily gone down the route of actually first attempting to address the concerns of those wanting a split article seems very strange, given that all of those concerns can actually be solved very easily by adjusting the current merged article. It seems the only driving motivation here is to neatly fit Leeds into a nice easy categorization structure for the benefit of those deeply involved in the england project who would rather things nicely fitted into uniform boxes, rather than for the benefit of the reader, the integrity of wiki and the core policies.

Perhaps, if we were to all be totally objective here, the most logical step before making drafts for arbitration would be for those wanting a split to list the advantages/benefits of what a split system would acheive, so that we can see if without compromise any of those benefits can be equally addresssed by adjusting the current merged article, whilst not compromising the benefits the merged article has acheived (most importantly adhering to core policies). --Razorlax (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the Talk:Leeds/draft article is barely started, so it is far too early to draw conclusions about what it does or does not do. We're clearly doing this slowly and carefully to make sure we get it right. So for the time being, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. MRSC (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Advanced stage

Talk:Leeds/draft and Talk:City of Leeds/draft are at quite an advanced stage. Both are written in summary style, and point to where the various daughter articles can fill in the details. Please have a look and add anything that is missed, bearing in mind not to introduce excessive detail (a serious weakness of the current article). Only one problem area: notable people. The daughter article is completely unreferenced, as was the original section in this article. I recommend editing and referencing List of people from Leeds first and then summarising in the article. MRSC (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be applying WP:V and WP:BLP to the List of people from Leeds within the next 24 hours. I have made a request that we cite our sources to avoid disappointment. --Jza84 | Talk 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who fancies a go at expanding this, Fraser (1982) [see Leeds draft] mentions some notable people. MRSC (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey maps

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was having a look at the ordnance survey maps. Unfortunately, the online one doesn't give a very big window to view stuff in. Anyway, [6] is a map showing the urban areas in grey. Unfortunately it doesn't give an indication of the extent of Leeds, and whether the other place names are individual settlements or not. Zooming out a bit more we get [7]. Here we can see what Jza84 has been talking about (the black 'Leeds' referring to the settlement and the grey 'LEEDS' referring to the borough). It also show Otley and Wetherby as distinct settlements, but Morley, Horsforth etc have been lost in the urban area. How do we interpret this? Quantpole (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)