Talk:Leeds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger

Does anyone object to re-merging this with City of Leeds it is IMO rather sill to have two articles which cover the same topic G-Man 18:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have some reservations about a merger, though not strong. One article should describe the city. t'Other should describe the local authority. Morwen, when she was still with us, seemed to wish to insist that what I would tend to call Leeds City Council, should be called City of Leeds. Which is in my book way misleading, but there you go. I had a discussion with her w.r.t. City of Bradford, which, I insisted, would piss the good people of Ilkley off something rotten to be told they lived in the City of Bradford. Whch, indeed is the case. Where does this get us? Only that I have a preference for an article about the local authority or local authority district, which should in my book be distinct from an article about a city proper. All that said, if you do merge them, please try to draw out the distinction between one and the other. (and cf. Alnwick and Alnwick (district)) before you leap. --Tagishsimon

No merger please! whilst we are discussing the fricking thing

There is a discussion about merger going on. Please do not merge the page before that discussion is over.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions

Since User:Tverbeek jumped the gun, I have removed the merger notice, lest anyone else decides to take matters into their own hands. 15th Oct 2004 --Tagishsimon

No merger please!

Instead it would be better to rename followin User:Tagishsimons scheme. (See discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions)

1. Leeds becomes Leeds (city)
2. City of Leeds becomes City of Leeds (district)
3. Leeds (district) redirects to City of Leeds (district)

Each article should cross-refer to the other in the first paragraph.

This article discusses Leeds, the city, in West Yorkshire, England. For the administrative district, including the surrounding towns and countryside, see City of Leeds (district)

This article discusses the City of Leeds, the administrative district, in West Yorkshire, England. For the city from which it takes its name, see Leeds (city).

City of Leeds (district) should also be expanded to include a short list of the areas included in it, and links to the relevant pages.

The same applies to Bradford.

Steady on, old chap. I;d keep Leeds at Leeds. It is only trhe City of Leeds that I'd amend :) --Tagishsimon 14:36, 13 October 2004

Inclusion of LGBT/Gay Section

As the original author of the brief paragraph appended to the Nightlife section, I returned recently to update the content. Not recalling the exact wording, I was intrigued to see if anyone else had extended or amended the contribution. I was far more intrigued to see the battle that had ensued between Tagishsimon and anonymous users over its inclusion. Thanks to the liberal minded (presumably heterosexual) Tagishsimon for defending it.

Having extended it a little it now leaves a disproportional balance with the nightlife section. I would assume, in keeping with the spirit of the site amongst other things, that the appropriate resolution of this inbalance lies in the extension of the nightlife section, and not the depreciation of my contribution. We shall see. Perhaps, if on my subsequent return, this inbalance remains, I should extend the 'straight' nightlife section.

I am not involved in gay politics and have no interest in 'championing the cause' in this forum - the nature of my contribution was based on my ability to provide authoritative content. However, as an IT professional with a particular interest in the internet and new media, I am fascinated to see how this issue is ultimately resolved in this 'collective authoring' environment.

Thanks again to TS.

Although it might be argued that bumping it up to it's own category disproportionately focuses the article on Leeds nightlife, since it occupies two sections now, one gay and one straight. I think the usual way articles handle this is to break off into a separate article once the section gets too huge, and only offer a summary in the main article. (Such as France in it's "economy" section vs. the Economy of France main article.) I don't think the section's big enough to warrant that yet though, but if it were to grow still more then perhaps a short paragraph summary in the nightlife section with a link to a "Leeds nightlife" or "Leeds LGBT (Gay) Scene" main article would be a rational evolution.

This is all moot as it stands now though, because in fact I would say that the whole paragraph can fit in "nightlife" without harm--if others feel that the straight scene is suddenly under-represented then they might be spurred to add content, and we avoid having two sections dedicated to nightlife that way. --Marlow4 10:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I find that this section reads like a poorly written travel guide. It is part of nightlife and belongs in the nightlife section if anywhere. I am not sure that the nightlife of Leeds rises to the importance of having either a straight, gay, or combined section. 5:10 gmt, July, 15, 2005

A city in a city?

The introduction of this article is confusing at best and most likely incorrect. It states: "Leeds is a city in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in the north of England. [...] Leeds is part of a metropolitan borough named the City of Leeds." How can a city be part of another city? As I understand it City status in the United Kingdom is confered upon an area governed by a local authority. In the case of Leeds the local authority governs the whole of the metropolitan borough and it is therefore the borough and no other entity that has city status. Personally I see no reason why this article and the City of Leeds article shouldn't be merged—however, I have read the debate from October last year and I see that there are people with very strong opinions on that subject. But, if the articles are not to be merged, the introduction of this article needs to be clearer and correct, something like: "Leeds is the principle town within the metropolitan borough the City of Leeds. JeremyA (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's rather silly and confusing having the articles split. But other people strongly disagree with them being merged. The problem is is that the city/borough boundaries include places other than Leeds itself. G-Man 16:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where User:JeremyA got that idea because it says no such thing in the article City status in the United Kingdom.

As User:G-Man indicates, the problem is that the metropolitan borough is governed by a corporation called the City of Leeds and/or Leeds City Council, even though it includes large areas of countryside as well as conurbations which are not part of the city of Leeds under any stretch of imagination, such as Otley -- it is the reality created by legislation which is confusing, and the article names simply reflect that.

^^^I have deleted Otley and Wharfedale from this section, as they aren't areas of the city, but of the metropolitan borough, like you said.

That said, better disambiguation would be useful. I originally proposed something along the lines of what User:JeremyA suggests, but it was reverted because it duplicated information in the first paragraph.

The situation is further confused by the UK having both traditional county and metropolitan county boundaries to deal with. Often the traditional county and metropolitan county have the same name, but don't have identical borders., so parts of the traditional county of lancashire lie inside the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire.

I favoured renaming the article Leeds (metropolitan borough), particularly as the borough is usually referred to in official documents simply as Leeds, but this was not the favoured option.

Ben@liddicott.com 19:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The table of cities in the article City status in the United Kingdom shows that the city called Leeds is a metropolitan borough. This is why I refered to that article when stating that the current wording of the introduction to this article is incorrect: it is the metropolitan borough that has city status and to refer to any sub-part of the metropolitan borough as a city in that borough is nonsensical. The people of Otley might not like it, but that does not change the fact that they are within the area that has been granted city status as the City of Leeds. As stated at the Leeds City Council website city status was originally awarded to the County Borough that existed in 1893, and when in 1974 that Borough was merged with the boroughs of Pudsey and Morley and some of the surrounding area it was agreed to pass the city status on to the new Metropolitan Borough. Therefore it is incorrect for an article about a sub-entities of the Metropolitan Borough to refer to that entity as a city. JeremyA (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No argument there. Otley is definitely within the metropolitan borough named Leeds, which has ceremonial city status. That doesn't make it part of the city in the ordinary sense or in any human-geographical sense, and it isn't. That's why we need two articles, the City of Leeds to talk about the metropolitan borough which has a Charter and City status, to discuss its governance, the history of the ceremonial designation, and other things shared by the whole area, and Leeds to talk about the city in the ordinary sense, as a region within the metropolitan borough. Just because it is the biggest and most populous conurbation within the borough doesn't mean the others don't exist and aren't distinct.

England is full of such contradictions. Think of the City of Westminster and the City of London which are where? In the city London. This is the same, only the other way about.

By all means improve the disambiguation or rename the articles, but don't merge them, please! Ben@liddicott.com 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just today an anon editor was obviously confused as he/she made edits to this article that would have been more appropriate in the City of Leeds article. That said, I am not actually pushing for a merger. Rather, I feel that if there are to be two articles it is very important that this article is obviously not about the City of Leeds. For example, the article lists places that Leeds is twinned with, and I am almost certain that these places are actually twinned with the City of Leeds and not Leeds as defined in this article. I have tried to reword the introduction in such a way that it makes it clear that when we say Leeds we mean the area traditionally thought of as the city, and when we say City of Leeds we mean the larger area that the government means when they refer to the city. Although I am not going to push for a merger, I remain unconvinced that Wikipedia gains anything from having these two articles, I think that a single article could be written that covers both Leeds and the City of Leeds and that such an article would better serve the reader (note that City of Sheffield and Sheffield were merged in October 2004 and the resulting article is, in my opinion, much better for it). JeremyA (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that city status is only conferred on a borough or corporation - although in general usage, it applies to a specific built-up area. As such, Leeds required a new city charter in 1974, as did many other cities. Warofdreams talk 12:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

One interesting thing here is that when e.g. city status was given to Stirling, the council designated an area to be given the 'city' status, I understand, which was devised from scratch after doing surveys.

If confusion is the problem, there's a case for moving City of Leeds to Metropolitan Borough of Leeds or somesuch. Confusion is not a reason to merge the articles entirely. Morwen - Talk 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting Leeds to the front page

After Sheffield was article of the day (20th Feb 06) we should aim for the Leeds article to reach the same level of quality. Luke C 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am working to complete re-work the Leeds article, see my sandbox for my progress so far. Luke C 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What UK city has second largest financial sector outside of London?

There appears to be a discrepancy between this article, which states 'Leeds has … the largest media, financial and legal sectors outside London', and the Wikipedia article on Edinburgh, which states ' Edinburgh is the second largest financial centre in the United Kingdom after the City of London' Thus, which city can rightfully claim to have the second largest financial sector in the United Kingdom after the City of London? I haven’t been able to confirm this either way. --Nicholas 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... It appears that Birmingham also report the same thing (source). cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional: This financial services report (p 36) seems to indicate that whilst Leeds is behind Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh at the moment, it will have become the second largest by 2020. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We should always go with citations over hubris... --Tagishsimon (talk)

Over on the Edinburgh talk page, Shimgray has pointed us in the direction of a recent BBC article, which rates cities in terms of GDP per head of population. It has London first, then Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Leeds, and Birghmingham in sixth place. Is this kinda thing decided by GDP? --Nicholas 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Sector != whole area, absolute != per head. But we can publish all of these metrics on all of the big city pages, by way of adducing facts to combat the hyperbole. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Leeds - featured article on the Swedish wikipedia!

Have we spoted that Leeds is a featured article on (I think) the Swedish wikipedia. There sems to be stuff on their article which could be uplifted onto ours with minimal pain. If I were not (meant to be) working right now... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2006

Leeds Twin Cities

Point taken with Leeds - City of Leeds on twin cities. By the way its not just me that has added it on in the past others have too - Confusion! That is what is being generated. In addition, half a job is being done on the twinned city entries. All those cities are now linked to Leeds. Do people think Brno wants to have to link to both? No. I think really Leeds only needs one entry. Has anybody taken the time to look at other entries? Manchester and City of Manchester? Birmingham and City of Birmingham? Leeds should follow suit. In addition, everybody seems to be obsessed with political and administrative boundaries! Take a look at the Xscape website its in the WMDC area - however it markets itself as Leeds - Castleford. Manchester markets itself overseas on one brand, Manchester.--Andyb56 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding schools

"One of the first high schools in Leeds to be rebuilt will be Pudsey Grangefield School" Some schools (e.g. Lawnswood) have already been rebuilt, and others are being rebuilt (e.g. Ralph Thoresby). Either this is information is out of date or completely wrong - which is it? Does it need changing to past tense, or changing completely? --Tim 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

Iv'e been cutting parts out of the article and putting them in new ones. However the main article needs the original parts shrinking otherwise its pointless. Luke C 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

POV?

How was the following contribution a POV?

Three of the four men responsible for the 7 July 2005 London bombings were from Leeds.

The four bombers were traced and a bomb factory found in Leeds! Yorkshire Phoenix 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, POV was the wonrg phrase, though probably flaming is a more appropriate reson. See User talk:Cbuckley#Leeds.

Flaming? Yorkshire Phoenix 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He's just being politically correct. Unfortunately removing highly notable facts just because they are uncomfortable is not NPOV. Lancsalot 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Leeds - featured article on the Swedish wikipedia!

Have we spoted that Leeds is a featured article on (I think) the Swedish wikipedia. There sems to be stuff on their article which could be uplifted onto ours with minimal pain. If I were not (meant to be) working right now... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2006

WP:GA

Is there anyone who can help me make this a good article?? SunStar Net 11:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added some ideas for improvement. MRSC • Talk 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Music

Just added this section, I based it on the excellent job someone has done for Birmingham. I'm sure I've missed loads out, but it's a start. unknown user who didn't sign their comment

I noticed that The Orbit in Morley now appears in both the Nightlife and Music subsections. Perhaps the two could be merged and sorted out. I know absolutely nothing about the music or nightlife in Leeds so perhaps someone in the know could have a go please. The Hugmonster 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Population

Please don't confuse the population of Leeds (city) with City of Leeds (the district). The population there is correct (700,000 ish) and the one here is right too (400,000 ish). DJ Clayworth 15:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have recently edited this and City of Leeds populations. The population of the metropolitan borough is 726,939. The population of the Leeds urban area is 443,247. This is roughly what is stated on Swedish Wikipedia. This may be backed up by List of English cities by population, which uses [this ONS data (see row 645). I think it is important that all wikipedia articles are consistant, so can user 80.43.159.119 and 80.47.207.8 stop editing this please? L.J.Skinner^{WOT?|I did} 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Could someone please tell me how to get picture on to pages of wikipeda. I have been trying for months and can't find the correct way. Thanks. 80.47.107.23 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. Anyone? 80.43.58.89 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to register a user account to be able to upload images. Once you have done that see Wikipedia:Images and the pages linked from there for complete instructions. —JeremyA (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy 80.47.210.67 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ADD to the text about VQ.

Features in the Quarter include a stained glass ceiling by Brian Clarke, the largest in Britain and mosaic floors by Joanna Veevers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.186.82 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Religion

Regards, "The majority of people in Leeds consider themselves to be Christian", can this really be true? Perhaps this is of those who actually claim any religion at all? I live in Leeds, and the majority don't seem to be even slightly superstitious IME.

Yup! 2001 census stats for Leeds City Council area show 69% Christian, 17% no religion, 8% religion not stated, 3% Muslim, 3% other (Hindu, Sikh, Jewish etc). A lot of people will consider themselves Christian merely because they have been christened or attend church once or twice a year. The Hugmonster 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people use statistics rather like a drunk uses lamp-posts, for support rather than for illumination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.59.176 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Crime

What is this article, a tourism brochure for Leeds?

No mention of the fact that this city has some of the highest levels of crime in the entire UK? Please.

I agree. Leeds has one of the highest crime rates in the UK and was recently named as the 2nd most crime-ridden city in England after Nottingham.

Almost all large cities have relatively high levels of crime. If you were going to add that to the Leeds article you'd also have to add it for London, Birmingham, Manchester etc if you were going to be consistent. MFlet1 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one else commented, I'v added the crime section.

I've had a look through the articles referred to and can't find anything saying Leeds is the second most crime ridden city in the country. The Reform article says overall it is ranked about 24th for serious crime. The Home Office stats show it not to be particularly better or worse than other cities. In addition, the use of the term crime-ridden in the article is not objective. Most other major cities (with the exception of Nottingham) do not have a crime section. This does not add to the article so I am deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantpole (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Since I was born and raised in Leeds, I find it extremely hard to belive that Leeds is only 24th fot serious crime, plus this only states serious crime. What about all other aspects of crime in the city? The sourecs I added clearley showed that crime levels are way above the national average in Leeds, and there was no good reason for why this section of the article should be deleted. 212.139.240.183 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the sources you quote? They do not say what you are asserting. Quantpole 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

These source clearley show that the crime figures in Leeds are way above the national average - almost double on some. 80.47.232.221 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit by 80.47.232.221 which added the crime section back in but also carelessly undid a number of other edits. I've suggested the user be more careful in future and also that this should be discussed further.

I would however, support the inclusion of the section as I believe it is relevant. I would like to see a reference for the statement that "the difference with Leeds is that most of the suburbs are troubled areas too", otherwise that shouldn't be included. Adambro 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As this was added back in, I've edited it to remove the statement without adequate references. I would support keeping the crime information in the article. Adambro 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Adambro. I think it is now a lot more objective (though I am still confused as to why Leeds warrants a section where other major cities do not). I think it is also worth noting that the reference to Leeds being the second most crime-ridden place is actually a Times article rather than what reform have actually said. As far as I can tell they did an original report and a revised one. I haven't been able to find the original report (which may be where the Times got their details) but the revised one (of July 2006) shows Leeds being 11th without London boroughs and 23rd with London Boroughs - tables 12 and 13 respectively. Notably it is shown to be below Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol etc etc. Quantpole 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Adambro. 80.43.61.68 10:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added both reports to the section of crime, as they are both relevant, and I have added the fact that Leeds has more crimes in total than any other city in England besides London, and this is shown in the same report by Reform, so I have added the source. 80.47.91.78 10:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is still far too much opinion coming through in this section. Phrases such as "murder capital" are not objective, and does not take account of the fact that Leeds is actually rated 9th for murder rate. Also, why no reference to the rape rate when Leeds is pretty much the city average for this? We should not be picking and choosing the bits we want. 81.107.211.78 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I included the murder section because it is a crime I feel people will be most interested in. Also, there was more murders in Leeds and Birmingham than every other city, besides London, and it is only ranked 9th because of the population. This is fact and should be noted. 80.47.249.124 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet again we have someone changing the crime section back, despite it being cleaned up to some extent by RichardEll. As RichardEll said in his edit, the population is meaningless. Leeds isn't rated 11th because it has a relatively high population, it is rated 11th because that's what its crime rate apparently is! There are numerous and consistent attempts to make Leeds out to be some sort of hell hole. Look at the first comment on this thread - it's hardly dispassionate - and that has continued with edits to the article and comments in this section. I do not understand why the old report is still being referred to - surely it was revised because it was incorrect. I don't particularly understand why so much stall is being set on this reform report in the first place. They are a think-tank, and think-tanks aren't known for being objective. It may warrant a note in passing but most of the section is now based on their report. Quantpole 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Quantpole, I agree. Sadly, as soon as the anonymous user block comes off hoards of rubbish appears, as evidenced by the number of reverts today. It's particularly disappointing that random figures are presented as meaningful statistics. My hard-sums teacher at school would have said that they are using statistics as a drunkard uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination. I've lived in Leeds for a long time and have never been murdered, raped, assaulted, burgled or robbed, so I agree that it's not the hell-hole of lawless desolation that it is being painted. Having said that, my car was nicked from Leeds once, by a bunch of scallys from Manchester. Maybe we should change the article to say something like Leeds is a city full of criminals and if you go there you'll be lucky to get out alive. The labour-led council do nothing to change the policing strategy, and the police can't cope with the levels of crime. Luckily the predominantly right-wing think tank Reform are on the case... RichardEll 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

History

"Leodis" should read "Loidis" (Bede states: "...regione quae vocatur Loidis" region known as Loidis).

I was under the impression Loidis referred to the general area, rather than the particular place that became Leeds. Leodis may have been derived from Loidis. Also, the Domesday book refers to the place as Ledes. See history of leeds for details. Quantpole 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Have made some minor edits to Loidis (Elmet page) and (City of Leeds metropolitan borough/district). Can you give the ancient reference(s) for "Leodis" as could not find anything! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.61.159 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Artists in Leeds

I don't see the relevance of this section. Why not one for doctors/policeman/etc? It seems like a section for people to advertise themselves. Quantpole 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This section has been around ages but, yes, it's not relevant to the subject of "Leeds" and in any case its content appears to breach links normally to be avoided guidelines 3 and 4. As such, this section should go. Does anyone want to put forward a case for its retention? RichardEll 09:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A hint of the Leeds/Manchester rivalry in the text?

"much of the importance taken from nearby Manchester which is now a much smaller and less important town."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.153.143 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 July 2007

Transport

This seemed a bit unstructured, and there was duplicated info under "Tourism", so I've tried to sort it out and hope no-one is upset. I think everything which was previously there is still there albeit in a different order, plus a bit more. PamD 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

... and the sentence which inspired me to start shuffling stuff round, about the first traffic lights in Yorkshire, looked out of place under "Museums": I eventually copied it into "History" as it seemed more at home there than in "Transport"! PamD 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More Importantly, the Transport section on the page needs condensing to just one paragraph. Like that of "Developments" in the article. The infomation which was present before has been moved to it's own article. I would do it myself but I lack coherrent writing. --Dee4leeds 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a county anyway?

While Leeds may be in the historic and ceremonial counties of West Yorkshire, as a metropolitan authority it isn't in the real county.

Now that's just rubbish. West Yorkshire was never a true ceremonial county (I believe you're mixed up with the West Riding) and West Yorkshire was just an administrative metropolitan county (and was abolished at same time as all the others), but Leeds was definitely in both, and can still be construed to be in "West Yorkshire" since the borders of that entity are those of the combination of the five constituent unitary authorities that succeeded it. (OK, terminology might be wrong, but concept's right.) In any case, Leeds is definitely in the real county that counts: Yorkshire. ;-) 80.192.153.143 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yorkshirepostcover.gif

Image:Yorkshirepostcover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Leeds Town Hall deleted

Leeds Town Hall was deleted on 13 July as a "copyvio". I can't remember what the article looked like - does anyone else know whether it had good content or not? PamD 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A new article has now been created, but I wonder what good content has been lost? Does anyone know what there used to be in this article? PamD 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Museums

I've straightened out the section on museums, and created stub articles for Abbey House Museum, Leeds Art Gallery (doesn't seem to call itself City Art Gallery nowadays) and Leeds City Museum (the future one - due in Aug 08 they say). PamD 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Schools again

User:Yourewhom? had removed links to various schools and added new ones. I've replaced the deleted links and alphabetised the schools. Several new articles on schools created by that user seem to be copyvio and unencyclopedic, text lifted from school websites with "we welcome..." etc. PamD 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Various schools articles have been deleted as copy-vio. Have removed the links to those pages. PamD 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole education section could do with a bit of a clean up. I doubt many people are fussed about a list of schools for instance. Could we change it to have a bit more background to education in Leeds. For instance, when the university was founded, a bit of history about the Met (such as it's former polytechnic status) and how state schools came about (including the first ones maybe?)Quantpole 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IIFAA 2007

This is written up in future tense (under "Media") - perhaps someone interested in it could report on how it went? PamD 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

images and layout

Could someone who's good at images and layout please fix the layout so that with table of contents hidden the text of "History" starts immediately below the heading, rather than leaving a long gap until it's level with the end of the infobox? Thanks! PamD 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an IE only problem as it works OK in Firefox Keith D 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a bash at applying some basic Manual of style as well as the How to write about settlements guide. The article does need a lot of TLC however, -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"IE only problem" still affects the majority of WP readers (saw some stats somewhere recently, can't remember where!). I've moved the map image down a bit, which fixes the problem I was having above (if I hide the ToC I was getting a blank space between "Main article: History of Leeds" and the following line of text which was aligned with bottom of infobox/top of image). PamD 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

City of Leeds template

Is the template supposed to be "City of Leeds (met district)" or "Leeds (the city)"? It includes Wetherby but not Otley, and seems to have done so from its creation. Yeadon and Rawdon have been added more recently. Could we clarify, perhaps actually labelling the template to show what it's about? Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ext links

I've replaced most of the links recently deleted from "External links" by an anonymous editor User:79.69.191.179, because I think they are justified. I moved the "Loiners of Leeds United" to the Leeds United page instead. Of the links here, only "VR Leeds" is a commercial site, and I think its amazing collection of panoramic pictures makes it worth linking to. Leodis is a vast collection of images of Leeds provided by the City Libraries, and complements the article - both come into the WP:EL description of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons". The other deleted sites also appear useful and worth linking. The one site I didn't think justifiable, which the previous editor had actually left alone, was "Leeds City Guide The Official Leeds City Guide.", which doesn't appear to be official! I rearranged the order to put the two images sites together. PamD (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

VR Leeds

Another anon editor, User:79.69.149.172 , has removed this external link:

• VR Leeds 360 degree panoramic images (use "Tour map" or "Search" to select),

saying "This MFA ("Made for Adsense/Ads") scraper site doesn't belong here no matter how pretty you think the pictures are". I think it's a worthwhile external link for the sake of the panoramic images, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Any opinions? PamD (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Livedesigneastgate.jpg

Image:Livedesigneastgate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Internet industry

I do not see that this warrants a separate heading in the section. It could also do with being trimmed a bit. Anyone object, please let me know, otherwise I'll go ahead in a few days. Quantpole 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

~Personally, I think the schools should have links which go to their home page e.g. Allerton High home page, then anyone can see for themselves.~ Sorry for intruding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.177.61 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with City of Leeds

I realise this has been discussed on this page previously, but city status would have been transferred from the original urban core to the whole metropolitan district by letters patent for the district to use that style. This article should be merged with City of Leeds or that article should be renamed Leeds local governance. See London Gazette (Issue 46255) published 04 April 1974. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to keep them separate: "Leeds" is a town which has just celebrated its 800th anniversary. "City of Leeds" is a metropolitan district created in 1974, perhaps inappropriately named but we're stuck with it, having the status of a City as per the London Gazette, which includes several separate towns such as Otley as well as Leeds. They are very different (ask anyone from Otley whether they live in Leeds). The statement on the Leeds page about the pre-1974 boundaries of Leeds is probably about the best definition we've got as to what constitutes "Leeds" as opposed to "City of Leeds". PamD (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and I think we need to be precise here with the language we use. Leeds is not a town, it is a city. The 800 year old settlement was granted that status in 1893. In 1974, when the county borough was abolished, that status was transferred to the newly created metropolitan district, which also includes two former municipal boroughs, four former urban districts and three former rural districts. If letters patent were not granted (by request of the council) and charter trustees had been appointed, the area of the former county borough would have continued to be styled the City of Leeds and the larger local government district would have been called Leeds (or likely another designation) Metropolitan District.

City of Leeds should really re-direct to Leeds and I propose the present article at City of Leeds should be renamed Leeds city council, Leeds metropolitan district or Leeds local governance. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am with PamD here what we have now is exactly as it should be and it matches exactly what we have for other areas in the same situation such as Bradford and City of Bradford. The City of Leeds is the name of the metropolitan district and as such should be the name of the article as per usual naming conventions. Leeds is just a component of the district and is clearly a different entity and should be retained as such to avoid confusion. Keith D (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly all that belongs in the History section. What you are referring to when you say Leeds is Leeds urban area. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for nostalgic local idiosyncrasies, so we need to be accurate. Bradford is no where near a good article and neither is this. Sheffield, on the other hand, which also has pages for Sheffield City Council and Sheffield City Centre, is now a featured article. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From the look of Sheffield, the metropolitan district seems to be much closer to being the "Sheffield urban area". City of Leeds met district includes rural areas and very distinct towns and villages, as well as the urban area of Leeds. This is not just history, it's geography. PamD (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is history. The current geography is defined as I have outlined above, anything else violates WP:NOR. I am not suggesting the two must be merged, but City of Leeds should re-direct to Leeds and the present article at City of Leeds should be renamed Leeds city council or Leeds metropolitan district. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset) In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, I have now moved City of Leeds to Leeds city council and made City of Leeds a redirect to Leeds. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There were arguments against the move on this page and it should have been processed via WP:RM as it is clearly a controversial move not moved unilaterally. Keith D (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also object to this move. At very least, this should have been taken to the Yorkshire WikiProject, if not the England and UK geography projects. I urge a speedy rollback here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion cannot be described as "absence of any arguments to the contrary", so the move should not have been made. There seems to be only one editor in favour of it. What's the procedure to get this reversed? PamD (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the quickest way is to raise it at WP:ANI. I could do it but being involved I would prefer another admin to do it. Keith D (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith D has asked me to look at this. I don't think we need to go to ANI, but it was controversial and I think the best forum is WP:RM as well. I'm sorry, I have very limited time today to help on WP, but that's my input. Sorry I can't do more at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have followed the procedure of WP:RM. I have also changed the redirect at City of Leeds so that it points to the original article at its current title of "Leeds city council", so that the many links which are intended to point to the metropolitan district will continue to do so while we wait for the backlog at WP:RM. PamD (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight of/within Nightlife section

Yorkshirian is unhappy about the extensive coverage of gay nightlife. I think we are both not very qualified to judge this section, so here are some questions to those who know more.

• There are probably good reasons why the Nightlife paragraph for Leeds is much longer than that for Bradford, for example. But is it appropriate to mention so many individual places? The Manchester article doesn't, and still conveys the impression that Manchester is pretty lively during the night. Currently it looks as if Leeds has a much more diverse nightlife than Liverpool. Is this true, or is there a problem with the balance in either article, or both? (This could be a silly question, but please have patience with a naive immigrant.)
• Is the balance within the section appropriate?

--Hans Adler (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would probably like to see a significant prune here as it seems overly long, especially as most of the section is totally unreferenced. Maybe initially we should only retain that which has proper citations and only allow expansion with cited noteworthy material otherwise it just becomes a list of people's favourite locations. Keith D (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But note that the one reference that we already have seems to be good for a large part of the section, not just the sentence where it appears. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to clafiy this in the article as it does not look like that as it stands. Keith D (talk)

As I am not male, gay or squeamish looked up a reference for the text on gay nightlife in Leeds. Will this do?http://www.leeds-uk.com/gay/leeds-gay-scene.htm As a link it might be deemed to be advertising. Last time I was in Leeds late at night (outside The Queens Hotel)there was considerable evidence of gay nightlife, but this could be deemed to be original research--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article really isn't very good

First off, apologies for the rather negative title.

Areas of Leeds

The areas section lists many areas that City of Leeds claims are outside Leeds proper. Which article is correct? JeremyA 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that, some areas are parts of others. This section is a bit of a mess really. We could list (or link to) the wards, but that is for the City of Leeds, and includes areas outside of the city itself. Maybe we should try a different tack, and make it more descriptive. We could talk about the main areas (e.g. Horsforth, Headingley etc) which merged to form Leeds, and then link to a list. Quantpole 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is "a bit of a mess". Part of the problem seems to be a lack of knowledge as to where the exact boundary of "Leeds city" lies. For example are such places as Aberford, Calverley, Garforth, Kippax, Micklefield, Otley, Oulton, Rodley, Woodlesford, etc, inside or outside the boundary? Is there anywhere a detailed official map showing the boundary? How can one find out this information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.40.142 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Can anyone answer the questions I asked above on the 16 April 2007?

See "Areas of the City" (section 45) below, also see ref 3 and ref 6 on the article page for info and maps. 24 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.68.26 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've dabbled in this article on and off for a while really, and over that time I think it has got worse rather than better. As it stands, the article is bloated, full of irrelevent or boring information, and in general reads poorly. There are too many sections that are lists or a reeling off of facts (particularly areas of the city, transport, events etc). Description is lacking (how can a list of city districts be an adequate description of the geography?) The whole culture and recreation section is way too long. I think this may be because many individuals come and add bits they are interested in, but don't consider the article as a whole.

I know I have no right to moan, unless I actually try and sort it out as well, and I would like to try and get this article to be a bit better. Does anyone have any comments (negative or positive)? It would be good if there are a few of us keen to work on it.

Good city articles can be seen at sheffield, manchester, southampton.

Thanks Quantpole (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates Copy edit for WP:MOS Some sections appear to be overly large considering that the article already employs summary style - needs attention to decide what is required here and what in the lower-level articles Listing of districts breaks-up the atricle - maybe better as a map of the areas ? Keith D 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)