Talk:Harehills

Despite many perceptions of the area, Harehills is not all bad, with many clean and well kept streets.

Where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.27.125 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Location
The dot on the map wants moving down a little bit. I don't know how to do this, so if somebody could.Mtaylor848 (talk)
 * It is governed by the co-ordinates given top-right of article. I think I have corrected, if you can confirm. I have also changed the OS map reference as that was too far north to be correct. Keith D (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Churches
Shouldn't all the pictures of the churches and mosques and the like be moved elsewhere, there are too many, perhaps there could be a seperate page for churches, mosques and other loony bins in Harehills, and just one or two be reserved for the main page, either that or they could be integrated into the article better, perhaps down the right hand side or lost of text about churches and such, rather then the current gallery.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not like them, but they are factual and long-standing architectural and social features of the area, grouped together under a section heading in Wikipedia gallery fashion. From a NPOV there is no reason to choose one above the others. I think they are more relevant and illustrative than the Harehills Parade image. There is a separate gallery in which I have tried to include pictures which stand up as photographs in their own right, but also illustrate diverse features of the area.Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Having the picture gallery half way up the article created a physical seperation in the article. It should be further down. I would still say that it would be best to endevour to have a section

Yorkshire project class
I have upgraded this page from 'Start' to 'C' class. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - definitely a C now, a tidy of the references and an expansion of the lead will be needed to get it to a B. Keith D (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm think that the article should have a higher importance rating than low as it has 12 sections with a large amount of information. Hamish Griffin (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The importance rating is not based on the content of the article rather the perceived need to have an article on this topic. An article on a suburb of somewhere is pretty low down on this scale while an article on a city is rather high. Currently the Yorkshire project has restricted Top-importance articles so everything else falls into the other 3 classifications and thus this one is low. Keith D (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)