Talk:Leeds/Archives/2008/September

City Status
Who the hell are these morons, debating Leeds' legal status as a city. You are disputing it by taking a hugely illogical view on a meaningless turn of phrase in the apparant city status of Leeds (meaningless because city status was granted 70 years before the district in question came to existance). In far more credable ways, I could list London (an indeed many of the world's other largest cities) as towns with a population of less then 10000. However it only takes a degree of common sence to see past it. As such I have disreggarded the warning and changed the phrasing of the sentance, although how long this will remain before some pedantic busy body, who would argue that the sky was green will change it back remains to be seen. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2008


 * Please calm down and stop attacking other editors: see WP:NPA. Please also read the previous discussions at Talk:Leeds/Archive /March 2008. And please add the date to your contributions, and remember that new items in a talk page go at the end, not the top. Thanks. PamD (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (aka "pedantic busy body")

Mtaylor848 is right. Course Leeds is a city. It is the fourth lagest city in England and people who argue that it isn't are fools, and no doubt only do so because they are small town people who are jealous of Leeds's city status, which, as Mtaylor848 pointed out, was granted over 70 years ago. No offence PamD, but you seem a little stuck up your own ass to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.41.228 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mucked up formatting...?
I may have (very accidently) mucked up article formatting. Just changed some punctuation in Music sub-section and moved an unclear banner as it was in the middle of a paragraph. The rest of the article now appears (on my monitor and even after a forced refresh) now appears in a restricted column. Look strange to anyone else? Anyone help? Thanks. --Ormers (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The two templates just needed to be on different lines. —Jeremy (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't think to try the templates on separate lines - will remember that though!! Thanks for sorting it out.--Ormers (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo
The photo currently at the top of the infobox could be anywhere on any continent, until you click to see it at large scale and notice the Victorian buildings in the foreground. I'd like to replace it with a pic of the Town Hall, either the one lower down in the article or perhaps http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/404007 from Geograph. Like it or not, it's more recognisably "Leeds" than any other picture. Any objections? Thought I'd raise it here for discussion rather than get into edit wars about it - I think the Town Hall was the infobox photo a while back. PamD (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The current top photo is a bit non-descript. MFlet1 (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Five days on, and the only comment was in support. I'll move the Town Hall into the infobox. PamD (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move but the previous picture should be included elsewhere in the article.--Yunchy (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and maintenance tags
Is there any chance of addressing some of the many tags in the article as it stands? The article also has several list type sections and is getting rather long and may need splitting out. Reason for asking is the preparation required for the next release of the Wiki-CD. Keith D (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also there are problems with several of the existing references and external links that are not working or require a password to access. Keith D (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When is an area of Leeds not an area of Leeds?
Apparently when it's listed in Wikipedia. The questions arises as I've seen Horsforth (and other areas) be added as areas of Leeds and then removed - today. I suspect this isn't the only time this has happened. So: Once these small questions are answered and the criteria agreed (if that's possible), perhaps we can have a coherent list of the constituent areas of Leeds? --Ormers (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * what are the criteria for being listed as a part of Leeds?
 * what are the criteria for being listed as a part of the City of Leeds?
 * what are the criteria for being listed as a part of the Environs of Leeds?


 * No, this wasn't the first time this has happened. I think we don't have general agreement as to what "Leeds", in the sense of this article, is. The present article is about what most people think of as Leeds, the "city", but some people think of as Leeds, the large settlement within the "city". (We have had some surreal discussions about the meaning of the word "city". The "settlement" people object to the word "town" as well.) This area is necessarily ill-defined. I think the current de facto definition (which leads to this kind of reverts) is as the Leeds urban area as used in government statistics. I haven't seen a source that actually defines this area, but presumably someone has.
 * The case of the City of Leeds is much easier, because it is a legal entity. While Leeds, very counter-intuitively, isn't. Personally I think it would be best to merge the two pages, but there seems to be no support for that. I am not sure why, but I guess it is for systematic reasons. (There are different templates for settlements and for districts, etc.) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support the merging of both articles. This would bring Leeds into line with other cities, and avoid the issue of 'What is Leeds?'. Which in itself is an irrelevant question because the City of Leeds IS Leeds. It's a fact that it is; the debate is over people's opinions of what is Leeds. But officially, Leeds is a city that stretches from Wetherby to Morley and from Otley to Garforth. Wikipedia should reflect fact, not opinion, and therefore I would support a merge of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.1 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging is the right thing to do! --Tubs uk (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A discussed previously the 2 are completely different entities and should in no way be merges, just as per Salford and City of Salford are separate articles. There are some which attempt to combine different entities but these should, in my opinion, be split. Additionally the article is already over long and is in need of splitting not merging. Keith D (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lumiere
Should this picture be removed? Pictures of actual Leeds past and present are OK, but this is speculation, and increasingly less likely.Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Until there is any final cancellation of the scheme, no changes should be made. Linfoot still shows 100% intention to build Lumiere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)