Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/April

Places in Leeds
Now we need to think about this one!

We have at present:


 * Areas of Leeds, linked from the main article, a list with 70 entries, hitherto carefully policed to restrict it to places in "Leeds" as opposed to "City of Leeds".
 * Update- it now has 132 entries as I have merged the contents of Category:Leeds environs. PamD (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Districts of Leeds with 82 members (no, I don't know which 12 aren't in the above!)
 * Category:Leeds environs with 62 members
 * the City of Leeds template, with a list of 126 districts (so 18 are in one of the categories but not this template, unless there are any which have sneaked into both categories!)
 * a set of 33 wards which have names which may or may not be names of places, (eg "Temple Newsam", "Headingley", "Cross Gates and Whinmoor"), but which do provide one unambiguous way to divide Leeds up. (We don't have articles on all the wards, or a list or category of wards.)
 * a set of 10 "Management areas" into which the Council divides the city, such as "Inner North West" - see map at http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/StdDataDocs/4/7/2/0/SD00000274/AreaManagementAreaCommitteemap2008.pdf (Possibly no-one not involved in local politics or battling for services takes much notice of these, but they do divide the place up)
 * Postcodes, which provide another unambiguous way to divide the city

Out of interest, links from the "Geography" section of Manchester lead to List_of_places_in_Greater_Manchester which has a table showing the constituent boroughs of GM, with a list of "other components" within each, but "Manchester" only has seven such components!

I suggest it would be useful to create a new "Places in Leeds" list. I can see two approaches. One woud be as a sortable table which provided for some sort of geographical sorting, either by ward, postcode, or area - that way readers and editors could see which nearby areas have articles. In fact, if we use wards, we might as well have another column for "mgmt area", because ward maps onto area. Another would be a list of the 33 wards, with a list of places within each ward (formatted like the Manchester list, though I don't know whether we can get maps). Ward can be identified for anywhere for which you've got a postcode, from http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgFindCouncillor.asp. As many of us know, some place names in Leeds are very difficult to define and locate (eg Chapeltown), and there will be ongoing inconsistency (hey, this is WikiPedia after all) as to how small an area editors feel inspired to create an article for - I'm not suggesting any policing of that, just that we organise access to those articles in as helpful a way as we can.

Another approach would be to create articles for every ward, and to add "ward" info to placename articles which correspond to ward names (or create a separate article as in Bingley (ward)), as they've done at Bradford - see Category:Wards of Bradford.

I'm not sure what we should do with the template, but I feel that it's over-large. Perhaps it just needs a link to the new combined list of areas which we're going to produce. (One problem with a massive template is that if you want to check "What links here" the individual links are buried in a mass of links from the template which makes it difficult to check anything, though that's just something from the editing point of view.)

I think we need to merge the two categories mentioned above: there's a formal process for suggesting a merge at WP:CFD (and getting it done automatically once approved), but before going there I thought I should raise it here. I suggest that we propose: "Merge Category:Leeds environs and Category:Districts of Leeds into a new Category:Places in Leeds."

Summing up, I suggest:
 * A combined category, called "Places in Leeds". That would provide a straight A-Z listing of all our places.
 * A list of those places, either in a sortable table which allows sorting by Leeds City Council Ward (and might as well throw in the Management Areas too), or as a table which shows the 33 wards and lists the place names (for which there are articles) within each ward.
 * The template to just point to that list (or to the category), rather than include it.

Any thoughts on any of the above? PamD (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a combined category would make for much easier navigation! I don't believe an "Areas of Leeds" section within the main article is required now the ambiguities have gone, and a link to this new, all-encompassing category would more than suffice. It could include information as to each areas' locations within the MB, and where in regard to the pre-1974 boundaries these are located. With regard to creating articles for every single ward, I think this may naturally follow as this new page develops.

I noted Manchester's take on this. I don't think having a larger number of smaller areas would do any harm. We could base the article initially on postcodes, but this could cause further confusion. For example, parts of Kirkstall are in the LS4 and LS5 areas, whilst Meanwood traverses LS6 and LS7. I think wards may be the way forward, as expansion to smaller areas within, for example, tabulated form would make it much easier to comprehend. For example: Leeds > Beeston & Holbeck > Holbeck > Holbeck Urban Village > LS11

With regards to the main article, I think our initial priority is to de-clutter. There are so many references to places within/outside the urban core that are no longer necessary. A page like the one being discussed would provide all of this information. I think various sections could also be made to read more concisely, particularly if these sections have extenal articles, as many do.

Thisrain (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, tricky one. I'm in agreement that there should be one list containing any identifiable area of Leeds (Places in Leeds). These would not have to be defined areas, so places such as Chapeltown can be included. I also think that a separate list of the wards (Wards of Leeds?)would be good (though there will obviously be cross over between the two), as those are clearly defined and you can easily get population figures and so on. Unforutnately, the Morley and Outwood parliamentary consituency now crosses the boundary to Wakefield, so there is the potential for confusion if we define areas of Leeds by constituencies.

If the template included every area in Places in Leeds I think it would be bloated. Perhaps the template could then be of the wards, with a link to Places of Leeds in the text? Quantpole (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, as suggested above, we perhaps need one that is structured and organised, such as Wards of Leeds and another, that lists identifiable places/suburbs/towns eg Suburbs of Leeds or Places of Leeds. The only issue with wards is, they are not always that useful other than to just see as a visual map of wards, because for example, most identifiable places cross over two wards, example Morley North, and Morley South. What about just a section within the Governance page (currently City of Leeds which needs changing?). The governance/metropolitan district of leeds page is well suited to have a map showing the wards, and a map showing the postcodes maybe? If something like this is done, would the associated list that goes with the map, would they be clickable and lead to pages on each ward containing census data.. or would this be too exhaustive/not very useful ? Razorlax (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just been thinking about this more, PamD you've done a really good job of summarising the issues that need sorting here. I do agree that the first and easiest thing needed to do is merge the existing "areas of leeds" and "leeds environs" pages, and to update the 'city of leeds' template (which presumebley would move to the Leeds page? or is it best suited to stay on the district page? And within the newly merged areas of leeds list, maybe that could a subheading "Postcodes of Leeds", including a map; and another subheading "Wards of Leeds". Both these subheadings could fit onto the areas page, but also, they could both be new article names that redirect to the subheadings within the "areas of leeds" page. have i confused everyone lol. --Razorlax (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a first step I've added the places from Category:Leeds environs to the list at Areas of Leeds, by copying into Excel and a bit of fiddling around. So we have a list of 132 places, in a plain A-Z listing. Not a final solution, but seemed a step worth taking at this point. I've also renamed the template to Leeds. PamD (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a next step, I've done the formal thing at WP:CFD to propose merging the two place categories and renaming as Category:Places in Leeds. Feel free to comment there if need be. PamD (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Places - progress
An update on developments: PamD (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The categories Category:Areas of Leeds and Category:Leeds Environs have now been merged into a new Category:Places in Leeds.
 * I've moved the article Areas of Leeds to a new title Places in Leeds
 * I've amended the Leeds template so that it doesn't include links to vast numbers of individual places but has a link to the above article.
 * I'm still thinking about how to improve that article, currently an A-Z list, to provide the most useful access to articles. I'm beginning to think that listing places within wards, within Parliamentary constituencies, might be useful - they are unambiguous, every place is in one and only one (except where a place or area crosses ward boundaries, I guess... nothing's perfect!). I don't know whether a sortable table, with place, ward, constituency, would crash the system if it had 144 or so lines: is there a tables expert out there who knows? Any thoughts?
 * Stub-sorting activities have led me to see List of historic civil engineering landmarks which shows that a table of 244 entries sorts perfectly happily, so I plan to turn Places in Leeds into a table with columns for placename, ward, constituency, and note (eg "has town council"). Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Gratefulness for the work you are doing. I think the presentation of Leeds is improving considerably with all these changes. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First draft of first part of table is at User:PamD/Sandbox2/Leedsplaces, though I can't work out why it isn't sorting except on first column! PamD (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It seems that sorting breaks when there are incomplete rows. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should have thought of that. I was working in Excel, and copied a chunk into the rather splendid converter here, then fiddled around with the headings but didn't check the end! PamD (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * really great work there PamD - you've taken on a big task. I am awful with tables, but will try to assisst. Gotta agree, with everyones contributionsthe Leeds article is loooooking gooood :D Razorlax (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We've got a map! Someone pointed this facility out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hiking Trails: have a look at Category:Places in Leeds.  I think it's great.  Mind you, I had to remove the coords from Quarry Hill, Leeds and Hawksworth, West Yorkshire, which were appearing in Scotland and Nottinghamshire respectively!  Meanwhile I'm still working on the mega table for Places in Leeds - putting it together in Excel off-wiki for the sake of sorting and autocomplete facilities. It's coming along nicely. PamD (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, it's been a long morning's work, but I think we've got it: see User:PamD/Sandbox2/Leedsplaces again. I need to work out some fiddle so that missing values sort to the bottom not the top using sort, and tidy up the headings, and before putting it up at Places in Leeds it needs various comments and footnotes, but there's the main table done. PamD (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * great work there PamD. I'm having trouble with the two map links though.. neither of them work this end. Razorlax (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the maps in the category page, or the links from my page? All 4 are working for me, in Mozilla firefox. PamD (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The two links for the maps on the category page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Places_in_Leeds . I'm using IE7. It doesnt work at home or at work either where I am now. Razorlax (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ignore me, they both work now! lol. Honest, they didnt work earlier, or at home, but they do now i've tried again how bizzare hehe. Sorry. Razorlax (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The new table is now in place at Places in Leeds. Feel free to edit (but carefully, please - it's got a few fiddly features!) or comment here. There are a few gaps where I couldn't find a piece of information - I've got them sorting to the bottom rather than top by putting  (ah, that last parameter is "& n b s p ;" minus spaces, which doesn't show up here - to sort as "zz" but display a space ie visibly nothing), but if you can help, please do so. PamD (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leeds LUZ
The article states that "Leeds is part of the Leeds-Bradford Larger Urban Zone (LUZ), the third largest in the UK after London and Manchester, with an estimated population in the 2004 Urban Audit of 2.4 million." Although this is backed by the reference, the Wikipedia page on urban conurbations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conurbations_in_the_United_Kingdom) gives Leeds a much lower total (1.5m) compared to Birmingham and Manchester (2.3m and 2.2m) - can these figures be reconciled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.176.119 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. LUZ's are a standard ONS-affiliated EU eurostat defined methodolgy of measuring urban areas from different countries for comparisons to be made between them. Leeds article actually lists both the West Yorks Urban Area, and the Leeds-Bradford LUZ by way of reconicliation anyway. --Razorlax (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)