Talk:Leeds/Archives/2017/November

How To approach content?
It is pretty clear that the merge isn't going to get consensus. Whilst the main protagonists are here and talking can there be some consideration of exactly how we are supposed to actually put relevant information in here? For example, Centre for Cities just uses the borough area now. Does that mean we cannot give any information from them? It would be severely limiting to what we can say about the place if so. Polequant (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've just hit the reason why the merge ought to happen - No original research. There is agreement that the core settlement is distinct from the borough, and that agreement means the merge discussion will go nowhere. However, to write about either concept separately we need to know what the source means when it refers to Leeds. I'm not sure how we can know that without first working out (ie doing original research) whether the source means the settlement or the borough. I'm going to review the sources and see which, objectively, are about the settlement and not the district.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite. Starter for 10, how many universities are there in Leeds? Polequant (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As Nilfanion pointed out, the merge ought to happen and we shouldn't close the discussion. The majority of people opposing have made quick points and have not given further reasoning when responded to. It makes absolute sense for a merge to happen. If the merge doesn't go ahead, then Leeds should be the city and district and the urban subdivision should be a page for a solely statistical area... Even the ONS says the urban subdivision is a solely statistical area and the borders of the Leeds have been expanded. Yet it has been ignored, and I am confused to as why. I think we should consider this section a reset of the merger discussion and we should continue to discuss the merger. Perhaps people will acknowledge the new understanding. I have added a notice to state this is a reset of the merger discussion so people can respond to the new points raised.

A split would be a disastrous decision; not only would it be factually incorrect but it would also prevent us using 99% of sources... Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

All of these articles run into difficulty when cities start making contentious claims like "the third biggest city in the UK". The problem is that city boundaries are idiosyncratically drawn and don't lend themselves to like-for-like comparisons. Many of Britain's biggest cities (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle) were dismembered into separate Metropolitan Boroughs by the 1972 Boundary review, whilst other cities (Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Nottingham) escaped relatively intact. Overambitious attempts to expand city boundaries invariably founder on precisely the kind of debates being held above. It's better to stick to the facts: The "City of Leeds" contains 750,000 inhabitants and lies within the County of West Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The settlement is at least 1500 hundred years older than the ONS. Let us avoid WP:Recentism here. The article needs to cover the history and development of the city, including how it has grown and spread to be the centre of the local government area. Any difficulties in definition can be allowed for in the text. This is after all an encyclopedia article and not a directory of precisely what is in the settlement.Charles (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The history of Leeds is significant, and is handled in its own section (and article) - that element of the article is unaffected. However, the majority of the article describes present-day Leeds, and solely discusses aspects of the present-day place. Every section needs to provide facts and figures: How many schools are there in Leeds? Is the Chevin in Leeds? Are there any wind farms in Leeds? If this article is about the settlement and NOT the district-as-a-whole, the article should answer those questions for the urban core. For instance, the Chevin should not be mentioned in this article, as it is outside this article's subject.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've started work on detailed analysis at User:Nilfanion/Leeds, and will notify again when this is done. While I am doing this I won't make any changes to article content, but will try to fix dead links.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to be dead. I'm guessing there has been no conclusion so far then? Lad 2011 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is known as flogging a dead horse.Charles (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But there is not going to be any improvement to the article. Apart from Nilfanion no one is interested in talking about how to handle the content. Polequant (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)