Talk:Leeds Town Hall/Archive 1

Good article nomination
I have nominated this article as a 'good article'. Please feel free to assist in the improvments I am trying to make to get it to a featured article.


 * Do you have permission to use the text of the article that you have (quite heavily) based this article on? I don't see any evidence that the original article is in the public domain--it is in fact copyrighted by Leeds City Council, which you haven't acknowledged. Even if the original article were free to reproduce, I would think you should at least have a bibliography here, rather than simply linking to it. MLilburne 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I corresponded with the author of the original article via email. She responded with the following:

"Thank you for your e-mail. I have looked through the article you have submitted for Wikipedia and it is certainly based very much on the article we have done on Discovering Leeds. I notice you have put a link in to our site at the end and state that much of the information is taken from our site which is fine...I don't see a problem with the text with the note regarding our site which you have provided." Luke C 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear, but I think that the permission you need has to be a bit more detailed, and has to be emailed to the Wikipedia PR department. See Requesting_copyright_permission. Also, since the article is copyrighted to the Leeds City Council, presumably you would need permission from a representative of the Council rather than specifically from the original author (who doesn't hold copyright). I don't mean to be pedantic, just trying to cover all the bases here! MLilburne 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the above I had a look at Leeds CC - Copyright and we will need to request copyright from them to use this information. ~Xytram~ (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA
Since there's been no action on the copyright concerns that I noted above (that is, getting permission for the original version of the article), I have failed it. Feel free to re-nominate if things are sorted out. MLilburne 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture?
This sounds like an interesting building since it's by the same architect as the corn exchange. It would be nice if a local could get a free image and add it to the article. Tmorrisey 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this on the Leeds talk, but I have taken a photograph of the building and have uploaded it to the commons. ~Xytram~ (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article
There was previously an article on Leeds Town Hall which was deleted as "copyvio" on 13 July. I've asked the deleter User:WikiLeon why, as I find it difficult to believe that an article which had been around and nominated for Good Article in Aug 06 would now be entirely in breach of copyright, unless someone had over-written all the content with a chunk of copyright material.

Does anyone know anything about the earlier page? It might be best not to put any more work into a new page right now until we get a reply from WikiLeon explaining what happened to the old page, as there must surely be some good content there, either in the 13 July version or in an earlier version which someone has overwritten with Copyvio material, which can be replaced in the article. PamD 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia, but I would read up some on contesting after deletions to see if the original can be undeleted. I would try looking around Deletion Review first and work from there. Good luck --Tao of tyler 13:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_7 is where to look, and you might like to contact User:Luke C, who apparently cleared the copyright material with the author but not with the copyright owner... --GuillaumeTell 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The link above leads to this: "You should revert the article to the pre-copyvio version (as I have done), or if the article started as a copyvio list it as a copyvio. If we do have propper permission then the page can always be restored. --Peta 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"

It seems that Peta removed the copyvio material in Aug 06. I have been watching this article since last year and never noticed it nominated for deletion, I would definately have contested it. I will look into getting it restored.King of the North East 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored the deleted history pending other actions, but as you can see now, the edit that based my deletion was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_Town_Hall&oldid=144303459 . Which was marked as CSD copyvio.

Thanks, WikiLeon, for restoring this - we can now see what's happened over the interesting history of this page. This seems to be:

Timeline of Leeds Town Hall article

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_Town_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=8643229 - page created 30 Dec 2004 by an anonymous user, not active since June 2005.. Content almost identical to http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/townhall.htm ("visual metaphor", "accustomed to controversy" etc)
 * various edits, then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_Town_Hall&diff=next&oldid=33965627 - "Re-vamped from scratch" by User:Luke C 17 Apr 2006 - includes: "Much of this article is adapted from this source. "
 * various edits, then nominated as Good Article, failed on copyvio - see above
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_Town_Hall&diff=next&oldid=69623303 - "revert to pre-copyvio version" by User:PDH 16 August 2006 - but this is the Civic Trust text again!
 * varous edits, then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_Town_Hall&diff=next&oldid=139738541 - speedy delete template added by User:Criticalthinker with "Speedy concern: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/townhall.htm, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12) ",at 02:09 13 July 2007.  Warning placed on user page of original creator, the inactive-since-2005 anon, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:193.132.97.210
 * Article and Talk page deleted by User:WikiLeon 10:27 13 July 2007
 * Article restarted on 16 July 2007 by User:Larsseelig69, and since edited by various people
 * User:WikiLeon restored 6 revisions of talk page history (19:32 17 July) and 57 revisions of history (01:25 18 July), so we can now trace the whole saga.

So two different sources have been used for copyvio, with the page being reverted from the second to the first in Aug 06! The Speedy delete process seems perhaps to have been done unreasonably speedily. Various editors had edited in good faith what was a basically copyvio page (nicked from the Civic Trust), adding info which has now been deleted. I have just now salvaged the categories which were there last week, but there's scope for a lot more rebuilding of this page. PamD 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not put the whole thing back in, do a google search to find some more materials to work from, and rewrite the parts that are too close to the Leeds article's original copyrighted text so that they no longer violate copyright? Best regards.  -- Ssilvers 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons images
I have taken many detailed images of the building and have uploaded them to commons, feel free to have a look. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leeds Town Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014031453/http://www.leedsfilm.com/films.aspx?id=111 to http://www.leedsfilm.com/films.aspx?id=111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leeds Town Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leodis.net/discovery/discovery.asp?pageno=&page=200335_519878567&topic=200335_316509426&subsection=2003611_627147854&subsubsection=2003611_884075344
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Events/Pages/30th-leeds-international-film-festival.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621045646/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/discover/discovery.asp?page=200335_519878567 to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/discover/discovery.asp?page=200335_519878567
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020819165045/http://www.vrleeds.co.uk/town_hall_tour/index.html to http://www.vrleeds.co.uk/town_hall_tour/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Replacement sculpture section
The following replacement for the Sculpture section is my offered contribution to the article. (Apologies for the delay due to slow broadband in my village causing outages for hours at a time). I have had to include a statuary section, because that is where the lions belong - so you can move the building's interior statuary into that section if you wish.

Tympanum above main entrance
The tympanum above the south entrance was sculpted by John Thomas (1813–1862). The figures represent Progress, Art and Commerce. The central figure is Athena, who has a laurel wreath, distaff, judicial chair and owls taken from the Leeds coat of arms and from her own set of animal attributes. From left, the other four main figures are Industry with an anvil and a bale of cloth, Poetry and Music with a faun's head and a flower-swag, Fine Arts with a Corinthian capital and a bust of Minerva, and Science with a compass, globe and tools.

Architectural sculpture
In preparation for this work, the carving areas would be roughed out on the building blocks by the masons before the blocks were hoisted into place. The Mawer Group would ascend ladders and scaffolds to carve the pieces in public view. The sculptor credited for the general carving work on the building is Catherine Mawer, whose stoneyards were in Oxford Place on the east side of the building, and in George Street (now Great George Street) on the north side. Her nephew William Ingle, who ran the stoneyards, carved all the sheep head reliefs which represent the fleece. He was also responsible for the team which produced the general architectural sculpture. On the west and north elevations of the building, the fourteen keystone heads were being sculpted by Catherine Mawer's husband Robert, between 1853 and 1854, when he died. Catherine Mawer completed the masks, as well as the putti on the side panels of the main entrance and on the clock tower.

Statuary
The four Portland stone lions on plinths along the frontage, an 1867 addition by the sculptor William Day Keyworth Jr, contrast with the sandstone of the building itself, and were modelled at London Zoo.

Masonry
The building is constructed of Rawdon Hill millstone grit. Skilled masons worked the rusticated and vermiculated base, the "giant" columns and fluted pilasters, the parapet with vases, and the basic detailing to the tower and ventilation turrets. Thomas Whiteley, the stonemason associated with Robert Mawer, was among the masons who worked on these elements.


 * Thank you, this is much appreciated. I've added this to the article, with some reordering, and taken out the section headings which are probably not needed within a relatively small subsection of the article. You haven't included a mention of Appleyard; is this deliberate or something to add?  Rcsprinter123    (message)  01:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using my contribution above - much appreciated. Unfortunately, the re-ordering has introduced some errors. The 19th century term for the Mawer Group's trade was stone carving - in modern terms that is architectural sculpture. They were master sculptors, which in the 19th century meant one who was doing well enough to be able to train and employ other sculptors. A stone mason (or just mason) then and now is a builder or structural engineer who works with stone. His carving skills are normally limited to non-representational work like a string, fluting, rustication, texturing, beading, a cylinder, a ball, and so on. A master mason such as Whiteley was one who trained and employed other masons. The roof turrets or vases required plain cutting which put them halfway between art and construction. So I suggest a rewrite of the first paragraph:


 * "The building is constructed of Rawdon Hill millstone grit. As architectural master sculptors the Mawer Group produced the majority of the decorative carving. This did not include the rusticated and vermiculated base, the 'giant' columns and fluted pilasters, the parapet with vases, and the basic detailing to the tower and ventilation turrets, which were masons' work. Thomas Whiteley, the stonemason associated with Robert Mawer, was among the masons who worked on those elements. In preparation for the sculptural work, the carving areas would be roughed out on the building blocks by the masons before the blocks were hoisted into place. The architectural sculptors would ascend ladders and scaffolds to carve the fine art pieces in public view."


 * You asked about Appleyard. There is strong artistic evidence for Appleyard, but no citations have been found for that, yet. That is why I did not mention him in the text. Storye book (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, good to clarify decorative/normal carving. Don't want any inaccuracies introduced by a non-architectural expert! Updated again.  Rcsprinter123    (pronounce)  12:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that's great. Just one small niggle: the word, "prolific", in respect of John Thomas. The Natural England citation doesn't have that word, or any equivalent phrase. I can't find any other source for it, or any implication that he created more works than most of his peers. I think it must be one of the peacock words which have hung over from previous editions of the article.


 * (The following cannot be used on WP, but I'll write it anyway because it matters, in the hope that a citation may be found for it one day. Until then, it would count as WP:SYNTH): On Thomas' tympanum, there is a swag of flowers identical to the swags sculptured by Robert and Catherine Mawer on St George's Hall, Bradford (1849-1853) and Moorlands House (1852-1855) (currently Starbucks) Leeds, and by Catherine Mawer on the Mawer Memorial (1854). The significance of the swag is that Leeds City Council originally partly conceived the design of the Town Hall as a response to the fine St George's Hall boasted by their rival, Bradford. Also, Robert had recently died and been mourned in a Leeds newspaper. Athena was often represented as a bestower of honours (in the form of a laurel wreath) in C19 academic iconography, and here she holds a laurel wreath over the flower swag. The bust of Minerva, representing the arts, is bowing in a subtle manner towards the swag. If one were to interpret that central tableau as an homage to Robert Mawer from the big-ass sculptor from London, then Thomas's/Athena's gesture is very impressive and really rather moving. At the very least, one could infer that Thomas has taken a jolly good look at Robert's work on St George's Hall and remembered it precisely. Storye book (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

John Hope Shaw
For your information, Wikimedia Commons now has Commons category:John Hope Shaw (the mayor who laid the foundation stone of the Town Hall). I have not yet found a picture of John Wilson (or Willson), the mayor who followed him, and who may possibly be the subject of the keystone head portrait with the brick crown. Storye book (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

State of the tower on Opening Day
I'm a bit uncomfortable about the statement in the second paragraph of the Opening section - where it says that on the day of Victoria's visit "the building was completed, save for the tower bell." There's an Illustrated London News lithograph of the visit showing the state of the tower - the base of the tower could be stone I suppose, but it is undetailed compared with what we see today, and I suspect there was temporary cladding to show how it was going to look. The dome is not even begun, and there are no clock faces. So "save for the tower bell" can't be right. It might be worth checking the written sources? See File:Town Hall view from Clarendon Road (1).jpg. An alternative might be to say something to the effect - some sources say it was completed but for the bell, but there is at least one illustration which shows otherwise. Storye book (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A good point, Storye book, and probably something I should have got to - I have made an amendment to call the tower incomplete, because of course there won't be a bell if there's no tower yet.  Rcsprinter123    (remark)  23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Storye book (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference problem
Hello, reference 63 "Webster 2017, p. 188." gives a no target error. Is there a full reference missing or is the year wrong and it should point to the 2011 cite? Keith D (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect it should point to the 2011 cite. The page number is very similar to all the other Webster cites suggesting it came from the same source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)