Talk:City of Leeds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of City & District vs. merged pages[edit]

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Subdivisions, discussing whether it is better to have a single article for, for example Leeds (the city) and City of Leeds (the district).

If this issue is of interest to you , please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions.

Barwick[edit]

Minor edit to note that Barwick-in-Elmet is sometimes known (locally) as just 'Barwick', and Scholes-in-Elmet is sometimes known as just 'Scholes'. 62.252.224.17 23:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Executive incorrect[edit]

Why is the executive listed as "Labour / Liberal Democrats / Conservative / Green"? It's "Liberal Democrats / Conservative / Green". - 87.194.6.158 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO green in the executive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.187.28 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds 'metropolitan area'?[edit]

How can this be correct? "Taking into account the problematic nature of administrative boundaries, Leeds, as a city and cultural entity, is best defined in terms of its immediate metroplitan (sic) area. This would give the city a population of circa 700,000 Leodensians (sp)", when a quick glance at Wetherby, Otley and Garforth will reveal that these settlements alone account for 40,000 people. With a quoted Leeds administrative area of 725,000, this would leave only 685,000 Loiners. No, the best way to definition is the only one we've got - not some arbitrary system, and that in the ONS areas, which give Leeds' population as 443,247.[1] L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Leeds[edit]

City status would have been transferred from the original urban core to the whole metropolitan district by letters patent for the district to use that style. This article should be merged with Leeds or should be renamed Leeds local governance or something along those lines. See London Gazette (Issue 46255) published 04 April 1974. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that we keep the discussion on this in one place, on the Talk:Leeds page? PamD (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Please see Talk:Leeds#Merge with City of Leeds for further discussion. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

This article has been renamed from Leeds city council to City of Leeds as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - unopposed move back to original name. Keith D (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved back to the title "City of Leeds", because all other editors who commented were against the move. The editor moving it did not follow procedure for a controversial move.

Note also that there are a large number of links pointing to "City of Leeds" which refer to the metropolitan district and not the city. I have changed the redirect from "City of Leeds" so that it points to the original article at its current title of "Leeds city council", so that these links continue to point to the intended article. PamD (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree Leeds city council should be about the organisation running the area, not the area itself. Barry m (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. It is a basic category mistake to confuse the area administered by a local authority with the local government body that does the administering. Indeed, this very confusion led to many uprisings and protests when kings and queens confused themselves with the office they held or the country over which they ruled. Let's not step back into committing a similar kind of archaic error with this. Additionally, the move was done in a way that ignored proper procedures for controversial moves.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree though I've made my views clear on Talk:Leeds already, I believe this move was a mistake, albeit a good faith one. More communication and community involvement in future please! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree The article is patently about the area that has been named City of Leeds, not the Leeds city council administrative body.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree An inappropriate name for the article. As Leeds City Council already exists anyway this could possibly be relisted as uncontroversial, in that it is uncontroversial that we do not want two articles on the same thing albeit with difference of capitalisation. MRSC • Talk 10:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We were advised to go for a full move request to avoid possibility of original mover objecting and reverting the move. Keith D (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a unanimous consensus amongst us. This, coupled with the existence of Leeds City Council means I don't think the mover would have any grounds to revert the move. Seems like an awful mess that could've been avoided. Has the move been requested formally? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it has been formally requested - as shown by template at top of page. PamD (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its 5 days are up tomorrow, and I will be acting on the move, if another admin does not do it. Keith D (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Keith, might it be better to hope that another admin moves it, as you've been involved in the discussion? Not sure what the rules are for admins closing discussion they've been involved in, but just in case anyone then claimed the decision was invalid. PamD (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The number of people looking at moves is small but one of the other admins may look at it so I will not be acting until close of play today, which is when I tend to look and tidy-up easy ones before they go in to the backlog. But the discussion is clear as to what the outcome should be, even the original mover has not turned up to oppose, so I cannot see anyone complaining. Keith D (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leeds City Council[edit]

I have made some bold changes as a result of a discussion in Talk:Leeds. In particular, I have merged the article Leeds City Council into this one, among other reasons for consistency with other English cities. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton's pre-1974 status[edit]

I think that Middleton was part of the Rothwell Urban District rather than the Leeds County Borough before 1974. See the map of Rothwell's boundaries here http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10055131&c_id=10001043 It seems as if Middleton was within this area. There is no source for the boundaries of Leeds C.B. at present. From my knowledge, it is mainly correct at present but we still need a source for this, especially when it is going into a lot of detail. Epa101 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly replied that you are right and changed it in the article, but I think it's not true after all. I think the problem is that the name "Morley" is in an odd position. If you choose "zoom in" on the right-hand side and click near the western apex of the Rothwell district, you will see that it is Thorpe Wood, and you will see Middleton outside the district. There is also a similar map of Leeds County Borough, which shows Middleton inside. Unfortunately this only means that there was a time when it was inside, but then it seems relatively unlikely that it was part of Leeds at an earlier time but not in the early 1970s. Even better, we have a sentence under "Boundary Changes" that claims Middleton became part of Leeds CB in 1920. This is sourced to "Guide to the Administrative Units of England". Perhaps this guide contains a map or sufficient data to check our information. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sadly Youngs Administartive Units has no maps. this, however is the entry for Middleton (paraphrased as it is all in abbreviations):

MIDDLETON (W Riding) Township in Rothwell Ancient Parish, separate civil parish 1866, separate ecclesiastical parish in 1849. Local Government: Agbrigg Wapentake, Gret Preston Gilbert Union (until 1869), Hunslet Poor Law Union (1869 - 1920), Hunslet Rural Sanitary District, Rural district. Abolished civilly 1920 entirely to Leeds County Borough (associated with West Riding) and to Hunslet Civil Parish.

Of course this refers to Middleton as it lay within official, formal boundaries. It may well be that the actual community of Middleton as understood by the people living in it was different.Lozleader (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean. I have seen the boundaries of Hunslet when I first researched these things – it seems that at some time one of the administrative units named after Hunslet almost surrounded Leeds. But in the case of Middleton I would say that the combined information from your source and the Vision of Britain site is good enough to be reasonably sure it was part of Leeds CB in 1973. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift responses! I zoomed in on the map that I put up before and could indeed see that Middleton was just outside of the boundary. I looked up Hunslet Rural District, and Middleton seems to have been a part of that at one point. Zoom in on the western half of the district on this map http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10136039&c_id=10001043 It suggests that all of this district became part of the Rothwell Urban District in 1937 http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10136039&c_id=10001043 But then you can also find Middleton on the boundaries of the Leeds map http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10108809&c_id=10001043 yet the boundary history for Leeds does not mention any enlargement in 1922 at all. I think that the Vision of Britain website has made a mistake somewhere on this one. Much of its information seems to come from the book that Lozleader quoted anyway. One idea would be to look up in that book the reference given for the abolition of Hunslet R.D. and the enlargement of Rothwell U.D. 1931 Census of England and Wales, County Report Part II, Table B; M. of H. Order No. 87427. The County of York, West Riding Review Order, 1937. Epa101 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garforth was a separate urban district pre-1974[edit]

The article currently suggests that Garforth was part of the Tadcaster Rural District before 1974. It was actually an urban district, which covered Allerton Bywater and Kippax as well. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10213540&c_id=10001043 I think that a large edit soon is in order to remedy this. Epa101 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I seriously blundered there. I should have read Local Government Act 1972 a bit more closely, which contains most of the necessary information. I made a small immediate fix, but if you want to make any sweeping changes, go ahead. I wrote this section mainly to replace the alphabetical list of areas, and as an exercise for me to learn about my new surroundings. I have only very vague ideas what these places are like, and perhaps they should be grouped differently. It would be great to have short geographical comments about the former districts, mentioning the Rhubarb Triangle and any other, similar characteristics. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The intro says: "the 2001 population of Leeds itself was 443,247". Since the Leeds article is now about the City of Leeds this reference here to "Leeds" is now short of a definition. The quoted source (line 645 of this excel document from the 2001 Census) doesn't seem define "Leeds" either. What area, exactly, is this Census document referring to? IMO the consensus at Talk:Leeds that decided that Leeds = The City of Leeds needs to sort this out almost-instinct 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the ONS Key Statistics for urban areas is that they are intended to enable a wider comparison of urban settlement across England and Wales by using a statistical definition of what it means to be 'urban'. I think that under the changes that DDStretch proposed and I have started to make to the Leeds articles the key statistics for urban areas data would be discussed in a new 'main article' on the demography of Leeds, perhaps at People of Leeds. —Jeremy (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a seperate article on this topic, relevant to both the City of Leeds and the Continuous urban area formed around Leeds City Centre, would be an excellent idea. almost-instinct 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on City of Leeds. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on City of Leeds. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

technically the second largest city in England[edit]

Does "technically" add anything here? Isn't it just the second largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.142.73 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of parishes[edit]

@Keith D: There 38 civil parishes in Leeds district, the 31 figure is only those that have parish councils and there are 6 unparished areas not just 1 namely Leeds, Aireborough, Ardsley East and West, Garforth, Pudsey and Rothwell. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the article indicates 31 parish councils, there is no mention of 38 parishes. You need to supply a reference that supports the numbers / areas to be changed to. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference provided was the Mapit one. Bramhope and Carlton seems to be a joint council and the likes of Wothersome may just have a parish meeting. The ref for the councils is from over a decade ago and refers to parish councils not civil parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 841,000 population is a lie[edit]

As someone who works for 'Invest in Leeds', we have to know everything about Leeds to attract investors. Leeds Council population is 541,000 people. There is no 800,000+ population in Leeds. This can also be confirmed using percentage maths on the Census 2021. The person stating such a claim is proving why Wikipedia is not taken as a reliable source within Educational institutions. 2A02:C7F:9B14:E500:A02E:ABC7:7EB7:9023 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7F:9B14:E500:A02E:ABC7:7EB7:9023 Are you perhaps confusing the City of Leeds the Borough, with the city that is Leeds itself? Leeds had an estimated population of 516,000+ in 2020, this article covers the district named after Leeds and is one of five within West Yorkshire, the others being Bradford (not the city, but the District), Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. The joy of all things (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image(s)[edit]

Until recently the infobox image was of Leeds Civic Hall, the seat of government of the area.

If we are going to move to a collage which shows multiple images, can we please have a selection which is more representative of the area, rather than a collection of Victorian and earlier buildings? And please remember that the first landscape-format image is the one which a mobile phone user will see as the top of the article: Harewood House is really not representative of the area.

I suggest that if we go for multiple images, they should include a river or canal (perhaps the river/mill view used in Otley), something ancient such as Adel Parish Church, some open countryside, a striking modern building (Leeds Arena or Headingley cricket ground perhaps), a cityscape (the Leeds skyline or the image in City Square, Leeds?), a town centre like Otley (eg a market place/town square scene, rather than just town hall building), etc.

Or we could just go back to a single image of the Civic Hall (I prefer the images which show the two pinnacles with their golden owls). Is there a consensus that a collage is preferable?

But, please, not an architectural tour of the district. And remember the point about which image gets onto mobile phones.

Any thoughts? PamD 08:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_Leeds&oldid=1212521795"