Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/November

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

Transport

Is the "public transport box" a term used by the public; and if so what exactly is it, please?--Harkey (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a term I've come across, but only in council/Metro-produced maps of the city centre. PamD (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Google suggests that the term "public transport box" is specific to Leeds. If we use it here, as a few people outside council and Metro do, we should probably define it, as in this example: "Leeds also offers a free bus, the FreeCity Bus service which connects the bus station, the train station, the universities and Leeds general infirmary. The service runs through the Leeds Public Transport Box which is an area surrounding the core Leeds shopping district which is limited to just public transport access." [1] Hans Adler 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - added.--Harkey (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The FreeCityBus is not related to the Public Transport Box. It happens to run on the Public Transport at certain points but they are unrelated. The Public Transport Box is a 'box' of streets, as the name suggests, that surround the city centre. It was created to remove buses/taxis/cycles from the shopping core to allow for its pedestrianisation. The Public Transport Box consists of Park Row, Boar Lane, Vicar Lane and The Headrow between Park Row and Vicar Lane. Most of this area is designated for buses/taxis/cycles only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.188.58 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

My thought was to use a normal citation/references section plus to use Template:Note label to make more specific inline page reference notes for the bibliography. It would clear up the existing mixture of styles, yet make adding online references simple for future editors, using a cite web template.--Harkey (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Three of the books in the bibliography (Van den Berg, Sagan and Wrathmell) are only cited once so do not need notes to distinguish pages. The other three have: Burt 4, Fraser 10, Unsworth 6, so need pages numbers. I shall only add notes for the latter 3. Is the format OK so far, please?--Harkey (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, what about those landmarks?

The selection here has to be somewhat WP:POV. However, the more Ps OV we have the less POV it will be!! Please add sparingly. Outer area landmarks are under represented in my initial list.--Harkey (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here goes:

--Harkey (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the list at Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Landmarks says:

Include the following

  • Note on any war memorials.
  • Notable buildings or architecture.
    • Grade I / Category A listed buildings are highly-recommended to be mentioned here, though other listed buildings are also suitable for inclusion.
  • Notable sites of tourism.
  • Notable natural landmarks (such as a waterfall, or landform).

... which would be difficult for the whole met district (how many war memorials are there? Interesting question - perhaps scope for a "List of war memorials in Leeds" sometime!)

Answer: 43 war memorials looked after by the council - see http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Advice_and_benefits/Deaths_funerals_and_cremations/Funeral__burials.aspx for that number, and list of them at http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Memorial__maintenance.aspx ; transcriptions of names of some of them are at volunteer-maintained site http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Yorkshire/ . PamD (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. A long list with grid references and photographs of some, maybe?!!--Harkey (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at Manchester#Landmarks, which is pretty wide-ranging.

Are we talking "landmark" as in "familiar bit of skyline" (Bridgewater Place, The Chevin, Leeds Bradford Airport) or in "important for what it is, not necessarily visually striking", or using the UKCITIES list? Or none of the above?!

There's a list of Grade 1 listed buildings in Leeds at Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_West_Yorkshire#City_of_Leeds, for consideration.

I'd consider, for various reasons:

Do we want to arrange into functions - religious buildings, industry, civic buildings, houses, parks/natural features, ...? Or geographically - city centre, rest of main urban area, other towns/villages, rural?

But other people may have different ideas!

PamD (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct is to go for functions in a bid to foil some of the fly by IP editors who think something in their patch has been 'forgotten'. Sadly, defensive editing.:-(--Harkey (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I guess we should include the main squares: Millennium Square (Leeds), Leeds City Square, Park Square, Leeds, Victoria Square, and the city war memorial. PamD (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I nominate

Hans Adler 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I started the section today, can anyone sneak in the ones I've missed, somewhere?--Harkey (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty good - well done! PamD (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Automated tips: update

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.

Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

--Harkey (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just ran it through the automaton again and it seems to be happy with the lead, for what it's worth. A human would be preferable, though. However, before asking again for a human to do a peer review we need to provide Alternative text for images and prove the article is stable and without major edit wars. There are a few dead links, as well, in the refs.--Harkey (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Sorry, I had completely missed these peer review comments from 3 November 2009.

Leeds

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some idea of where the article has excessive detail or what is missing. I fear the article is too bloated and a separate City of Leeds article should be created, so I would like some input on that or some indication of how the article should cover both things.

Thanks, MRSC (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on the lead which is in serious need of revision. The lead is supposed to summarise all of the article and to only contain information which is in the rest of the article. Currently it concentrates, over selectively, on areas such as population, some of which is probably not relevant with a split article. The lead should also not have many references as these should appear in the article where the information is extracted from in the first place. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)checkY
Comments by David Fuchs
  • Looks like the automatic tools could be of some use here.checkY See above
  • In terms of overall structure; we really shouldn't be suppressing the table of contents. If it's overwhelming, it's something we should address via editing, not syntax tweaks. For instance, considering there's a History of Leeds article, the History section could be trimmed and the subheads largely removed.
  • Also, when you've got Main articles, really all you need to do in the parent article is summarize it. Consider it essentially a nested lead. So since there's a Transport in Leeds article, I would simply collapse all those subheads and cover all the major points in say two paragraphs, maybe three at most.
  • The "Music and theatre" section is entirely unreferenced, which is part of the reason why I think it seems to skew to mentioning laundry lists of artists. That's not really helpful.checkY
  • Generally I would think that "Governance" sections should come after things like demographics and geography (the "natural" city aspects, as it were).checkY
  • Second MRSC's comments about the lead.
  • Suggestion: Axe the "Notable people" section entirely. It's nowhere near as important as any other section in the article. checkY
  • The citation scheme is hard to figure out--what seperates notes from refs? Not all the citations in bibliography are used in the article, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


--Harkey (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Started to reduce a number of the citations in the Lead and place them in the body text of the article. See:WP:LEADCITE--Harkey (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Why is Leeds' official population discussed after its unofficial Wikipedia population in the introduction? Surely the official facts should come first, with concessions and other ideas listed after? I will rectify this situation soon unless anyone has a valid argument against.

Possibly because this article was destined to be about just the Leeds (urban settlement) area and is currently being been revised. The population statistics are all official, simply about different official sub divisions. If you read the talk page above, please, all will become clear. The citations are linked so it should be easy to find and read the relevant publications.--Harkey (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the boundries of this 'new' Leeds

Looking at the map (which I belive should be removed) the Leeds settlement excludes Yeadon, Guiseley, Pudsey etc, I would dispute this, these areas have been part of the core city for decades. During the split/merge debate (I still think we should revert to a merged page) we agreed that there was varying definitions of Leeds, so to have such a pescriptive map I think is a mistake. Morley and Pudsey are in my eyes now just districts of Leeds, yet others may disagree, there is however no official guidelines. On what was the map based, it looks like the old county borough, however that can't be called modern Leeds surely. I think there are many issues to resolve. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the merged page. City of Leeds is a separate article, largely about administration. The map simply illustrates the urban subdivision boundaries. We're still working on it to improve the coverage of areas outside the urban subdivision. I agree a map of whole the district would be helpful, though.--Harkey (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You say "there is however no official guidelines", but look at the link I gave in "Description of Leeds". Leeds City Council defines an area as the "main urban area" which occupies 28% of the area of the district, and gives the list of other "Major settlements" as "Boston Spa, Garforth, Guiseley/Yeadon, Kippax, Morley, Otley, Rothwell, Wetherby.", so they consider Horsforth and Pudsey as part of the main urban area but not Morley. I haven't yet had an answer to my question about whether there's a publicly-accessible definition of that 28%. PamD (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
These links may (or may not!) help to explain the above:

Map of West Yorks urban areas

Tables to go with above map

Map of Leeds with output area codes

(I had to put zoom in Acrobat up a lot to get the detail on the maps.)

I can see why "main urban area" is the wording used. Using their criteria Barwick in Elmet is classed as an urban area.--Harkey (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That Map of the Urban Areas is fascinating! Horsforth is separately labelled, though it's shown as having a long shared boundary with "Leeds" (whereas the Council doc in my link includes Horsforth in the Main Urban Area); Pool in Wharfedale isn't visible, nor Calverley (though that might be shaded but not labelled) though I think all the rest of the Council's list of "Smaller settlements" are shown (including Barwick in Elmet). "New Farnley" isn't on the council's list of Major or Smaller settlements. The map isn't just of W Yorks, but includes southern North Yorkshire (eg Harrogate). Great fun: thanks for finding it. PamD (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just been tidying up West Yorkshire Urban Area after someone added Rothwell to the list of areas in it (wrongly, as the list is ONS's list, as I've just clarified - and I removed New Farnley while I was at it). Interesting list to look at, as it recognises Guiseley/Yeadon, Horsforth, Lofthouse/Stanley, Morley, Pudsey as being in the West Yorkshire Urban Area and distinct from Leeds, but not Garforth, Kippax, Rothwell. The Council's list, above, considers Horsforth and Pudsey as parts of the Main Urban Area of Leeds, but excludes Guiseley/Yeadon and Morley. Just another example for us to consider! PamD (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now had a reply from my friendly local planning officer:

A definition is provided within the glossary of the Unitary Development Plan (at the end of volume two). This is as follows:
Main urban area
Continuous built-up area of Leeds\Horsforth\Pudsey.
Not as helpful as one might have hoped. Unfortunately, this is the only definition my colleague from Local Plans and I could find.

Wonderful, isn't it? The council "knows" that this main urban area is 28% of the area but doesn't seem to have a clear definition of the boundaries of that area! So we aren't much further on. I tried. PamD (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Map image

Would anyone agree with me that the image File:Leeds urban subdivision in West Yorkshire urban area.png should be removed. I would support this on the following three points:

1. Several key urban areas have been excluded, Wetherby, Otley, Garforth, Rothwell. These areas are important enough to be included. 2. The area shown as 'Leeds' is the former Leeds County Borough (as far as I can tell), this isn't pertinent in the context were using. I understand there is a temptation to try to quantify Leeds (see a talk page as long as the Aire for evidence of that) but the truth is we can not agree on any definition . 3. Some of the urban outlines look a little dubious to me. Halifax in my eyes should be shown larger and Leeds seems a little on the slim side around the North East corner (I see why the gap is there it represents Roundhay Park, but fails to take account of Wellington Hill/Redhall area.

Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a map just of the urban areas as defined by ONS etc. Please read the above discussion and the article and see this. Another detailed map of the whole area is needed but just at the moment we don't have one. Producing one takes time, effort and skill. If you have a non copyright map which could be used in addition, that would be wonderful.--Harkey (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible in any way to make a derivative work from the map, correcting the above inacuracies. I don't have the ability to do so, but surely it doesn't take a cartographer to add come coloured blobs in the appropriate area, the current map is only vaguely accurate. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Further to that, I have looked at the statistics.gov map that it was based on, this map showed many towns missed out on the map we have. Wetherby, Otley, Garforth, Rothwell, Pontefract, Castleford etc have all been missed off. I think that map should be removed from the page until we can correct the issues with it, as it is it is middleading. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is any better?--Harkey (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
great work there! was going to have a bash at it this morning u beat me to it ha --Razorlax (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
Er.. Ahem! Where would you like me to put it?  :-) --Harkey (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The Demography section of the article has two sub sections: Urban subdivision and Metropolitan district. The map illustrates the area of the urban subdivision, to which the accompanying statistics relate. It is not inaccurate. It is a true representation of the output areas used to generate the statistics. We do not, as yet, have a detailed map of the metropolitan district. The article is about both so we need to illustrate both.--Harkey (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The revamped map looks much better, regards, 81.105.109.167 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For the above map to replace the one in the "Urban subdivision" section and table is absolutely wrong. The urban subdivision of Leeds and urban areas of the metropolitan district are completely different things.--Harkey (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to agree with Harkey. The map data came from the ONS and relates to the statistics in the table. It has no relationship to Leeds CB. Note that the area is not fixed and the ONS usually make small changes to the area for each census. MRSC (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Future?

Do editors want to continue with improvements and work towards getting WP:GA status for this article? --Harkey (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support doing so, certainly, although how much time I could devote to it at the moment would be questionable, however I am pleased at last there is some intrest in this previously neglected article. I am more than happy to help where I can.81.105.109.167 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest we start using the wikiproject:Leeds. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can do some work on getting us to GA. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time right now. MRSC (talk) 20:00, 16

November 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to put in more time and effort to getting the article improved to GA status in line with the peer review comments if other editors think this is OK.--Harkey (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable people

While providing alt text for the images, I've moved some of them around so that they are adjacent to the text that they relate to. The picture of John Smeaton is now adjacent to a lengthy (and frankly rather bizarre) section on Lord Mayors, but there is no mention of him there (I deduce that he wasn't a Lord Mayor) or anywhere else on the Leeds page. I decided that Smeaton must be in the List of people from Leeds, which he is. It's not a very long list and looks extremely silly, especially with the A-Z links at the top. Is anyone going to do something about it? Or put something about Smeaton on the Leeds page? Should I move the Smeaton pic to the list, such as it is, or just eliminate it (I am not going to add the alt text for this image until the situation improves)? Any other suggestions will also be welcome. --GuillaumeTell 11:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Leeds is ridiculously short. Jza84 has moved all unsourced entries to the talk page. I am not familiar with the sourcing requirements for lists, so I don't know if that was necessary. Theoretically it might be sufficient for uncontroversial entries if the source is in the article on the person, but I don't know how it is done in practice.
I am not sure that the current subsections of Leeds#Notable people make much sense. I imagine that like Smeaton most notable people don't fit into this classification, and I find it hard to think of subsections that one could add to change this. Hans Adler 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
All material added to an article (or list) must be attributed to a reliable source; this is especially true of entries about people, and critical to anything added about living persons and their lives. Lists are precluded, not excluded, by normal policy and procedure. It is not sufficient to say a source exists in another list or article, as each entry is a stand alone piece of work. Citing sources avoids disappointment, misunderstandings and makes for a better, more reliable encyclopedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/November&oldid=1136898724"