Talk:Leeds/Archives/2015/November

Third largest city

The opening paragraph says that Leeds is the third largest city in the UK. I can't find an authority for this in any of the three citations given (one is broken, one is behind a paywall and one leads to a mass of ONS statistics).

If this is going by built-up area, then surely London, Birmingham and Manchester are all bigger. If it's going by the population of the official "city" boundaries, then only Birmingham is bigger. Any thoughts? Crebbin (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In any case it is probably in the wrong article as probably meant to apply to the City of Leeds rather than the Leeds settlement which is what this article should be about. Keith D (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor has objected to "second-largest city in the United Kingdom outside London", on the grounds that Greater London is not a city. The problem is that "city" is used in two different senses, often in the common English sense of a large urban settlement, which would include London, e.g. in List of European cities by population within city limits, but sometimes in the UK in the sense of a local government district with city status - which may or may not be a city in the common sense. Not many people would say that Birmingham is the largest city in the UK on the grounds that London is not a city. But since, as already pointed out, this is an article about Leeds, not the City of Leeds, the whole sentence is best omitted here.--Mhockey (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugghh not this again. I thought the last time this came up we reached the unhappy compromise of being deliberately vague over what 'Leeds' actually is. Please let's not revert to trying to define it as the ONS urban sub-division. I have changed the lede to make it clear what is being referred to. I agree that stating it is the '3rd biggest' or '2nd biggest' is a bit of a nonsense, especially as the list articles do not agree. (It would be good if it can be sorted out properly but I can't imagine there's ever going to be a consensus). Polequant (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as this article is about the 'Urban sub-division'. The district is already covered by the City of Leeds article. It is unfortunate that the government has muddied the waters with administrative districts which have nothing to do with traditional geography but using the urban sub-division figure is not a compromise. It is the closest we have to the population of the Leeds referred to in this article. If you think that Leeds and City of Leeds should be merged then you can make a proposal but you can't have an article about the settlement and pretend it has the population of the administrative district. Eckerslike (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't about the urban sub-division. I am not pretending anything, rather I am making it clear what the information being cited actually is. The influential state of the cities report also defined "Primary Urban Areas" which were different again. If you want to read the history, go [here]. Polequant (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentences are meant to outline the subject of the article. So your unexplained removal of the clarification of the relationship between the city and the City of Leeds only serves to confuse matters. Your comments in the edit summary are contradicted by the ONS. In its user guidance it states

The built-up area represents the wider area around a place, for example a city and any linked towns and villages. Sub-divisions provide greater detail in the data, by identifying the neighbouring settlements and localities within the larger conurbations.

Thus the current version of the article contradicts its sources. The 474,632 figure does not refer to "Leeds' main urban sub-division" it is what ONS considers the settlement called Leeds as made clear in the guidance above. Your reference to the state of the cities report is a red herring. Its FAQ stated

They were considered to represent what is generally considered to be "urban England".  As such the 56 PUAs were always intended purely as an analytical device for the State of the Cities Report (SOCR) and not as the basis for policy making.

Eckerslike (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with your edit, I'm not sure it was much different from what I am getting at... The main issue I want to avoid is whereby the settlement 'Leeds' is defined as the sub-division Leeds, the city Leeds, the PUA Leeds or whatever. The ONS subdivisions are an analytical data tool and do not claim to represent what a settlement is. The problem with it is when we then look at sources it is impossible to know what is being referred to, because they don't make the distinction clear. I'd use the analogy of a cloud, with the centre being definitely Leeds, gradually becoming less definite in places like Farsley, and even more faintly 'Leeds' by the time you get to Wetherby etc. Just as an example, looks at this news report from today. All the way through it talks about Leeds, but then mentions he is from Farsley, which isn't in the sub-division. Compare that to this one. Here it talks about a 'West Yorkshire children's home' later stated as being in Wetherby. But then talks of Shadwell as being in Leeds. But neither of them are in the sub-division. The sub-division also only contains built up areas, so Roundhay Park for instance isn't part of it. Polequant (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)