Talk:Leeds/Archives/2016/December

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

Merge with City of Leeds

See previous discussions

It has been seven years since the decision to split Leeds and City of Leeds was implemented. The article has not been improved; the results of the Salford split were not replicated. I think it is time that these two articles are merged.

It appears 'Leeds' is defined as the district by the Leeds City Council and the ONS. All sites I could find refer to the population of 'Leeds' as that of the district. All sites I could find also define 'Leeds' as the district.

From my understanding 'Leeds' refers to the district, and the 'independent towns' were incorporated as a result of the Local Government Act 1972. This is the general consensus among the Core Cities, such as Sheffield, which includes Stocksbridge among other places in the Peak District like Hollow Meadows and has been merged into one article. Another example is Birmingham, which has been merged into one article despite the district including Sutton Coldfield among others.

It would absolutely be more consistent with such cities.

The so-called settlement of Leeds is not legally defined, which provides us with inadequate statistics. The district is, which provides us with suitable statistics.

It appears that this is also the general understanding or irregular and IP editors, who edit the article 'Leeds' to include the metropolitan area.

As I mentioned, it's been seven years and nothing has changed so I believe we need to reopen this discussion and improve the Leeds article once and for all.

Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

To confirm, I propose the City of Leeds is merged into Leeds. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment (leaning to support merge) The content of this article is not solely about the statistics, so difficulty in obtaining figures is not necessarily a block to article development. As it happens there are pertinent stats available for an area other than the district: For instance, the Leeds subdivision of the West Yorkshire Urban Area had a population of 474,632 recorded in the 2011 Census. Certain other areas, such as the unparished area, should be avoided and not used as meaning Leeds.
The case for two separate articles should include a strong indicator (multiple reliable sources) of an entity called "Leeds" contained within the larger district of "Leeds". Ideally the sources should use the two "Leeds" in opposition to each other, as that indicates they are two clearly distinct concepts - as opposed to two differing descriptions of the same topic. Otherwise, we are just inappropriately singling out one form of Leeds from the others.
If there is a need for two articles, it should be easy to find sources that make that point plain. If that cannot be done, then in the absence of evidence that Leeds is different from Leeds, apply Occam's razor and only have one article about Leeds.
The name of the article about the administrative area (ie City of Leeds) is problematic, as it is still ambiguous with other potential meanings. The use of "City" in this way completely ignores the regular English use of the word city, and instead focuses on the rather strange way formal City status is determined. Confusion is likely from that, and should be preventable with other names. The fact we use an ambiguous disambiguation in itself suggests that we are splitting something that shouldn't be split. Things would certainly be simpler with a merge.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case what about others such as Salford, Greater Manchester and City of Salford, or Sunderland, Tyne and Wear and City of Sunderland? Keith D (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Better examples are probably the extreme cases - City of Carlisle/Carlisle or City of Lancaster/Lancaster, Lancashire. In all cases the use of an ambiguous disambiguator is clearly sub-optimal, and we should look to improve it. With regards to the merge/no-merge decision, my point is that if we cannot improve the existing situation, then merging the two concepts is better than trying to force disambiguation by pretending "City of X" is somehow different to "X", and that readers will easily be able to work out the difference. A good disambiguation would reduce the sort of edits that are mentioned in the initial post, as good faith IP editors would know whether they were editing the right article or not.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was alerted to this discussion because I'd contributed last time round, and am astonished to see what detailed and researched comments I made back then! I've moved away and am now much less involved with the place, but I can still see insuperable major problems for you all to resolve. Leeds is a city, with a history, an identity, and difficult-to-define borders, which may be different for different purposes. City of Leeds is a post-1974 local government area which includes Leeds and various other places. Otley and Wetherby are not part of Leeds, although they are part of "City of Leeds". If the local authority area had been given a name like "Greater Leeds" or "Aireside", we wouldn't have this problem. Either one article or two articles will cause problems. Good luck to you all. I'm about to take a couple of weeks Wikibreak and will be interested to see what's happened when I get back. (Ironically I now live in a rural village which is part of City of Lancaster but not Lancaster, Lancashire). PamD 16:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge the two pages as they are pretty much describing the same entity. User:RichardHC
  • Do not merge. They are clearly 2 seperate things, The administrative division, City of Leeds contains a number of places such as Farsley, Garforth, Guiseley, Horsforth, Morley, Otley, Pudsey, Rothwell, Wetherby and Yeadon, it also contains the place Leeds which is just a small part of it. The naming is unfortunate, but a fact of life, and as has already been noted other areas have successfully sorted out the difference of coverage by use of 2 articles. It would be like merging Alsation into dog and then using Alsation rather than dog as the name for the article. 86.187.164.214 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. 'Leeds' is widely referred to by the majority of internet sources as the district. The extent of the former County Borough of Leeds comprises the majority of the new region, and therefore it would seem they have been incorporated into Leeds under the Local Government Act 1972. This is also a very consistent point of view; for example Sheffield is merged into one article despite including places like Stocksbridge and Chapeltown, South Yorkshire among others in the Peak District whilst Birmingham is merged into one article despite including places like Sutton Coldfield. Both Sheffield and Birmingham are good articles, and I personally feel this could be replicated to Leeds as a merge provides us with a wider portfolio of sources and statistics which refer to Leeds as the district. This looks to be a point of view that all members of the Core Cities Group use, except Leeds. One of the key arguments for the merger was good quality results; this has simply not happened seven years on. As sources continue to gradually consider Leeds as the district, so do people, which would leads to confusion if the Leeds article refers to Leeds as the borders of the former County Borough of Leeds, when they are instead not clearly defined and the district would be a better representation of Leeds.
As you have only made two edits (including your opinion here); may I ask whether you have forgotten to log in or just someone passing by? Either way your opinion is greatly appreciated and will help us to come to a conclusion. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

^^ Furthermore, the Leeds urban subdivision appears to be the former borders of the County Borough of Leeds and used solely for statistical purposes to measure increases in population in that area, whilst Leeds is consistently referred to by the council and ONS as the district. This argument is further bolstered by the fact that the City of Leeds (the district) appears to have been given the city rights which suggests that the district is the settlement of Leeds. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the Leeds city charter was vested in the district post-1974 does not mean that the district is the settlement. It simply reflects one of many weaknesses of the 1974 reforms - the mechanisms to preserve the charters were poorly thought out, and the district councils were encouraged to take it over instead of assigning charter trustees. If you consider Carlisle, the district is clearly not the settlement; or Exeter, where it clearly is, the same situation applied as with Leeds.
Likewise the continued use of the Leeds subdivision for statistical purposes does not show Leeds is the 1974 area. That's comparable to the claim applied to the counties: That the 1970s reforms did not affect the historic units and their boundaries have been static and unchanging ever since. Even though the counties have seen modifications, some subtle, some dramatic, both before and after that date.... Going back to Leeds it would be absurd to argue that as throughout history as the settlement grew, it expanded its boundaries at several times in history - but that process of organic growth stopped in 1974 and the city became unchanging ever since.
This boils down to sources. Without sources, there is no real evidence for either claim (Leeds is the district) or (the settlement of Leeds is distinct from the district). Without sources, it is probably best to handle the subject of Leeds as a single article - without saying what Leeds is exactly, merely acknowledging its different forms. With sources, this whole matter is a lot more straightforward. The use of "City of Leeds" to mean the district (and not the settlement) seems a pure Wikipedia construct. However, Leeds does seem to be understood to mean something other than the district. For instance, a news story about something in Wetherby will probably say "near Leeds", but never "in Leeds".--Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Particularly that we don't make claims that are not backed up by decent sources. Our articles should reflect the sources, and the sources are 'woolly' about what Leeds is.
I too don't like the 'City of...' construct, and think 'Borough of...' or similar would be clearer and less likely to confuse.
I would prefer a merge as I think it makes it less confusing but I don't think it matters all that much. Not enough to have to go through endless debates like happened before. Polequant (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would not be in favour of a merge. It's partly a matter of WP:COMMONNAME - as Nilfanion says, Wetherby (and Otley for that matter) would not be described as "in Leeds" by anyone except Leeds City Council (or in the context of local government). People in Otley and Wetherby in particular would regards Leeds as a different place. The Otley Town Council website does not even mention Leeds on its homepage (except for a link to Leeds City Council services), and the location and transport page clearly refers to Leeds as a different place.
It's a fair question to ask: if Sheffield does not have a separate article for the district, why should Leeds? Probably you could say that Sheffield is a single urban area with a part of the Peak District (relatively lightly populated) added to the west, although Stocksbridge is a separate settlement, but Chapeltown is described in our article as part of Sheffield.. Leeds comprises separate urban areas (Otley, Wetherby, Morley and others), interspersed with rural areas. It's true that these questions of identity are an unfortunate legacy of the 1974 reforms, but we should not ignore them. Lancaster and Carlisle are more clearcut cases. Birmingham I would put at the other end of the spectrum - no-one seems to have quibbled with the statement that Sutton Coldfield is a suburb of Birmingham. I would compare Leeds more to Bradford, Wakefield, Oldham and Sunderland, where the local government districts include several distinct towns and rural areas which do not seem to regard themselves as part of the main settlement in the district.--Mhockey (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd disagree. Using WP:COMMONNAME, places like Pudsey, Yeadon, Farsley, Stanningley, Horsforth, Rawdon, Rothwell, Morley, etc.... are considered unquestionably to be part of Leeds. As most sources describe Leeds as the district, Wetherby and Otley are becoming increasingly integrated. As Nilfanion says a merge would work for the people who believe Leeds refers to the district and Leeds refers to the urban subdivision.
The second paragraph of the article for Sutton Coldfield states 'Historically in Warwickshire, it became part of Birmingham and the West Midlands metropolitan county in 1974.' You are suggesting that Leeds did not integrate the metropolitan borough, yet Birmingham did as it integrated places like Sutton Coldfield as a suburb? And to suggest Sheffield is a single urban area confuses me; see File:Population_Density_Sheffield_2011_census.png. Here are some places in the City of Sheffield that are seperate in the way places like Wetherby are;
Places like Loxley are comparable to Yeadon, Horsforth, Pudsey; places that are adjacent but have become integrated and are therefore widely considered a suburb.
Places like Stocksbridge are far from the city like Wetherby; Stocksbridge is a town with approximately the same population as Wetherby. They are similar distances from the city centre. The town council website reads 'Stocksbridge is a small town situated approximately 10 miles north of the City of Sheffield'. It is considered to not be in Sheffield by many. That seems comparable to Wetherby. Yet Sheffield is merged into a single page, but Leeds, unlike every other core city, is not.

To summarise; why is Leeds different from for example, Sheffield? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You're rather making my point. Sutton Coldfield has been integrated into Birmingham and is now regarded as a suburb of Birmingham. I don't think anyone would regard Otley or Wetherby as suburbs of Leeds. The evidence of the Otley Town Council website is that Otley does not consider itself part of "Leeds". You mention places which have been integrated into Leeds and are now considered suburbs (although I do not glean from our article on Pudsey that it is "unquestionably part of Leeds" - the article describes it as a separate town which is now part of the Leeds district). But the point is not about places which are now considered part of Leeds, but places within the district which are not considered part of Leeds, except for local government purposes.
As I tried to point out, Sheffield is a more marginal case. But you are making an argument for separating the district of Sheffield from the settlement, not for merging the two Leeds articles (WP:OSE).--Mhockey (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Whilst the Leeds urban subdivision may only consist of 63% of its population, a majority of those not in the urban subdivision live in adjacent areas such as Pudsey, Horsforth, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley, Morley, Whinmoor, Shadwell and Rothwell in which people definitely consider themselves to be as living in Leeds. I do believe this might be the case in places like Garforth too. Then there is the case of the outer places. The amount of people in the district that consider themselves part of Leeds is probably circa 85%.
I live in Pudsey which is indeed closer to the city centre but I also did not realise for a long time it was not a core part of the city (part of the urban subdivision). Though this leads on to my next part, whether or not you think Leeds refers to the urban subdivision or the district a merge is the better option. It means both the urban subdivision and district can be represented and avoids confusion. Especially when the large majority of those living outside the urban subdivision but within the district do consider themselves part of Leeds.
I don't think you quite understand what I meant. I was confused at why you think Sutton Coldfield has been integrated into Birmingham, whilst places like Pudsey, Farsley or Horsforth have not. Both had no administrative connection to their respective cities prior to 1974 and are towns. There is no additional legislation that means Sutton Coldfield has been integrated as a suburb as Birmingham whilst a place like Pudsey has not. If Sutton Coldfield is a part of Birmingham, I'd say Pudsey is unquestionably a part of Leeds; per WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps Birmingham is a bad example because it does not have places with characteristics like Wetherby, but Sheffield does (e.g. Stocksbridge).
I disagree Sheffield is a considerably more marginal case. About 94% of the district is the urban core according to the user down below which appears to include places like Loxley which is similar to Pudsey and was incorporated in 1974 (compared to circa 85% for people in the Leeds district who consider themselves part of Leeds). As I have pointed out places in the Leeds district share characteristics with Sheffield. The bulk of the places that are not part of the urban subdivision are adjacent and using WP:COMMONNAME are widely considered to be part of Leeds. This is the article for Leeds and there are no clear administrative boundaries; neither the urban subdivision or district represent Leeds without fault. There's no doubt the likes of Wetherby and Otley are questionable, like Stocksbridge. But they are becoming increasingly integrated and a merged article would represent both the city and metropolitan borough and therefore people who have different opinions would come to one page, which represents all opinions of Leeds. This appears to be what has been done with Sheffield and I support that.
I'm personally from Pudsey and the article has been written to fit in line with the result of the split; using WP:COMMONNAME I have never heard it been referred to anything other than Leeds. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I would not say things like "Otley does not consider itself part of "Leeds"". Otley is a town, it doesn't have opinions. "Otley Town Council does not consider Otley part of Leeds" is true. With regards to this sort of point, I'd much prefer independent sources and not the councils. The City Council understandably describes its area as "Leeds" and has a responsibility to describe services etc throughout the entire district. Otley Town Council understandably has an interest in promoting the distinct identity of the town. For example, the point that Wetherby is a primary destination on the road network, independent of Leeds, is a better indicator that Wetherby is outside Leeds than anything on Wetherby Council's pages.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know but it's how the content is approached that matters
I was part of the previous discussions which were rather tedious and would rather not have months of that again, and really I don't think it matters that much. The problem is that as there is no definitive definition of the settlement of Leeds, this article ends up with some rather annoying back and forth over certain bits of information. I completely appreciate that saying the settlement and the borough are the same is dubious, given the presence of towns like Wetherby. But then again, these thinks are not static and arguing that the settlement is contiguous with a 40+ year old administrative division is dubious too. The IP above gives examples of areas that they do not think are part of the settlement but a number of them are very debatable, being part of the same built up urban area with no practical separation (e.g. Farsley, Horsforth). The best way of thinking of it (for me anyway) is as a cloud which is darker towards the middle and thinning out at the edges, the darker bits being more 'Leeds' than the lighter ones.
The practical problem is that most statistics and facts are about the the administrative division, and if you can't use that in the settlement article it makes it very limiting. And you get silly edits like the one I changed recently ("Leeds is an unparished area within the local government district of the City of Leeds." really? who says?). Polequant (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So how would you describe the "unparished area within the local government district of the City of Leeds".?--Mhockey (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mhockey: The main part of the settlement of Leeds is unparished. But I certainly would not described Leeds as the unparished area. This map does not show Leeds according to any reliable source.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd describe it as "unparished area within the local government district of the City of Leeds" as it isn't anything else. It is not a meaningful entity, and does not correspond to any concept of a particular place, either socially, economically, geographically or administratively. Polequant (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Describing Leeds as "an unparished area within ..." is reasonable, but as "the unparished area within..." is not. The unparished area includes Hawksworth but excludes Horsforth - that is not a rational description of Leeds of any use to anyone.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear enough, I was saying that the only 'thing' the unparished area represents is the unparished area. It is essentially meaningless. Polequant (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is Leeds can not be legally defined as either the settlement or district; and a merged article as has been done with Birmingham or Sheffield (which have the same situation, particularly the latter) would represent both points of view avoiding confusion. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I also believe the pages need to be merged. They should never have been split into two in the first place as there is no basis for them to be. Firstly, there is no true definable settlement of Leeds and describing it as the ONS Urban subdivision is completely misleading. Secondly, Leeds is actually defined more today with the district. Leeds expanded back in 1974 and swallowed up many towns and villages in the local area which became part of 'Leeds'. These towns and villages are no longer independent places. Therefore It would work better and be more factually accurate if the pages were merged into one again because 'Leeds' is very much indefinable. Lad 2011 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could explain why the Urban Subdivision defined by the ONS is "completely misleading", and why the ONS maintains the distinction between the district and the USD.--Mhockey (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also hang a big {{fact}} on the statement "Leeds is actually defined more today with the district". Says who? @Mhockey: The purpose of the ONS subdivision is for statistical analysis, the quoted purpose being "Sub-divisions provide greater detail in the data, by identifying the neighbouring settlements and localities within the larger conurbations".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • What I mean by misleading is how editors have used the ONS Urban Subdivision to separate the Leeds page into two by redefining the Urban Subdivision as Leeds the city/settlement when factually that isn't true.Lad 2011 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Says the ONS, The council and just about every other source I can find. They all refer to Leeds the city/settlement as being the district. Lad 2011 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lad 2011: Remember that the "City of Leeds" to mean the district appears to be an artificial construct on Wikipedia, not in use elsewhere. ONS provides figures for the district called Leeds, that does not mean it calls the settlement "Leeds". The city council does not define the settlement as the district, it refers to the area it covers (ie the district) as Leeds. I would not expect either organisation to refer to the district as something other than "Leeds" - so when they refer to Leeds it doesn't mean they are talking about the settlement. I'd be shocked if you could find a single source anywhere that states "the settlement of Leeds is conterminous with the district" - but if such a source exists it would be extremely helpful.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have been looking through the previous discussion page Talk:Leeds/Archive_1#Merge_with_City_of_Leeds from 2007. From what I can gather there seems to be a few editors on here who don't even have a clue what they are talking about. And they all seem to have an agenda to keep the two pages separate. They seem to have gained dominance due to the lack of other editors and are pushing historic and quite frankly false information to suit their own personal views. I noticed that Chrisieboy on the previous discussion page made some solid and factual points only to be opposed by the same old editors with the same old non factual nonsense. I have been thinking there was an agenda behind this for while now, and from looking at the previous discussions that's actually obvious now. The Leeds Wikipedia page has been hijacked by these editors which is a total disgrace. Lad 2011 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the merge. I am mostly concerned about making it clear what entity we are referring to. The problem prior to the split was that the content ignored the rural areas of the district only including them in statistics used. We now seem to have the reverse problem with statistics that apply to the entire Met. Borough still being used when the article is supposed to only apply to the urban core. When I tried to correct this in the infobox today I was accused of being a vandal.

Sheffield is not a comparable example. It has 94% (518090/552698) of its population in the urban core. The majority of the remainder is in Oughtibridge/Stocksbridge/Deepcar which often considered part of Sheffield (I spent the first five years of my life in Deepcar and didn't realise it was separate from the rest of Sheffield until I was much older). Meanwhile Leeds only has 63% (518090/552698) of its population in the urban core. Therefore the distinction between what the majority consider to be Leeds and the wider Met. Borough is far more stark. The Sheffield article covers the rural aspect of the Met. Borough in the final paragraph of the lead. I think it can get away with this because trees don't complain. Eckerslike (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your opinion.
Whilst the Leeds urban subdivision may only consist of 63% of its population, a majority of those not in the urban subdivision live in adjacent areas such as Pudsey, Horsforth, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley, Morley, Whinmoor, Shadwell and Rothwell in which people definitely consider themselves to be as living in Leeds. I do believe this might be the case in places like Garforth too. Then there is the case of the outer places. It is interesting you say you lived in Deepcar which you assumed was just Sheffield as it is a similar distance from the city centre as Wetherby/Otley is and like Otley Town Council only makes references to Leeds for administrative purposes, Stocksbridge Town Council only makes references to Sheffield for administrative purposes/address. The amount of people in Leeds district who consider themselves from Leeds is probably around 85%>.
I live in Pudsey which is indeed closer to the city centre but I also did not realise for a long time it was not a core part of the city (part of the urban subdivision). Though this leads on to my next part, whether or not you think Leeds refers to the urban subdivision or the district a merge is the better option. It means both the urban subdivision and district can be represented and avoids confusion. Especially when the large majority of those living outside the urban subdivision but within the district do consider themselves part of Leeds.
Leeds United FC fan (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Eckerslike, this article was never supposed to be just about the ONS urban sub-division. If you look back to the previous discussions that was not the conclusion. And quite rightly, as sources do not define the settlement of Leeds as such. But you are highlighting why having separate articles is difficult. Because people like to know what they are talking about. I don't really understand the problem about not covering absolutely everywhere in the borough. Maybe mention them at least, but it isn't possible to talk about every little bit of a city, and it naturally ends up focusing on the city centre. People mentioned this last time, as if it was somehow doing places like Morley a disservice, but Morley has it's own article too, so why is it a problem? Polequant (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Is it actually relevant, if the outlying towns are in "Leeds" or not? I think at least some of the district is understood as clearly distinct from Leeds, without saying what area actually is then "Leeds". The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe the place(s) in the most effective way possible. Could our description of the settlement of Leeds improved by merging the two articles? Could our description of the administrative district improved? Could our description of all the various things within those areas improved? For instance, could Morley, West Yorkshire be improved with a single article? Those questions should mean more than trying to precisely define Leeds.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: The description of the settlement of Leeds could certainly be improved by merging the two articles. The majority of people who live in the district but not in the urban subdivision live in adjacent towns or very nearby rural settlements and consider themselves to be part of Leeds. And even then a merged article works for both people who think Leeds represents the borough and the urban subdivision as it includes both. And Leeds city centre and all the others have their own pages anyway too. Pages like Morley, West Yorkshire would be improved as all the editors who are confused and put it is in Leeds get reverted and nothing gets done; we would no longer have this problem. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Including the surrounding towns brings the proportion of the population to 80%. However, by the same measure Chapeltown would be included in the Sheffield figure taking it up to 97%. This perhaps also shows another distinction between Sheffield and Leeds. The surrounding areas of Leeds retained their parish/town councils and as a consequence their independent identity. There are only three councils within Sheffield Met. Borough (Stocksbridge, Ecclesfield and Bradfield).
I don't think Leeds refers to the district in common language. In the majority of the country the political and urban sub-divisions largely line up. This even applies to many Met. Boroughs. Sheffield is a borderline case where the expansion added a lot of trees but not many people. Leeds got extended well beyond conventional urban council boundaries in 1974. Eckerslike (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Polequant, exactly. Eckerslike, It's not about what you think. Leeds most certainly does refer to the district. I just love the way the editors who want to keep the two pages separate all seem to make up their own rules while they go along. Really there is no case/argument to keep the two pages separate and many in the past have already proven that by sourcing many facts for you. It's quite irritating how you all seem too caught up in your own personal views to listen. Lad 2011 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not helpful. Polequant (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @polequant, Is that aimed at something I said? I'm sorry if it comes across as offensive, however it seems to me that some people on here are just trying to dictate. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedia and should not be influenced by opinions, And we should not be redrawing borders and making up rules based on how it's done somewhere else. facts are facts and as already stated Leeds the city/settlement is defined as the district by every source you can find on the internet. Chrisieboy made the point quite clear on the discussion from 2007: The 800 year old settlement was granted city status in 1893. In 1974, when the county borough was abolished, that status was transferred to the newly created metropolitan district, which also includes two former municipal boroughs, four former urban districts and three former rural districts. Lad 2011 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
You complain about people dictating yet that is what you are doing. A settlement is a concept about which people have differing opinions, and those opinions are based on how sources refer to the place. Just search for "Wetherby near Leeds" for examples. And by your argument Carlisle the place is the same as Carlisle the borough, which is nonsense. Making accusations against people who are simply arguing their case is not helpful, and will not help bring about a conclusion to the discussion. Polequant (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge before 1974 there was a place called Leeds, in 1974 it did not disappear or expand to cover several other towns/places around it. It was that a new local government district was over laid on these places. The place still exists and should be covered in a separate article from the district. The area is the same as all of the other places in the new district and should have its own article covering just that not placed in with the district that covers or should cover all of the places equally. It is much better served by keeping the 2 entities separately, if it was not for the name there would be no logical reason to join the 2 together if you do then you should also merge in all of the other places in the district. 86.187.165.19 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
And what was this place pre-1974? Ah yes, the County Borough of Leeds, which had numerous changes in boundaries over time. Arguing that Leeds the place has remained in stasis ever since is nonsense, and not backed up by sources. Polequant (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Should we go ahead with this shortly? There may be a consensus for the merger but I'm quite inexperienced with merging so I don't know how the system works. It is approaching 48 hours since there have been any unanswered points in favour of the split. There seems to be a general feel that a merger would be best as Leeds can refer to any number of different areas (of which the most common is not in line with either the subdivision or metropolitan borough.) The parties that have expressed support for a merger are; Leeds United FC fan, Nilfanion, Lad 2011, Polequant, RichardHC. Eckerslike was ambivalent and raised points against which seem to have been answered. Mhockey was opposed and his points have been answered (except he hasn't edited Wikipedia since except his userpage.) I am excluding the IP addresses because I am unsure about what to do since both have either made only one or no other edits. It seems a week elapsed as we approach 48 hours from unanswered concerns were raised (excluding the new IP address who's only edit is this; their concern has been answered but not 48 hours since it was raised) but and from what I can see there is a rough consensus in favour of merge. Excuse me if I am incorrect as I have no experience with merging as I have pointed out. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The answer is no, you should wait until it is formally closed by an uninvolved admin. It has hardly been open a week, patience. I would call it no-consensus at the minute. Keith D (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ehhh, perhaps. I contacted an uninvolved admin and people were saying they didn't want a long process again. I personally think it's leaning towards consensus but then the opinions are ambiguous. There isn't absolute unity; but from what I can see it is leaning towards merge. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You should not be contacting anyone to sway the process, you should wait until an admin closes it as the natural course of events, a week is not long for discussions of this nature. Keith D (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I asked the admin before I saw your message. I am new to the process as I have mentioned and I incorrectly thought there was a consensus. I have mentioned this and the admin swiftly responded and gave me some advice on getting a wider range of opinions. I have messaged you to address your concerns and we should work towards reaching a conclusion. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not opinions that count it's whether it's factual or not. From the options we have merging is the most factually based option. The case for keeping them separate is nothing more than opinion, and we should not let Wikipedia be influenced/perverted by opinions. Lad 2011 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge From the above discussion it is clear that Leeds the ancient city is a different entity from the City of Leeds local government area. Any overlap will just have to be dealt with. I am concerned by the above attempt to make an early close claiming consensus where none exists. Please remember this is not a ballot. In the absence of clear consensus the status quo should remain.Charles (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there Charlesdrakew,
And here we go again. You can't just make things up and go on historic definition. It's what Leeds is defined as today that matters, and as mentioned many times already, Leeds the city is defined as the district by the council, ONS and every source you can find on the internet. Why is it so hard for some of you to comprehend this? Lad 2011 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That is WP:Recentism. You need to calm down and stop browbeating anyone who disagrees with you.Charles (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Firstly I apologise for the early merge process; to me it looked like there was a reasonable consensus for merging but then as I mentioned some responses have been ambiguous. (I'm new to the merge process.)
Secondly, that is not the problem. The problem is Leeds does not refer to either one in particular and the majority of places within the borough are widely considered to be part of Leeds.
You said: Any overlap will have to be dealt with. It can be dealt with easily, with a merger which would more accurately define 'Leeds' as people looking for places like Farsley and Horsforth which are widely considered part of Leeds can find information and not be confused as to why there is no information.
A single Leeds article is literally representative of all the possible definitions of Leeds; the urban subdivision, metropolitan district and the non-legally defined area that is commonly referred to as Leeds. Why stick with the Leeds page using just the urban subdivision, probably the least used interpretation, when you can get all that, and more accurate statistics (GVA, population, climate) and sources. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per many discussions in the past regarding this article, Salford, Dover, Stockport, Manchester, etc etc. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain your reasoning further? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course. We have had this discussion many times in the past. Sometimes the discussion related to Leeds. Sometimes the discussion related to Stockport. Sometimes the discussion related to Manchester. Sometimes the discussion related to Dover. Sometimes the discussion related to other places, singularly or severally. You get the drift, I hope. The result of any substantive discussion was always to keep separate articles for the settlement and the wider district. "Per previous discussion" is Wikipedia shorthand for "we have had this discussion before and reached a consensus, the same arguments apply so please let's not do it all again". Mr Stephen (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks. Well, Leeds is a different case. Salford's population is around 33% of that of its metropolitan borough'. Manchester is merged, Dover's population is approximately 25% of its borough and the borough isn't a metropolitan borough. Leeds however as a major city is a much different case. The urban subdivision alone takes up the majority of the metropolitan borough, but that isn't all. The areas which are referred to as Leeds in the common usage extend to the adjacent towns such as Horsforth, Farsley, Pudsey etc... since it is such a major city and has engulfed them.
The majority of the metropolitan borough that is not the urban subdivision is referred to as Leeds (in total over 85% of the borough). Some refer to Leeds as the whole metropolitan borough, most people refer to Leeds as this area that does not align completely with either (most common), and some refer to it as the urban subdivision (the status quo, and I think this is probably the least common and mainly statistical). A merged article would be the most accurate because it would include all three interpretations of what Leeds is. So people won't get confused. And this will also prevent the page quality of places like Morley, West Yorkshire having arguments about whether it is in Leeds and instead focusing on the page quality. And will also provide us with the most accurate statistics (GVA, population) and sources. Leeds at the moment is the exception out of the major cities unmerged. It is frankly ridiculous to have Leeds refer to probably the least common usage when a merger would include all three interpretations. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the specifics of Leeds. The ONS site and its successors and predecessors are impenetrable for me, so here is some old data. As of 2001 (sorry) the population of "Leeds" is given (archived here) as about 424,000. That is the settlement of Leeds. The population of the City of Leeds is more, here it given as 715,000 or so. As I said, I am not an expert on this particular place, so I am happy for you to point out errors in detail. However, the substantive point stands, that while the settlement of Leeds is easily the largest settlement in the City of Leeds, it doesn't overwhelm the others. So we are back to where we are for the great majority of places like this, that is the settlement (Leeds in this case) and the larger area with the same name (City of Leeds in this case) should have separate articles. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Leeds is quite a situation. That is the population of the urban subdivision. Leeds City Council and the ONS' newer data appears to refer to the district. And the widely referred to area of Leeds includes the adjacent area (which I do live in). There is not one region legally defined area of Leeds. What I am getting at is a merge would include all of these as there are varying opinions on what Leeds is and this would include them all.
The local newspaper (Yorkshire Evening Post) which is widespread refers to Leeds as the district (see what it claims the population of 'Leeds' is here (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-in-the-noughties-the-city-s-changing-population-1-2236400),
(http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/9-reasons-leeds-should-be-crowned-capital-of-yorkshire-1-7457998),
(http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/opinion/greg-mulholland-after-trolleybus-fiasco-let-s-get-leeds-on-track-for-future-1-7921427)
These are just some I quickly thought of from articles I had read recently. It is consistent throughout.
And Wetherby, Leeds (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/lifestyle/bars/pub-review-the-royal-oak-wetherby-leeds-1-7672455)
The ONS does refer to Leeds as the district now (including old data such as 2001) (your source is an archived record?)
(http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6275150&c=Leeds&d=13&e=16&g=6374502&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1478727904072&enc=1&dsFamilyId=75)
(http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Leeds-population.aspx) Leeds population refers to the district.
However in common usage Leeds probably most often refers to Leeds and the majority of the metropolitan borough (I'm pretty sure I've heard some people refer to Wetherby as Leeds before but I guess it's kind of questionable because of its distance.
The thing is people have different opinions and as I've reiterated countless times a merged page would solve this issue as it would represent all opinions and avoid confusion.
After all, Leeds is not legally defined as the urban subdivision, metropolitan borough or the area including the urban subdivision and nearby areas that is almost always referred to as Leeds.
Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
We have been over this umpteen times. It's the same situation everywhere else. The consensus has been to have two articles. And, I do agree that it is difficult to establish boundaries. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It isn't, because Sheffield and Birmingham have places that are not in the city but in the metropolitan borough and they are in similar situations. They are also major cities and are merged into one article. Surely a merged article would better represent Leeds and stop confusing everybody. Leeds is most commonly referred to as the undefined approximate area that comprises urban subdivision + the adjacent areas + few other places in common speak. Leeds is most commonly referred to in the media as the district. Yet you feel the urban subdivision best represents Leeds? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so here is my question to you: What is the settlement of Leeds? Lad 2011 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
A "settlement" is a place where people live; the settlement of Leeds is a typical urban settlement. The district of Leeds is emphatically not a settlement (it contains several distinct places). The settlement of Leeds is the single built-up area at the core of the district. It is shown on typical maps in a different colour (eg grey on File:West Yorkshire UK location map.svg). I will not attempt to provide an exact definition of what that settlement consists of, but not equivalent to the district.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If the merger is to go ahead then the first step is to create a draft of the proposed article somewhere. Once a consensus is reached it can then be moved to the Leeds article. The most difficult part could be unwinding related and linked articles. Although many references could apply equally to both entities a quick survey unearthed articles like Harewood House, Otley Kippax, West Yorkshire, Bramham, West Yorkshire and probably the majority of the articles based inside the Met Borough but outside the settlement that link to both articles. As we would be abandoning the convention of using 'City of Leeds' to refer to the Met. Borough the language used in these articles also would be broken by the merger. This would have to be addressed. Eckerslike (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would highly recommend that that first step (writing a draft of the merged article) is attempted by those who think a merger is a good idea. Its easier to visualise if this is a good idea by showing what the new version would look like. I would suggest the convention of "City of Leeds" to refer to the borough is a separate issue and should be looked at independently of this merger decision. If the links continue to say "the City of Leeds metropolitan borough" it makes zero difference to the merge/no-merge decision.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Some of the above discussion exemplifies why this is a problematic situation. Mr Stephen states "As of 2001 (sorry) the population of "Leeds" is given ... as about 424,000. That is the settlement of Leeds.", but that is an opinion not backed by consideration of how sources regard Leeds. (I'm not having a go at Stephen by the way, it is just typical of the problems that face the article). I agree that Leeds is inbetweeny, and not really like say Birmingham, but neither is it comparable to Dover. I would say it is more like Birmingham, Sheffield etc rather than Carlisle or Dover though. Yes that is opinion, but it is opinion that has decided that Sheffield should be one article in the first place for instance, otherwise we would have separate settlement and district articles for most places.
Centre for Cities used to use "Primary Urban Areas" which looked at the urban core of the borough, and had a population of ~600k. That was purely a statistical methodology based on the built up area. But they have changed how they analyse it now, and have changed to using the whole borough instead. Primarily I think because the influence (in terms of where people work etc) extends beyond just the central core.
And no, I don't think that linked articles have any bearing whatsoever, as City of Leeds would be redirected to Leeds and I don't see where the confusion would come in. Polequant (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft proposal, all welcome to contribute: Talk:Leeds/newdraft Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Working on above atm though, I'm working on the infobox, introduction and demographics at the moment. Page started. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The problems occur with articles like Otley that states in the lead
Otley is...in the City of Leeds metropolitan borough...The town is in lower Wharfedale on the A660 which connects it to Leeds.
If we start pretending that the urban core and district are the same thing (as the draft does) it will now state that Otley is both in and outside of Leeds. Most articles about villages/towns outside the urban core use this kind of language. As does their source material i.e. from the Vist Otley
Otley is situated on the A660 and just off the A65 in the centre of the countryside between Leeds, Bradford and Harrogate.
So we have to acknowledge the dual meaning of the term Leeds in the lead of the article or create some wikified langage to get round the confusion created by the merger. Eckerslike (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the lead says Leeds is a city and metropolitan borough. I have used the population figure for the district because all the statistics (including population) refer to 'Leeds' as the district. And the urban subdivision simply isn't an accurate portrayal of Leeds, the district is more accurate.

We want a summarising and more accurate lead (Leeds urban subdivision is the least accurate description of Leeds and can be included in the Geography/Demography sections (and/or) Geography of Leeds page.

The problem is it says it is a certain distance from Leeds. What would solve this problem is saying it is a certain distance from Leeds city centre as Leeds is open to interpretation. It isn't that difficult to solve and we could do it along with the merger Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge for consistency accross the articles that use the City of X construct, such as Salford, Greater Manchester/Salford. If we merge here then we should also consider merging all of the other instances. May be we should have a central discussion on this to get some guidelines for when we use a single article or two articles. Then whenever we get this continual suggestion on invividual articles we can quickly close down and point to the central discussion/agreement and line-up articles with it. Leeds, from the above, is nowhere near a fringe case with only 63% of the population in the urban subdivision for a merge this sould be up in the 90%+ region to show that the place and the local government area are virtually the same thing. They are clearly different here and so should have seperate articles. The above discussion seems to concentrate on figures/statistics to the exclusion of everything else in the article, which is where I think it is wrong for a merge which needs to cover all aspects of the subject. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There isn't consistency; the case of Leeds is more similar to the likes of Sheffield or Birmingham than Dover or Salford. Leeds urban subdivision alone takes up approximately double the percentage of the borough Salford does and then most of the borough not in the subdivision is commonly considered Leeds. You are proposing we stick with the urban subdivision representing the whole article when it is the least accurate description of Leeds. The figures/statistics refer to Leeds as the district and that is the most accurate with figures and that is why it has been used in the lead.
It is ridiculous to suggest separate articles and have the article for Leeds be the one that is the least common interpretation when you can merge them and allow for all interpretations to be represented as I have mentioned. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Keith, why are you (and others) referring to the urban sub-division? That is not the settlement of Leeds any more than the borough is. The central urban core (as centre for cities used to define it) of the borough is about 80%. Not that the urban core is undeniably the settlement either. Problem is that sources do not confirm exactly what the settlement is. Polequant (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The ONS page on Census geography states "BUAs and BUASDs are a new geography, created as part of the 2011 Census outputs. This data provides information on the villages, towns and cities where people live, and allows comparisons between people living in built-up areas and those living elsewhere."[1]Eckerslike (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
That does not say what a 'sub-division' is. If you think it means the ONS are defining settlements with that dataset then I look forward to your proposals for Birmingham, Sheffield etc. If you want a fuller explanation this is what the ONS said:
"Major urban agglomerations are sub-divided to provide results about localities within them, and to enable broad comparisons to be made with previously published census results. Some smaller agglomerations are also sub-divided where there are well defined localities. Previously separate urban areas, where urban land has since merged, are also recognised by sub-divisions where possible. Sub-divisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities existing before re-organisation in 1974, or the boundaries of current authorities within agglomerations."
It is interesting and helpful to see information about say Sutton Coldfield for instance. Places do not cease to exist when they have merged to form a larger settlement. But that does not mean that the ONS are attempting to define current settlements. Polequant (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge keep separate; I think they work better that way. Sure, there are some problems to be worked on, but hey, there is a lot to do elsewhere too. Have you seen the size of the Wikiproject Yorkshire clean up listing....?The joy of all things (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The Leeds article hasn't been written how it is said it would and it has been seven years since the merger. There is no way they work better that way; the urban subdivision is the least common way to refer to Leeds and you are suggesting all the traffic should be directed to an article about the least common interpratation. Especially when the alternative is to have all the interpretations represented, accurate figures for climate, demography, ethnic structure, population, religion, workforce, gva, gdp. We could easily create a good quality article this way and it is the most accurate way to deal with this situation. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge It has become clear that the merge will (on the basis of lack of govenment population figures) divorce wikipedia from reality by denying the existance of the settlement of Leeds dispite multiple sources refering to this 'mythical' place [2][3][4]. There is also practical problems that are being too lightly dismissed. The example I gave above is not isolated but one of potentially hundreds of articles in the City of Leeds that need to be looked at and changed (probably requiring consensus with other editors). Eckerslike (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Will you stop trying to insist on Leeds being defined as the ONS sub-division? Polequant (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree. Redefining Leeds as the ONS subdivision is completely deceptive. Lad 2011 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh? At what point do I mention the ONS? Eckerslike (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You and many other editors have been passing it off as such. You have been using it to redefine Leeds, and that's why the ONS statistics are in the main introduction on the Leeds page. And really, it shouldn't be. Lad 2011 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge

The guidelines here at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts doesn't list Leeds, so the district and conurbation have to be treated differently. It's got the relevant cross-article links so I feel the "City" district page could be rewritten as a disambiguation page almost, maintaining the links to the conurbation page and villages, and a brief history. The differences should be made very explicit, possibly using a warning banner? The Equalizer (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Leeds isn't the urban subdivision. Even the ONS says it is a solely statistical division, as has been pointed out above. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not enough of an urban warrior (so to speak) or even a rural one to defend this case, but the Wiki rules right now isn't backing your cause. Added to the fact this is a 12 year old argument - By Jove! The first step is to petition the powers that be, then the rules can be modified once a consensus has been agreed upon by relative experts for this and future anomalies. The city council has only managed the wider area since 1974, so the built up area would have had a different administration and history than that wider area until then - possibly the County Borough of Leeds article and prior rural district articles cover that - but they would need to be tied in/linked coherently into any single article. But as it stands until an exception is made to the guidelines, I cannot be in favour.
Also what's wrong with statistics? They are a necessary evil. The population count of Leeds was key in it being granted city status in the first place.
The Equalizer (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So you think the settlement of Leeds is defined as the ONS built-up area sub-division? Polequant (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Go about it the right way by convincing the powers that be on the site, and I might be inclined to agree with them. The Equalizer (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The powers at be? There is no such group on Wikipedia, and the correct place to hold this discussion is here. The WP:UKDISTRICTS guideline is just that, not holy writ, it can be ignored if it gets in the way of article development. Of course, if something changed here I'd expect the guideline to be adjusted as well. And that does not answer the question - do you think that the ONS sub-division is Leeds?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Eqaulizer, I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Those guidelines do not define what a settlement is, they were an attempt to clarify when the settlement isn't the same as the borough. Polequant (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Identifiably, yes I think the settlement of Leeds is defined as the ONS built-up area sub-division.
Administratively, no it isn't, of course. But being a metropolitian district would mean a mix of geography.
The outer villages and towns simply would not want to identify with the core urban area.
But lets not take as long as HS2 takes. As there are none, define some guidelines for this situation (as there are similar dual articles for towns which could do with guidance), get some agreement, write them up onto the site for future reference, then act on it. The Equalizer (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Identifiably?? How? So long as people like you try to define the settlement based on the boundaries of the former county borough of Leeds there will be zero progress on this article. [This book] contains what I thought was a pertinent anecdote:
"Leeds had two main gains, an area in the south beside the Middleton estate, developed from the nineteen-twenties, and the High Ash estate, an area on the north at Alwoodley Gates. It was described as 'a rapidly developing continuation of the town area of Leeds...occupied by people who live and work in Leeds'. The views of residents were different: they claimed to possess a community life 'more intimate and friendly than life in a large city' and were exploring the possibility of forming a separate (rural) parish. Such attitudes on the suburban fringes are not unknown elsewhere."
Settlements are not held in stasis, cities grow and swallow up previously separate settlements. The last significant change in the County Borough was in 1928. Arguing that the place has not changed since then, despite administrative boundaries changing, and huge numbers of sources that refer to places like Horsforth as being in Leeds, seems rather silly. Polequant (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge I recognise that this discussion has gone stale, so I shall opine that the City of Leeds page is of no particular interest to a casual browser, there is already a separate page for Leeds City Council, the merge should go ahead as all of the relevant information can be well incorporated into the Leeds page. RichardHC
  • oppose merge. There are three different things on which we should have articles: Leeds, the District governed by Leeds City Council, and Leeds City Council. Each is a distinct and notable thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm coming to the view that the word "Leeds" refers to a broad concept that is not tied to one particular narrow meaning (ie the settlement as defined by the ONS sub-division). My source analysis suggests a good chunk of the sources used here are about a broad concept of Leeds, and many of the sources this article is based on cannot be used for something strictly about the narrow meaning.
In other words, it is not this article's subject is one thing and the district is a related, but totally distinct, concept. Its is more that the subject of this article (Leeds) is not tightly defined, and the district is a well-defined and notable sub-topic. That leads to an oppose merge because the district is a discrete, notable, entity within the broader subject. This article actually covers a broader subject than the district's.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The same could be said of most cities (in the UK at least). To take the other extreme, places like Nottingham and Manchester are very often though of as much larger than the administrative divisions.
And we wouldn't really have had issues on this page if it hadn't been for people trying to define Leeds as the ONS urban sub-division. As can be seen from the discussion on here many people seem to think that's what the article should be about. Polequant (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The same is true of most global cities, the scope of the article is the whole concept and is not tied to the administrative unit. That's often because the metropolitan area is bigger, and should briefly be covered by the article. For example, the article London covers more than Greater London, the article Paris covers more than the city proper, and so on. If the article London was strictly about Greater London, it would mention Heathrow but not Gatwick or the M25. Such omissions are clearly not helpful.
Saying Leeds is strictly the ONS sub-division is a position I strongly disagree with, as it is both untrue and it makes writing a quality article borderline impossible. However, the district is a definite unit and its article can be sustained independently of this one. Fixing this article requires letting go of "settlement vs district" not a merger.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, and it's pretty much what I said 9 odd years ago when it was discussed at length. But you can see what the article is up against with the latest edit by Eckerslike. Polequant (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leeds/Archives/2016/December&oldid=847157325"