Talk:Leeds

Leeds Born?

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that both Beryl Burton and Ernie Wise were from the pre-1973 Borough of Morley, not Leeds. (taking into account the original author's definition of 'Leeds').

Can someone advise me if we need to redress two pieces of misinformation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.122 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 January 2006

Alan Titchmarsh was born and raised in Ilkley so I removed him for the list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.110.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 April 2006

If Morley isn't in Leeds equally Pudsey etc. aren't. This makes no sense!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwood1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 September 2006

Pudsey has a Leeds postcode, if that qualifies it....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.223.158 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 January 2007

I think the above is incredibly pedantic, unimportant and immeterial. Essencialy the area in question is now legally Leeds and has since the industrial revelution been at best an extention of Leeds. There has not been a credible gap seperating the two urban areas for about a century, I think it can safely be refered to as Leeds. In any case further to this, surely someone could be considered to be from two places, e.g. Mr A was born in Kidderminster but brought up and spent all his life from the maternity ward onwards in Solihull, where's he from. It may be credible to list him from both, but regardless he would be essencially from Solihull and not Kidderminster as he would have never lived in Kidderminster, never been recorded on the poll tax register (or equivelent) in Kidderminster and never actually lived in Kidderminster, perhaps with no knowledge of Kidderminster, to say he was from Kidderminster would be very misleading.Mtaylor848 (talk)00:07, 27 August 2008

Population

Dear Wikipedia, I have been trying to edit the page 'Leeds'. Every time I've tried my edits have always been deleted. What I want to do is edit in the table on the right hand side of the page where it says population, I want it to say

Primary Urban Area: 443,247

Metro: 715,402

Urban:1,499,465

Leeds City Region: 2,831,800

It already says the Primary Urban Area is 443,247

My reference for the Metro population is http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00da.asp a national statistics website. The population is near the bottom of that page.

My reference for the Urban population is http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf which is official. Leeds is the centre of the West Yorkshire Urban Area which is ranked fourth.

My reference for the Leeds city region is a government website for Leeds. In the form of a pdf and the address is http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/2007/week23/inter__57D2D01DD38142A580256E00004160E8_c8f64408-be1e-490a-908a-56a5bd6a4abe.pdf

I have tried to change the table but I just can't... I'm so awful at wikipedia. I do try. Can you please help me?

Yours sincerely Tom Learoyd—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think all these figures should be in this article which is on Leeds itself and not on the wider City of Leeds area. The figures are probably more appropriate to go in that article. Though you will have to explain what the terms mean so may be more appropriate to put them in the text rather than the infobox. Keith D (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These figures should be in this article in order to make wikipedia easier to use. Currently, the article on Manchester combines the city and metropolitan district and lists all population statistics in a concise form. It also uses a different source to Leeds' population. Articles on cities should be standard; ie Leeds' real population should be listed, as well as the populations for it's wider area. Everyone knows that around 760,000 people live in Leeds, not 440,000- the fact that people in Morley are seperated by a field does not mean they are not part of the city. Cities extend further than their urban boundaries; it would be idiotic to think that places like Wetherby were independent towns when they display more characteristics of an outer suburb. This article should represent all of Leeds, not a select part that is not clearly defined. It is common knowledge that Leeds is far larger than 443,000 people- Wikipedia articles need to be accurate and reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.1 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I too must politely disagree with Keith D. These figures represent Leeds and the page Leeds is the official Leeds page. Joe Average doesn't search for City of Leeds in Wikipedia. He or She types Leeds. The way this page is set out in terms of population is a discredit to Leeds and people look at other cities' wikipedia pages like Manchester and Sheffield and see them as larger than Leeds, when in actual fact they are not. I don't mean to be rude but I strongly feel that the page should be changed to better suit the city. With Wikipedia now one of the main sources of general information, tourists will look at the Leeds page and see that it is a relatively average sized city. In actual fact it is much more populous and serves as the centre for the entire city region. I see what you mean about people maybe not understanding the 'Leeds City Region', but the Urban Area has to be put on there. Almost every city in the world has their total conurbation populations displayed on their wikipedia pages. It's time Leeds caught up.

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So the population can change to the true figure? If no-one else has changed it by then, I will change it tomorrow. The real population can be listed primarily, then other measures of population listed below as on other cities' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we add the City of Leeds Met District figure to the infobox as well as the existing urban area figure, but not any more than those two. PamD (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a bad plan but it is typical of Leeds. Why not show ourselves off to the maximum of our abilities? It's not lying and it's true that Leeds does act as the centre for the conurbation.

Birmingham, Manchester, London, Liverpool, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Nottingham and Cardiff are just a few of the cities of the world that boast their conurbation populations on Wikipedia.

As for the ridiculous number of 443,247, it is a non-statistic. It represents one urban area within the boundaries of the City of Leeds, and not even the complete one. Morley is definitely part of the city, as is Horsforth. For that matter, as is Wetherby. What Leeds is, is the metropolitan borough of the City of Leeds, just like Birmingham is the Metropolitan Borough of the City of Birmingham. The population shown on this page is just one urban area in the city. It's like saying Wythenshawe isn't part of the City of Manchester. It's scandalous. Besides, if the population doesn't take into account areas such as Horsforth and Rawdon, then whoever wrote it obviously has never been to Leeds, where they would note that both those areas and many more are linked with no gaps to the 'primary urban area' by built up area. If we're going to have a main page about Leeds, then the populations of the city, 715,000 and the conurbation, 1,499,465, both have to be represented. If they're not allowed to be on there, then no wonder Leeds is overlooked for the Supertram and on an international scale. We need to help Leeds. Not to hinder it.

I apologise if I seem to have lost my temper a bit there, but this is something that we should just have. Every other major UK city has it. Why should Leeds be any different? I say no more compromises with Leeds the wikipedia page could become like the tram train project... just one big compromise. I say yes to development and the promotion of our great city and conurbation.

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But the article is not about the City of Leeds that is the article that should be talking about the higher figures and break it down into the individual areas. We have the same situation with Bradford and the City of Bradford. Most things on Wiki are a compromise and there are things that I would change but just have to live with. Keith D (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keith D. Placing the figure in the infobox brings back the question of what this article is about. If it is about the City of Leeds then Leeds and City of Leeds should be merged, if not then the infobox should show the population of the area that the article is about (though I've never quite been sure what that area is). —Jeremy (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but 443,247 is even less accurate. That is a figure that has not been counted through census to start with- even more so, the primary urban area is not a clearly defined area. People reading this page will wonder what constitutes the Primary Urban Area. As it happens, the primary urban area cuts out many suburbs of Leeds- Horsforth, Pudsey and Morley are notable suburbs not in the primary urban area. Leeds extends much further than its urban boundary- a city does not just stop where buildings stop. The commuter belt is vitally important to a city and constitutes part of the city. Finally the last and most important reason to include 761,100 is that most people wanting the population of Leeds will search Leeds, not 'City of Leeds'. To see 443,247 will give them the wrong information completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, absolutely hate pages that list only some "legal" population number. If I want to know the population of Leeds, I'm almost certainly looking for the "greater metropolitan area" and don't want to have to click-through to find what I'm actually looking for. Here's an example of how to do it right: Toronto. Maury (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Leeds situation is complicated: Otley and similar places are in the City of Leeds Met district but are independent places culturally, as well as having Town Councils etc. It is not appropriate to say that they are in "Leeds". But I'm happy to have the Met district population figure quoted in the infobox as well as the tighter "Leeds urban area" figure, to placate those who feel this is necessary. PamD (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it is complicated and some parts of the City are perhaps not culturally in Leeds like Wetherby and Otley, the fact is they are in Leeds. Because the name Leeds refers to the City of Leeds, not the urban mass within it. The urban mass within it has no single name- the names of each suburb must be used. This is why it is factually correct to say Leeds has a population of 716,100 not 443,247, even though many people consider Leeds to be a more restricted area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Toronto has got the right idea and is exactly how Leeds should be set out. I appreciate the changes made so far and say thank you to everyone involved in this discussion, even those against it. I still think there's room for improvement though and I will continue to try to convince you all that the conurbation population should be displayed along with what else is now there.

Until the next time, Tom

Tubs uk Tubs uk -My talk

There has been no discussion over a reverted population change. I have therefore restored the population to what was discussed. Any more vandalism to the statistics should be reversed due to the conclusions made above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.1 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it again as it has not to do with this article it is in the text where it should be as per other articles on places. Keith D (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The figure that keeps getting changed is also at variance with the ONS data on which the figures are based. Keith D (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect usage

Right, I've changed some of the population data terminology and useage on this page because it is wrong. Please DO NOT change it back unless you understand the terminology and are willing to use it correctly.

These items are:

• Primary Urban Area - a statistical device for the State of the English Cities Report, and only meant to be used in relation to this report only. This is an approximation to the built-up area using local authorities (for some statistics) and LA wards (for other statistics). The population of the Leeds PUA is approximately 550,000.
• Urban Area - this is the population of the conurbation of which Leeds is a component part, i.e. the West Yorkshire Urban Area. The population of the West Yorkshire UA is approximately 1.5 million.
• Urban Sub-Division - this is the population of the settlement (built-up area) of Leeds itself. It is based upon the old County Borough of Leeds, and includes areas where the settlement of Leeds has expanded outside the old County Borough into former Rural Districts. If an area was previously within an Urban District or a Municipal Borough, then it is recognised as a different settlement. This is the 443,000 figure.
• Local Authority - this is the population of the local authority City of Leeds named after its largest settlement, Leeds. Leeds (the settlement) and Leeds (the local authority) are NOT the same thing in the same way as Wakefield (the settlement, which is really quite small) and Wakefield (the local authority, which covers a wide area) is NOT the same, or the sort of nonsense that suggests that Carlisle is the largest city in England (by area), when it's actually the City of Carlisle local government district.

Now, I don't really care which statistic you use (as there seems to be a desperate need to claim that Leeds and City of Leeds are the same thing (which they aren't), and to take whichever statistic labelled "Leeds" is the largest - however use the terminology correctly. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with population on this article. 443,000 constantly keeps getting displayed as the only figure, but as the urban sub-division this is only part of the city. It doesn't include many of the outer suburbs that are today part of Leeds, but it is being labelled as an Urban Area and PUA when it is neither. The only official statistics are from Eurostat and 2001 statistics and ongoing estimates. As a result 761,000 must be displayed because without original research, there is no happy medium between the two. Therefore it is crucial people are informed that 443,000 is only the population of a select part of Leeds, and 761,000 covers the City. Anyone with any common sense can see that over 318,000 people are not going to live in the City of Leeds outside the main Leeds settlement- there would have to be another city to accommodate those sort of numbers. Bearing in mind that Wetherby and Otley have populations around 30,000 combined (and are the largest settlements outside Leeds within the City), it is evident that the overwhelming bulk of Leeds' population lives within the main urban core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously this article is NOT about the City of Leeds local authority but about the settlement of Leeds which is not what the larger figure applies to. This article is for the urban area which is the lower figure quoted. The infobox shows the lower figure as that is what the article relates to. The higher figure is explained in the text of the article as it is not directly relevant to this article. Keith D (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Fingerpuppet - helpful. I find Yunchy's argument about "where do the 300k people live?" fairly persuasive, as arguing that the 433k under-represents the city of Leeds (not "City of Leeds"). I think we should include the two figures in the infobox, but with sources/footnotes explaining exactly what they are. Fingerpuppet: can you point us to somewhere which defines "Urban sub-division", and/or outlines exactly what the Leeds US-D includes, so that we could link to or quote this? PamD (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. This map shows the extent of the Leeds Urban Sub-division (as well as the surrounding areas), and the ONS glossary page shows the simple definition of an Urban Area and Urban Sub-Division, though more detail is available elsewhere from the ONS. I would also point out that the "missing" 300,000 people are not necessarily from one place, as implied above - 10 small towns of 30,000 people will also make up that difference. To see what I mean, look at, say, Tameside Metropolitan Borough, which contains no large towns at all, yet has a population of about 225,000.

One thing that I forgot to mention - Primary Urban Areas are actually a form of conurbation, as the methodology involves starting with Urban Areas and then taking different "gaps" in the built-up areas, then approximating them as above to "best fit" available statistics. They are also named after the largest settlement within, so the Leeds PUA <> Leeds.

Other useful statistical measures of Leeds that people might be interested in adding are the relevant Larger Urban Zone and the Travel to Work Area. It should also be remembered that there is a difference between the actual size of Leeds and the functional city area of Leeds, so places can quite happily be outside Leeds (in physical geography terms) yet function as part of the same city (in human geography terms); and those areas may or may not be administered by Leeds City Council; indeed the functional city extends outside the City of Leeds area and the exact extent of that area depends upon which methodology you are using.

A lot of the arguments about the figures seems to relate to a lack of understanding about what each one represents, and the fact that people don't agree with them doesn't mean that the figures are wrong - just that people aren't understanding what is being measured by each one. Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there are not 10 small towns with populations of 30,000 outside Leeds but within the City. Infact, not even one settlement reaches anywhere near this figure. The settlements outside Leeds are nearly all minor villages, with only Wetherby and Otley being townships. It's absolutely impossible for 318,000 people to be in this area. That is around the same population as the City of Wakefield, which as people know is relatively urbanised and that's without a major city taking up half the area. It's physically impossible to have a rural area of 318,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

None at all? Not even Pudsey (32,391), Guiseley/Yeadon (31,381) or Morley (54,051)? That's almost 120,000 people to start with, and I haven't looked outside the West Yorkshire Urban Area at places like Garforth or Wetherby, or looked carefully at exactly where the local government district boundaries lie. Like it or not, those places are recognised as separate settlements to Leeds. Or are you suggesting that there's some great conspiracy to "defraud" Leeds and make it smaller?

You state that it's "absolutely impossible" for the difference between Leeds and City of Leeds in population terms to be 300,000 or so (despite demonstrating no evidence for your assertions). Then how do you explain the difference between the 1971 census figure for the old Leeds County Borough (or Leeds itself) of 496,036 and the recalculated 1971 census figure for the Leeds Metropolitan Borough of 739,401? Granted that's "only" 243,365 but that's before the general depopulation of inner city areas (and attendant growth in population in outer and formerly rural areas) that have gone on since the 1970s.

Oh, and the population of Wakefield itself is 79,885 - which isn't anywhere near half of the population of the City of Wakefield local government district (321,600). The district isn't particularly urbanised despite what you say - and where do you think the "extra" 250,000 people come from?

Just accept that the population of Leeds itself is what it is, and concentrate on showing how important a place it is by using other statistics (and the correct terminology for those statistics) - I've already suggested several that show Leeds in its true light as a regional centre and as one of the most important UK cities. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Two photographs have recently been removed from the page. One of a floral sign at the station (which although was a nice image, ruined the layout of the page) and one from the main box (an photo of the city centre from what seems to be the roof of the library). How do I find out the names of these photographs as I think they would be both better suited to different pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Click the History tab on the article page. Find a date/version when the photos were still on the page then click on the photo.--Harkey (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Areas

Restore the list of areas on the main page. The rejigging of this page seems to have been done slighly haphazardly and useful parts seem to have been lost.Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't haphazard. I removed the list as the same information is, as far as I know, contained in the seealso link in that section. There wasn't any need, I think, for the redundancy. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Most text has been retained but reordered to improve the article structure, cohesiveness and appearance ready for its uploading to Wikipedia DVD version 0.7 which was mentioned in the last newsletter. In order to maintain the standards it would be useful if editors could provide sources for your edits and stick to the WP:MOS. Thanks--Harkey (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-removed the list as it is already in the sub-article and adds nothing to this article apart from inflate it. It has been an attraction for IP edits of adding and removing of locations in the past so it is best not to have it. I think most of the information is present but lots of the repetitive / duplication of information has been removed, as has some of the POV statements. Keith D (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

introduction/scope

I think whoever took it upon themselves to take the decision that the Leeds article should represent an area that excludes so much of the city is very much mistaken. I would suggest the larger area be the focus of the article - it's blatant common sense. Every other city on the planet can't be wrong!

Why should someone searching for 'Leeds' be subjected to a bizarre introduction that seems only to serve as personal justification for the article's focus? There should perhaps at best be a paragraph on the boundary discrepancy, with a link to "the urban core of the city of Leeds", which you could safely assume is NOT what the majority of visitors to the page are interested in. It would seem akin to searching for Kansas City (the city in Missouri) and being directed to Kansas City, Kansas (a satellite city). Not the greatest example, but you get the idea.

The introduction should be concise and informative - this is neither because of the very nature of having to explain what the article represents! I refer to: The county borough of Leeds was awarded city status in 1893, but in 1974 this status was transferred to the larger new metropolitan borough named "City of Leeds". Thus Leeds, although commonly referred to as a "city", does not have this legal status unless the wider area is being discussed.

The nature of the article does a great disservice to the city, not to mention those unfortunate to live in those areas banished!

Those with any interest in the city may well find it difficult to find the information they're looking for amongst the confusion, which is completely unnecessary.

Thisrain (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Every other city on the planet? Like Salford/City of Salford, or Bradford/City of Bradford, or Wakefield/City of Wakefield, or Carlisle/City of Carlisle? It is not even slightly unusual where a local government area is larger than the settlement that it's named after - and there's plenty of other examples that I could give. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

They are two different entities and should be kept separate as indicated above there are several examples in the UK where this situation exists. The confusion results from the naming of the entities if the main settlement and the borough did not have similar names then there would be no problem, such as Huddersfield and Kirklees. When articles try to cover two different things, mainly as the result of mergers, this also causes confusion and readers find it difficult to extract the information they are looking for. The complicated introduction was a compromise that came about because people did not like Leeds being called a city. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't one of the big problems with the present article that "Leeds, the settlement" isn't even a legal entity? Isn't that why we have so much trouble defining its boundaries and determining its population? In analogy to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that other cities also suffer from schizophrenia is not a convincing argument for me. Keeping Leeds and City of Leeds separate looks to me like a bad case of pedantry. Almost every city in the world has the "problem" that its official boundaries don't coincide exactly with the natural boundaries of the settlement. Every town or city I ever lived in officially extended to areas that people felt were really separate villages (e.g. de:Seckenheim in Mannheim, de:Günterstal in Freiburg im Breisgau, Köpenick in Berlin, Vallvidrera in Barcelona). I admit that the typical case is more comparable to Pudsey than to Otley, but the difference is still quantitative, not qualitative. On the other hand, most cities grow beyond their official boundaries.

I think the right way to deal with this kind of situation in general is to deal with the settlement and the legal entity in the same article. Yes, this means there is some ambiguity. But people are used to it and can deal with it. The article chair is similarly ambiguous, but it's not being split into chair for one person and chair for one or more persons. What I haven't seen yet is specific evidence that the situation with Leeds (or Salford, Bradford, Wakefield, Carlisle) is qualitatively different from the situations of almost every other city. Instead there is a lot of evidence of confused readers, and there is duplicated material (Leeds#Twin towns vs. City of Leeds#Town twinning – note that these are officially twinned with the City of Leeds, but of course Otley has its own twin towns). --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To use local examples (Bradford, Wakefield etc) doesn't serve as any justification; these were doubtless edited in a similar way either through reference to the Leeds article or vice versa, or may well have been edited by the same people using a similar template. Are there any examples of this anomaly further than a 100 mile radius of the Pennines? Looking at the wider world - Birmingham, for example, the article refers to both the city and metropolitan borough, as does Wolverhampton. This is how most cities around the world, in my experience, have been laid out. I see no reason why cities in the North of England should be any different. Bristol, as a city and unitary authority, would be another example of how the Leeds article should appear, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with Hans on this - keeping the City of Leeds and Leeds separate is pedantic at best. Thisrain (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, both Birmingham and Wolverhampton local authority areas don't contain any rural areas, and indeed Wolverhampton (the city) extends outside the local authority boundary - and with the exception of Sutton Coldfield, neither of the local authority areas contain other ONS recognised settlements.

More than 100 miles away from the Pennines? Well, I don't know about that, but outside Yorkshire/Greater Manchester/Merseyside there's lots. Staying in the West Midlands Dudley/Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, Walsall/Metropolitan Borough of Walsall and Solihull/Metropolitan Borough of Solihull; whilst elsewhere in England off the top of my head there's the Carlisle example from earlier, Sunderland/City of Sunderland, Brighton, Hove and Brighton & Hove, Milton Keynes/Milton Keynes (borough), Middlesbrough/Middlesbrough (borough) and Chichester/Chichester (district). There's plenty more out there too. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above

This does seem rather bizzare. For example if you compare it to another large northern city, Manchester, there is no seperate article for "City of Manchester". In comparison, how are to decide which parts are "Leeds" and which parts are not if you're just randomly including the city centre/core?

• Woodhouse Park, part of Manchester, or part of a mystical entity which desires the creation of a City of Manchester article?[1]
• Wetherby, part of Leeds, or part of a mystical entity which desires the creation of a City of Leeds article?[2]

There seems to be a rather strange amount of original research going on here. These two city articles should match up. IMO City of Leeds and Leeds need to be the same article, just as City of Manchester and Manchester are the same article. Owl Night (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)