Jump to content

Talk:Horsforth: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
comment
→‎Status: new section
Line 25: Line 25:
:Cannot see any problem with that. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Cannot see any problem with that. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Just done. Ian --[[User:Ormers|Ormers]] ([[User talk:Ormers|talk]]) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::Just done. Ian --[[User:Ormers|Ormers]] ([[User talk:Ormers|talk]]) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Status ==

Horsforth was never a town; it was never granted town status. Just because it has a Civil Parish and so can call itself a town, it doesn't mean it is a town. Lots of places are civil parishes but far from being a town. What is a town? Somewhere like Harrogate or Huddersfield represents a town- clearly Horsforth is nothing like these places. It has been fully reliant on the city centre for government/economic drive for 35 years now, and was part of Leeds long before it officially became a suburb of the city. It claimed to be one of the largest villages of the UK until it became part of Leeds in 1974. Some people still consider it a village, but it is officially part of Leeds (and has been for 35 years now). Horsforth has been engulfed by Leeds and is no longer independent in any way, in exactly the same way that Chapel Allerton and Headingley have been engulfed by the expanding city of Leeds in the past.

Revision as of 22:44, 31 March 2009

It should be the Troy district, right? And an anonymous (and as far as I can see otherwise serious) writer has mentioned Robert the Bruce in a way that make no sense to me, can someone make anything out of it? Gunnar Larsson 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you with Robert the Bruce, but I'm pretty sure that the train station is in Cookridge, not Troy. I'm told there used to be two stations in Horsforth, and they closed the one that was actually in Horsforth. Terry 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second station was located in the Newlay area of Horsforth, next to the river and canal, which was formerly a fairly industrial area. That station was closed in the 1960s(?) and lays on the Leeds to Shipley line.

There're 2 facts I heard about Hosforth that I'd like some clarity on please;

.Firstly I heard Horsforth was directly between London and Edinbourgh .Secondly I heard Horsforth was the largest village in Europe. Which also brings about the question as to whether Horsforth is a village or not. It has a town council, but doesn't have a town hall...

There is a monument on Abbey Road, at the entrance to Kirkstall Forge, that marks the halfway point between London and Edinburgh, and states that it is exactly 200 miles from each. However I'm not sure whether it was a viable journey even in the 19th century as what is now the A65 headed north west into the Dales and towards the Lakes, with the route north through Ilkley and Grassington not being attractive at the best of times. If there was a London - Leeds - Edinburgh through train, then it would have passed though Horsforth station, making the station the closest point to half way.

There is no definition of a village in English law, so Horsforth's status comes from not being incorporated into an Urban District Council in the 1930s, and I believe it only received its town status in or after the 1974 Local Government Act. Sfgreenwood 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article refer to Horsforth as a town? It is not, never has been and never will be a town. Unbeknownst to most people in this "town", it used to (sort of) be independent of Leeds, but that was changed 35 years ago, why is Wikipedia not up to date? Stuff like this is most confusing to the schoolchildren of Horsforth, in fact, the whole Leeds article seems hell-bent on misrepresenting the city. Utterly useless for us teachers. Can it be brought up to date, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.22.143 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially a town, as a civil parish was created in 1999 (a civil parish can call itself a town - see Civil parish#Names). Also it is referred to as a town by Leeds City Council. —Snigbrook 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport or Communications - Section Title

Common name for a section dedicated to rail, road, etc., on other location related pages appears to be Transport and not Communications. I suggest this section is re-titles Transport and will do so unless there are objections listed here by 22 August, 2008. Ian --Ormers (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see any problem with that. Keith D (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just done. Ian --Ormers (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Horsforth was never a town; it was never granted town status. Just because it has a Civil Parish and so can call itself a town, it doesn't mean it is a town. Lots of places are civil parishes but far from being a town. What is a town? Somewhere like Harrogate or Huddersfield represents a town- clearly Horsforth is nothing like these places. It has been fully reliant on the city centre for government/economic drive for 35 years now, and was part of Leeds long before it officially became a suburb of the city. It claimed to be one of the largest villages of the UK until it became part of Leeds in 1974. Some people still consider it a village, but it is officially part of Leeds (and has been for 35 years now). Horsforth has been engulfed by Leeds and is no longer independent in any way, in exactly the same way that Chapel Allerton and Headingley have been engulfed by the expanding city of Leeds in the past.