Talk:Leeds City Region

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Leeds City Region is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leeds

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds articles

Upper Case?[edit]

The name of the article is not capitalised, but in the lede it is. In the given source it is capitalised. Should the article's name be changed to reflect this? almost-instinct 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Leeds City Region is a proper noun- it should be capitalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demography[edit]

A table of demographic statistics relevant to the partnership's areas of work - for each of the component partners - compared with England would be a useful addition.--Harkey (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but don't know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.136.219 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject[edit]

Is this an article about the Leeds City Region or the Partnership that oversees Leeds City Region? Needs to be sorted.

Probably it should be both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devolve2cats (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are one and the same, the partnership is what the Leeds City Region is, it should not be confused with the area that is controlled by Leeds City council, which does not include the greater area that the Leeds City Region Partnership has some limited influence in. The partnership is a voluntary one and should one council pull out then the region will alter accordingly. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't quite right. The LCR is the functional economic area - the geographic scale at which markets work, and exists (theoretically at least) whether or not the partnership exists. The LCR partnership is made up of the local authorities that have control over those areas within the relevant geography. However, for the purposes of the page, it would probably be confusing (and would duplicate) to have seperate 'LCR area' and 'LCR Partnership' pages --Devolve2cats (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Richard Harvey. Leeds City Region is a defined geographical region based on the economic area surrounding Leeds, just like you would have Greater London. The City Region has a partnership that oversees it, a bit like the GLA. The LCR Partnership is not quite the same as the GLA, but hopefully that analogy will help you to see that they are not the same. The GLA and Greater London are not the same, just as the Leeds City Region Partnership and Leeds City Region are not the same. I therefore propose that this article is reverted to it's original name 'Leeds City Region', with a subsection describing the political partnership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an article on each as they are separate and apparently completely different subjects. I was waiting for further news about the achievements and progress of the partnership before adding more content.--Harkey (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems the only way to clearly define the two things and avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably disagree that we need two separate articles here as there will be significant overlap of them and they can clearly be covered in a single article. Keith D (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a confusion. Some editors seem to be wanting to treat the region as a geographical "place" rather than an administrative construct. Which is it to be?--Harkey (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can be covered in a single article, but if we are to do this, Leeds City Region Parternship is one aspect of Leeds City Region NOT the other way round, ie Leeds City Region product of Leeds City Region Partnership. If the partnership ceased to exist, the City Region would still exist, but if the City Region ceased to exist, the Partnership would do too. So the article we have makes no sense because the geographical/economic subsections have no relevance to the partnership (which is the title of the article). But if we had an article named 'Leeds City Region', the Partnership would be a fully relevant subsection of that alongside all the geographical and economic aspects.

Now, the facts are that the editors that want to treat the region as an administrative construct are simply wrong. There's no debate about it at all. It's like saying that the UK is just an administrative construct and actually it doesn't exist as a geographical area at all. Leeds City Region existed long before the Partnership was set up. The partnership was set up to act as a mechanism for the City Region to work together more easily, particularly on transport. Since this article has been renamed, it has lost all credibility because it's actually all now incorrect and written based on one person's opinion rather than the neutral facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the undiscussed page move while discussion is underway here as to the purpose of the article. Keith D (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since first coming across this article, I have spent many hours reading about City regions on both the global and national (UK) scale. The Leeds city region (lower case) of course exists as a geographical area. The Leeds City Region (upper case) is a recent administrative construct. It is a method for obtaining co-operation (pooling of local resources) and channelling government resources to stimulate economic growth in the region. This is not to say that it does not exist. It just needs to be made clear that it is a functional economic and social entity with fairly fluid bounds. I think I can probably put together/contribute to a decent and balanced article whatever the title. To avoid confusion and frustration to both readers and subsequent editors it might be better to arrive at consensus about a working definition and title now so that we can work co-operatively.--Harkey (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with having the article focus on a physical region is that it is effectively duplicating information that is in other articles and there is little extra that can be said apart from the details of the places that form the region. Most of the things that will be unique for an article are around the functional economic and social entity of the region. If it is capitalised it needs some qualifier adding so that it is clear that it is not a physical region. Keith D (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. Leeds City Region is an area where each member has things in common that it doesn't with it's administrative areas. The partnership was formed to enable these common aspects to be exploited. There is no article on Wikipedia that recognises Leeds City Region, and as it stands at the moment, this article only talks about the partnership. Even if the partnership didn't exist, Leeds City Region would still be as important and unique in geographical/economic contexts. I suspect the articles you refer to in terms of duplication of information are articles like Leeds, Yorkshire, North/West/South Yorkshire, Yorkshire & Humber etc. Well none of those articles recognise that Leeds is by far the main city in the the region. No article recognises that there is a wide travel to work area around Leeds (ie Leeds City Region), or that Leeds drives the economies of the towns/cities surrounding it. If the partnership didn't exist, 400,000 people would still commute into Leeds every day from the rest of the City Region, there would still be a road and rail network centred on Leeds, the main airport would still be in Leeds, the region's media would still be based in Leeds. This article is an opportunity to discuss how Leeds impacts on it's neighbours; on it's City Region. Despite all this, we have a pathetic article that talks about the partnership which is a very insignificant aspect of Leeds City Region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 () 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90.212.254.251 I get the impression that your main drive here is to push 'Leeds' as being the most important place and that everything hinges on its importance, rather than have an article on the city-region. That is not a neutral position to edit in. Leeds is one city and is no more special than Bradford, York or Hull, it simply has a different type of economy. There may be a large amount of people, who commute into Leeds, however not all of them are doing so to work, many are students traveling in from the outlying areas, others are in transit through or out of the city to different towns & cities to work. Having sat on early morning trains to commute from Leeds to London or sat in a car stuck in traffic jams, along with others trying to get out of Leeds to Harrogate and York or Wakefield and Sheffield, I am fully aware of the amount of people who leave Leeds and then return home late at night. There is a greater collective amount of money made in the outlying industrial and agricultural areas of the towns cities and boroughs than in leeds alone.

Keith I agree with what you say. Even the Local Government Minister, John Harman, seems to be using the phrase 'Greater Leeds' when mentioning the 'city-region' EG: "Last month, the chancellor revealed that Greater Leeds and Greater Manchester had won statutory city-region status" as stated Here. Harkey certainly has the background and local knowledge to be able to put together a neutral based article with all the irrelevant geographic material weaned out. So I would support his offer to do so. As for marking locations in articles everywhere in the Partnership area as being located in the 'Leeds City Region' then I would feel that is unrequired. At the present time places in Greater London are marked up as in 'London'. Although Ordnance Survey maps do show an area known universally as Greater London and another known as Greater Manchester, both of which have elected leadership, there is no authorative area known as 'Manchester City Region' or 'Leeds City Region' on any OS map. Should those area's become designated then articles can be amended by a bot as required after consensus has worked out how to define the location format required. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it! The City Region is called LEEDS CITY Region... and its the 'partnership' that runs it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.47.209 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall continue to develop this article here (rather than on the other page) to try to avoid POVs. Thanks for the help Richard.--Harkey (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, I have deleted out the 2 cut & paste copies of this article and rebuild the article history of this article to contain all of the the valid versions. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Keith. I'm sure there is a lot of mileage in this subject. Some of the actions of the City Region Partnership are sure to be controversial in the future and attract attention, but once a fairly substantial article is established they will, I hope, be easier to cope with.--Harkey (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This revamp has so far failed to address the initial problem- that Leeds City Region is not just a partnership. The article should be the same name of the subject it is actually meant to be talking about. Secondly, who created the diagram? It's better than nothing butis not really correct. Leeds City Region is comprised of 11 local authorities that have very clearly defined boundaries. Settle is not on the edge of the City Region at all- infact the City Region stretches to beyond the M6/WCML. Also, why does the Yorkshire Dales National Park need to be on the map? It's existence is completely irrelevant to this subject. Why is North Yorkshire indicated but not West or South Yorkshire? More importantly, the area indicated as North Yorkshire is wrong- Selby is also in North Yorkshire. What is the orange oval meant to represent? West Yorkshire or Leeds (in which case it is wrong)? Bradford has not status above any of the other towns/cities in the city region either. The diagram also fails to show the local authorities that make it up. Manchester City Region or Sheffield City Region articles are examples of what we should be looking for in a city region map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the fact that someone is trying to actually add constructive content to the article.The title can be debated later. The diagram is not a representative map it is an 'economic area diagram'. North Yorkshire County Council is represented in the partnership. The difficulty of providing a key to the map when we are not supposed to write keys on maps in English (as this inhibits access by non English speakers) is one I am trying to address by experimenting in my sandbox with wikitables. The article is by no means finished as the 'underconstruction' tag at the top of the page indicates. A map of the area would be a most welcome addition as would non-copyright transport maps. Please add one if you can source it. I shall make one before completing the article, if not. A little more constructive criticism is very welcome but negative and destructive comment are not what Wikipedia is all about.I have no WP:POV and no axe to grind.If you are not willing to work co-operatively and add constuctive content then leave it alone.--Harkey (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is misleading. The problem, as always, is that Leeds seems determined to "big itself up" by extending its boundaries to unrealistic limits. In reality, Leeds is a moderate sized city (population 750,000) which sits in a densely populated and polycentric county. Certainly it exerts some influence over Selby, York, Barnsley and The Dales, but to no greater extent than (say) Liverpool does over Preston, Warrington, Chester and North Wales. The fact that Leeds' economy is heavily based on financial and legal services does not justify its claim to regional overlordship. Thus it is reasonable to recognise the political construct of a "Leeds City Region" (which actually exists) but not the geographical entity (which is in fact quite contentious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you know that North Yorkshire is not part of Leeds City Region? NYCC is part of the partnership because it has to be present on a number of issues that Craven, Harrogate and Selby Borough Councils do not have control over as they're not unitary. That is the only reason that NYCC is part of the partnership- the county as a whole is not part of Leeds City Region, and the council only part of the partnership for administrative reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.251 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, I thought this would have been sorted by now and changed back to being called Leeds City Region. You cant have an article called Leeds City Region Partnership that straight away (and for the most part of the whole article) discusses the leeds city region, rather than the partnership. There needs to be a wiki page called Leeds City Region. Leeds city region is the geographical entity, and the partnership is just just the administration that overseas it - and actually, this partnership is called Leeds City Region too (not Leeds City Region Patnership as the leedscityregion website appears to have mistakenly worded it). The most common sense approach to this would be to have the articled named Leeds City Region that would discuss what this region is, and then discuss the partnership as a sub heading within it. Moreover, the name change was made without any discussion, and as soon as it was implemented an equal proportion of editors have been opposed to it. This means, really, it needs to be reverted back, so that a full discussion can be made on this with at least some form of basic consensus before implementing the change. This is especially so, given that the name of this article is now different to how all the other city region articles have dealt with it. Razorlax (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with many topics, this one can be viewed from numerous perspectives; philosophical/theoretical, political, administrative and practical. It is a great strength of Wikipedia that it brings together editors who have a great variety of expertise, experience and perspective. I think the debate on this page is a demonstration of differing perspectives being applied to a topic. Some editors are coming at the topic from a political/administrative point of view and some at a practical/implementation level. At the implementation level the territorial limits and infrastructure of the Leeds City Region have to be dealt with, and an editor of the article obviously has experience in this area, particularly transport(PTE). I think that attempting to deal with all aspects of the topic is too much for one article so there may be a need for an umbrella article about City Regions in England.(I know there are articles which come close to this.) This to cover the evolution of the concept from theory to politics, introduction and administration with links to individual named City Regions and the parent article City regions. So, my proposal is that this article be renamed Leeds City Region, that an article on City Regions in England be created, that the article City regions be improved/modified and links be made to, from and between as appropriate.--Harkey (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Renaming this article back to Leeds City Region, whereby it covers what the city region is, and then an equally large subsection within the article that focuses on the actual partnership that overseas the city region, how it works, the structure, the members leadership board etc. If, in the future, as city regions develop, and it is deemed appropriate, then it would be easy to split the article into two seperate ones. It would also allow those who are more interested in the partnership and its framework to develop that section of the article further, whilst allowing those who are more interested in the city region in the scope of a geographical and economical area to develop that side of it. The result will allow imo for a well-developed article that will act as a template for the other city regions :-) Razorlax (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should never have been changed to the current incorrect title anyway, so naturally I too back the restoration of it's correct title 'Leeds City Region'. May I also add that this article has not improved, just been flooded with information. It is clear that most of the new text has been lifted from the Leeds City Region website, and in some places re-worded to fit the opinions of the editor rather than reflect facts. Can editors please work to get this rectified. Yunchy (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)Please will you say how you (from your perspective) think the article should be structured and what information should be included. Positive suggestions and other sources of information are particularly welcome. What are the facts that you are questioning? The matters that you are concerned about can only be rectified if you say what they are rather than making negative remarks.--Harkey (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, a few basic points on language: 1) Spaces after full stops. 2) Text should read well; the sentences in the article are far too short and they do not relate to each other. 3) The article is poorly paragraphed. 4) Subheadings. -'Geographical context'- what would be wrong with 'Geography'? -The two subheadings the economy are too long worded in the title. There is no need to say 'of the city region' because the article is about that. They should both be merged into the same section to create a balanced article. 5) Bullet points in the economy section are being used incorrectly; these are not lists but headings of paragraphs.

On the subject itself: 1) As discussed, Leeds City Region, as the name suggests, is a region not a partnership. Yes, there is a partnership that manages the city region but even that is not called 'Leeds City Region Partnership'. You wouldn't rename 'Leeds' to 'Leeds City Council' so why rename Leeds City Region to 'Leeds City Region Partnership'? 2) There are alot of statements in this that need expanding, particularly in the introduction. 'The region covers an area of the historic county of Yorkshire'. This statement does not shed any light on the city region and is actually irrelevant. Why not name the specific boroughs/districts/cities that it is made up from? 3) There needs to be a new subheading at least on the partnership because this is not the same as the region. Yes, the partnership was created as part of a government strategy, but the region existed long before the partnership. Organisations like Metro have been referring to Leeds City Region for far longer. 4) Leeds City Region is not an agency, and it is not true that it has no political control. More correctly, it has no direct political control. Decisions made on the LCR panels are hugely influential to local councils for example. 5) LCR partnership is not concerned with marketing. This is the job of the tourists boards and Marketing Leeds. 6) The paragraph about pilot status is poor because what does pilot status mean? This paragraph gives the reader no information about what that is. This is infact quite an important point that should have a subheading in the main article, because this pilot grants Leeds City Region devolved spending powers in certain areas (not transport though- yet). So why not say 'Leeds City Region is set to get devolved spending powers because...'. 7) The text in the geography section contradicts the map. Settle and Ripon for example are not at all on the edge of the city region- it extends much further north. I'm curious as to why Bradford is in the peach-shaded area too? What is this indicating? It should be noted that both York and Harrogate are bigger economic centres than Bradford, and York has a subregion. 8) I will make a few minor edits to clean up the 'positive economic features of the city region' section. 9) 'Areas of Work' and 'Progress should be merged. 10) There are several economy sections- it jumps around too much. There should be one section for each subject, not two or three.Yunchy (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Adding a space after a full stop. They are all rendered as single spaces.

Please cite your sources for additional information.e.g. pilot status, political control, York has a subregion.
On the diagram, it is not a map, Bradford and Leeds are in a contiguous built up area (peach shaded area), but the key will explain that. (Remember the tag at the top of the page saying that the article is still under construction.) Please, direct editors to a copyright free source for a map of the region, if you know of one.
The reference to marketing is taken from a cited source.
What is the Leeds City Region Partnership called if not Leeds City Region Partnership?

Some of the confusion and duplication is simply due to the debate about the article title.

Your superior knowledge of the subject is extremely useful but needs to be verified by cited sources, please.--Harkey (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress has been made, but the article title hasn't changed despite consensus for it to be reverted to it's original name. I don't seem to be able to move it - can somebody sort that out? Despite changes in the introduction, I still don't think it reads particularly well. Finally, the article could do with more visual aids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Despite consensus, this article still hasn't been reverted to it's original name. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I revised the article, both the titles were made bold in the lead paragraph. I believe that either will do fine. The partnership seems to be destined to play a bigger political role as Regional Assemblies are phased out and powers are devolved. The article will need more and possibly constant revision as the politics and economic situations change. I have gone into some detail about the evolution of the Region/Partnership. Although it would be WP:OR several of my contacts in that area didn't know anything about it, or how it evolved/is evolving. The article still needs a lot of Wikilinking.--Harkey (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes but you can't just go your own way with something because you think it'll do when actually there has been consensus (see above) that the article should revert to the correct name, not least because there is no body called 'Leeds City Region Partnership'. The body is called Leeds City Region and happens to be a partnership, but it's not in it's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been somewhat ambiguous on their website for some time, but according to the wording of the official MAA here you are correct.--Harkey (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore with that in mind, can the title please be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunchy (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Leeds City Region Partnership → Leeds City Region — See above for full reasons. In short, the title is incorrect and there is consensus that the correct title should be given. Yunchy (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Region pilot status[edit]

Has anything occured worth updating the page for since it became one of the pilot city regions alongside Greater Manchester? Any changes to governance structure proposed or enacted, any different working practises? WatcherZero (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds City Region Diagram[edit]

The conceptual diagram in the artcle created by Harkey which explains how the settlements in Leeds City Region relate to each other has a significan error. Skipton is included in the Yorkshire Dales National Park area, but a cursory glance at Yorkshire Dales National Park.png shows this is not the case, the town lies just outside it and is viewed as a gateway to the park. Even if we accept a small part of the town might be in the Park that is not shown on the diagram, rather it is seen as being wholely (and rather deeply) within it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.45.44 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley in two regions[edit]

It appears Barnsley is in both this city region and the Sheffield City Region. How can this be the case, is this a mistake? Eopsid (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in both according to their websites here and here. Unless the latter is referring to the enterprise zone area.--Harkey (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should solve your concerns, http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/2012/Barnsley.pdf its in the Leeds and Sheffield LEPs, its also in both proposed administrative city regions (though Leeds is the only legally recognised city region of the two alongside Greater Manchester) with both reports noting the north is pulled more towards Leeds and the south more towards Sheffield but overall its closer economically to Sheffield than Leeds. See city relationships report on both cities on this page http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/document.asp?id=766 . WatcherZero (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversy' section[edit]

Some clarification/slight rewording is needed - various claims are being made, and 'each council mentioned above has pride and values its own council as independent councils' is slightly confusing (and it may make more sense to repeat the names of the city rather than having to scroll back up the text). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leeds City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leeds City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Leeds City Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant page[edit]

Shouldn't this page be redirected to West Yorkshire or West Yorkshire Combined Authority now? Dgp4004 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]