Wikipedia

Talk:Transport in Leeds

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Leeds Cycling Campaign

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've updated the cycling section with the change of name from 'Leeds Cycle Action Group' to 'Leeds Cycling Campaign' and the link to the new web site. Would it be OK if I also link from the cycling section to the Leeds Cycling Campaign's Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Cycling_Campaign - currently under development? Terryw (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

city or met district?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

What's this article about? If it's about the City of Leeds metropolitan district then it needs to include Otley etc; if it's only about the city (in a non-technical sense) of Leeds, then the recent deletion of Pudsey etc stations was correct. The lead section needs to clarify which sense of "Leeds" is being used here. (See vast amounts of past debate about the Leeds article!) PamD (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

To draw lines around the region, the met district should be used as its easily definable. Also to say Pudsey and Horsforth are not in the city sprawl of Leeds is ridiculous, Horsforth has long since been swallowed up into the city, find me green space between Leeds and Horsforth, Pudsey is within the Leeds Outer Ring Road. There is no page for mentioning the other areas of the met district. An encyclopedic page of Transport in Leeds would cover offical recognised areas, ie the Met District, espacially being as Leeds City Council and the relevent transport authorities in Leeds cover these areas. As such I have replaced the original information, as it seems to have been taken off by a misinformed pedant.
Mtaylor848 (talk) 10th August 2008
The lead needs to clearly state the area covered as it stands it is ambiguous. May be a map of the area would help, rather than a long verbose description unless it ties in with some other boundary that has been defined for local government purposes. Keith D (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
In the Leeds article "Transport" section, it's heading link is to "Main article: Transport in Leeds", clearly showing that this "Transport in Leeds" page is part of the Leeds article. Hence the content about the railway station at New Station Street, Leeds. The bus station at Dyer Street, Leeds. The free-bus service around the centre of Leeds. The Middleton Railway in south Leeds, it's original steam locomotives made in Holbeck, Leeds.The "List of railway stations in Leeds" and the "List of former railway stations in Leeds", etc. 12 August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.26.64 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
But other editors clearly disagree with your interpretation, which is why the railway stations outside the city of Leeds but within the City of Leeds met district have been part of this article since 27 Sep 2007. There needs to be more discussion on this. The views expressed here so far are 2:1, with one neutral voice, I think. Let's hope more editors join the debate. PamD (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
As it stands it has to be the city of Leeds for it to be the City of Leeds then the article needs moving to Transport in the City of Leeds and the {{Main}} template removing from Leeds and inserting into the City of Leeds article. But as stated above the lead of the article should clearly scope the article. Keith D (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


(outdent) We need to have some centralised discussion on this one as we also have problems over the category Railway stations in Leeds as per Talk:Guiseley railway station where there appears to be problems over Guiseley railway station been in or not in the category. The category needs to be defined as to if it applies to the City of Leeds or to Leeds. I would guess for categories that is should be the wider City of Leeds to prevent there being lots of categories which are under populated. May be someone could look at what happens with other similar categories where there is a 'City of X' and an 'X', e.g. Bradford. Keith D (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have had a look at various wiki pages and would agree to replacing the current Category:Railway stations in Leeds with Category:Railway stations in City of Leeds metropolitan borough. It is vital that we avoid any ambiguity or confusion. 18 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.246 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is absolutely no need to change the name of the category, to something long and contorted, that is fine and lines up with usage in the rest of England. We just need to add a note at the top of the category, and presumably the others as to the scope of the category. Keith D (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Keith here - category names need to be simple, and a scope note on the category page can clarify that we are referring to the Met District. PamD (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


Whether you are talking about Leeds as a city or the Leeds Metropolition District, Horsforth and Pudsey would be included. Pudsey Station is either within the ring road. Find me green space between these places and Leeds City Station. I have reinstated the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaylor848 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Middleton Light Railway

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Middleton Light Railway is not The Middleton Railway, it was the tramway built to Middleton in 1925 and extended later to Belle Isle --J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Transport in Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Requires infobox, if a suitable one is available
  3. Investigate red-links to see if articles exist under different name or capitalisation
Keith D 09:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 09:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Transport in Leeds. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transport_in_Leeds&oldid=1211450109"