Talk:Beeston, Leeds

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Beeston, Leeds 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Facilities

I have altered the statement tha Beeston has the best facilities in Leeds, to the best sporting facilities in Leeds as Beeston's facilities in all other areas are p**s poor. There's a mainline railway with no station, no proper supermarket (the nearest being in Hunslet and Morley) and a lack of any shops more obscure then a book makers, that and most of the pubs away from the main roads have closed down.

beeston is known to be rough but its safe to go to. like most places it has its good areas and bad areas. Leeds utd footballclub is located on the edge of beeston and draws thousands of people to beeston every match day. there is also a very popular shopping mall and many community events. Chavs are not teenage gangs, chavs are something completely different. you can get 70 year old chavs although most tend to be in the age group of 18-30. someone needs to get their facts straight first!!! thankyou very much.

Unsigned comment AND the reply posted by 81.96.250.36 on 29 April 2006. (note added by Saltmarsh 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As I write this I am close to finishing a very nice bottle of Shiraz so if I go off on one please forgive me. Whilst born in Hunslet I have lived the last 40 years in Beeston. I have NEVER been mugged or attacked on the street. I never feel threatend when walking through the area. Other than the usual school playground stuff I have been in one fight(and yes I lost!). My cars have been vandalised on two occasions, my home intruded once and my garage twice. I can walk to see one of the passions of my life (Leeds United). My children have enjoyed some excellent sporting facilities at the John Charles Sports Centre and have part time jobs at the White Rose to help them through their further education (a centre which also provides a nice, dry, warm place to hang out for local teenagers). I will soon be able to swim in the best pool in the north of England and there is a good chance i will be able to get to see top bands in the Leeds Arena without the hassle of car or public transport. If this is the worst area of Leeds as some would have us believe then please explain to me why my real life experience tells me different?

Unsigned addition posted by 81.96.248.125 on 6 July 2007. (noted added by Saltmarsh 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk of Beeston

Is this really relevant to the article? Apart from the fact that it is trivia, the only source for it (via Google anyway) is the one specified as a reference. Living in Beeston I've never heard of it, and since it's only one sentence in one reference I've deleted it in line with WP:GNG. LNWWatcher (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Not knowing myself, if this request is ever resubmitted, I strongly suggest being very clear about what exactly "Leeds" and "West Yorkshire" are, and explain why it should be moved with links and quotes from the relevant naming convention guidelines. As this one is presented, it's hard to understand. Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Beeston, Leeds → Beeston, West Yorkshire — There aren't other places in other districts of West Yorkshire also called Beeston, as places are generally named with the county, not the district or city unless there are 2 or more places with the same name in the given county. Hamish Griffin (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the normal (and most natural, it seems to me) convention is to name with the city when we're talking about a district of a city. See WP:NCGN#England. --Kotniski (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section you quoted indicates a move is in order as there is no further need for dab over ceremonial county. Though "administrative division" could mean use City of Leeds rather than the ceremonial county in this case, in which case the existing title could be considered OK. May be that needs clarifying in the guidelines.

In England, place names requiring disambiguation use ceremonial or administrative divisions wherever it is possible. ... Wherever further disambiguation is required then the district/unitary and not the county is used

Keith D (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it isn't very clearly written, but it does say "In local government districts consisting of a single town or city (see WP:UKDISTRICTS) placename, district is used." That presumably applies here, so the present name is OK.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Leeds area does not consist of a single City or Town but has several towns such as Otley in addition to Leeds (the settlement) so that part cannot apply here. I think that was added to cover places like Kingston upon Hull which is a unitary in a ceremonial county and has no other towns within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith D (talk • contribs)

All right, I don't offer any opinion then. I think places should be disambiguated by city if they're thought of locally as a part of the city itself, but I don't know if that's the case here.--Kotniski (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps I can clear things up. I never used to understand the disambiguations of the parts of Leeds, but I think I got it now: It makes sense if you start with the premise that it should be Morley, West Yorkshire rather than Morley, Leeds. (I am just taking Morley as an example. There are several other towns or big villages I could use instead.) Taken in isolation this makes a lot of sense because Morley is a separate town. Now obviously there are a number of smaller localities that are very close to Morley and are better understood as parts of Morley than of Leeds. If Churwell needed a disambiguation, something like "Churwell, Morley" would probably look more natural to the residents than "Churwell, Leeds", but would be formally very dubious. So we would use "Churwell, West Yorkshire". Once you start thinking this way it's really not clear where to stop, so you don't. As a result we have the extremely odd case of Chapeltown, West Yorkshire, which should really be Chapeltown, Leeds.

I think it would normally be best to consistently disambiguate all localities in Leeds with "Leeds", but given how resistant British people seem to be to any and all administrative changes, even long after they happened, I don't think that's realistic. Hans Adler 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is clearly against the move here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeston, Leeds → Beeston, West Yorkshire — WP:NCGN#England states that everywhere in apart from Greater London should be disambiguated as placename, ceremonial county→which would therefore meen Beeston, West Yorkshire as Leeds is a city and a district/borough within West Yorkshire. Hamish Griffin (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant support.~~ This is per the guideline. As I explained above, I don't agree with the guideline at all but understand that it would be hard to get consensus for a more reasonable guideline for UK localities. Hans Adler 12:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite the guideline - the guideline says to use , Leeds if the borough (City of Leeds) is nothing more than the city (settlement) of Leeds. We're told that this isn't the case, so in fact the guideline does imply we should disambiguate using the county - but we aren't compelled to follow any guideline, and we should be following the intent behind it rather than its letter. I believe the intent was that if a place is commonly regarded as part of a town (rather than a separate locality) then we should disambiguate using the name of the town rather than the county. So we don't have to support anything "reluctantly" - if we don't like the guideline's conclusion, we can make an exception (and try to improve the guideline). As I said before, I don't have an opinion on this, as I don't know if people in Beeston think of themselves as living "in the Beeston district of Leeds" or "in Beeston, just outside Leeds". If it's the first, then I oppose the move; if the second, then I support it. (But I'm always opposed to making ourselves slaves to some guideline. I'll leave a note of this discussion at the guideline page.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at the text: "In local government districts consisting of a single town or city (see WP:UKDISTRICTS) [[placename, district]] is used. Elsewhere in England [[placename, ceremonial county]] is used."

We are dealing here with a [metropolitan] district which is called the "City of Leeds" and has city rights and a mayor, but consists of several other towns and villages in addition to the main settlement. My favourite interpretation is that Leeds falls under the first case because that seems to be what must obviously be intended by such a wording. But the usual interpretation is that since Leeds doesn't consist of a single town or city, the first case does not apply, and so we are in the second, catch-all case.

Now that I have re-read the guideline and reminded myself of the taste of wikilawyering in the usual interpretation: weak oppose. Hans Adler 13:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: On your question: I guess people in Beeston think of themselves primarily as living in a district of Leeds, or possibly a settlement in Leeds. The city administration obviously has quite a bit of relevance for them and they suffer from the ineffective public transport like everybody else in Leeds. (Unless the tram-substitute buses are more reliable than the others.) Hans Adler 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pudsey is disambiguated as Pudsey, Leeds and Pudsey, Calderdale at Pudsey (disambiguation), because there are 2 places called Pudsey in West Yorkshire, but in this is only noticable at Pudsey (disambiguation) as Pudsey, Leeds is the prime topic, as there is no other places called Beeston in any other part of West Yorkshire I think it should be moved Hamish Griffin (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to, I suppose, is the principle of least surprise. Would people who know of Beeston be less surprised to see it described as a place in Leeds, or as a place in West Yorkshire? (Which title would more immediately satisfy the greater number of readers that this is the article they are looking for?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeston is a suburb of Leeds, and NOBODY who knows it would say Beeston, West Yorkshire. A degree of common sense wouldn't go amiss here. Beeston, Leeds surely otherwise it is misleading in the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.145.141 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Beeston, West Yorkshire" is surprising. My initial reaction upon seeing all these "X, West Yorkshire" links was that these must all be incorrect links, created when someone added links to all villages in West Yorkshire that happen to have the same name as a part of Leeds. Then I renamed some of the most blatant cases to "X, Leeds" and got burned. [1] Hans Adler 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is what Wikipedia is desperately short of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.53.142 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The present guideline was trying to find a way of diambiguating suburbs by town or city rather than county, in a way which everyone would find straightforward. If it has not succeeded in this case, then I would go with the general principle that suburbs should go under the city or town. --Mhockey (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beeston, West Yorkshire is more formal than Beeston, Leeds and anyway Beeston, Leeds could redirect to Beeston, West Yorkshire so anyone who was looking for Beeston, Leeds would be redirected to Beeston, West Yorkshire Hamish Griffin (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why change something that works to make it more complicated? --J3Mrs (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while the above argument would work for Wetherby, which is a separate town within the City of Leeds metropolitan borough, Beeston is clearly a suburb of Leeds and hence should be identified with the city (with a small c) rather than the borough (City with a capital) or with the ceremonial county.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 October 2010

Comment if Leeds is being used as a placename there may be confusion between Leeds, West Yorkshire and Leeds, Kent. Homan's Copse (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no confusion between Leeds and Leeds, Kent as far as I can see. The user who has just changed username is obviously unfamiliar with these places.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do so frankly admitting that I think the guideline is wrong on this point. It makes no sense to sever settlements that are suburbs of a wider city (and have no existence separate from the city) from their host and to place them independently in the county. There are bound to be exceptions, but I think Beeston would not be one of them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beeston Village

I've corrected a couple of typos on this section: however, the notion that such an area exists is news to me --- the area described is actually just part of Beeston: locally referred to as "Above the Park". Beeston is just Beeston, and unless documentary proof exists to the contrary, this section is false and misleading imo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.60.74 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dr Surgery at Town Street, Beeston is the Beeston Village Medical Practice. The Co-op store, while not referred to as such on its own website, is referred to on most online directories as the Beeston Village Store. As one living there, I would suggest the distinction is more between 'Beeston' and 'Beeston Hill', with Cross Flatts Park as the main dividing line.

It would appear that there has also always been separate areas of Beeston and Beeston Hill, dating right back to medieval times.^[1]. Therefore, it is certainly right to distinguish between the two areas, albeit that I don't think merit separate pages on WP.LNWWatcher (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/central-leeds/beeston_history_1_2621274

Assessment Request

Following a number of changes, have requested assessment here. Suggest as at current revision should probably be C-Class, and Mid importance as a 'notable locality'. LNWWatcher (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Harkey (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will take your comments elsewhere on board. LNWWatcher (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beeston, 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.

.

Requires infobox
Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires copy edit for WP:MOS

Keith D (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beeston, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beeston, 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) 02:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beeston, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808171238/http://www.leedsunited.com/page/Records/0,,10273,00.html to http://www.leedsunited.com/page/Records/0,,10273,00.html

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) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/central-leeds/beeston_history_1_2621274

[1]