County Borough of 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
I didn't notice all this had gone on! Looks good. One thing that would help a lot is if we could illustrate the article with historical maps as well as the png images. This would serve to visualise what was going on. Thinking about it however, I presume we could only use maps up until about 1910, due to licensing issues. Is that right? Quantpole (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I knew I'd seen some. The 1866 map is good, and I think shows most of the area within the borough at that time, so . The 1900 one isn't too useful for this article however. I'll have a look round and see if there's anything else I can find. Quantpole (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the source for the maps is pretty clear about what they regard as copyright (see here). I was under the impression that stuff over a certain age, even scans, isn't copyrightable and in the public domain, but I don't have too much experience of this, so don't want to go about uploading stuff until I know! Quantpole (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I presume the townships in the 'Municipal borough 1836 – 1889' section refer to the chapelries in the section above? Could we make it clearer that they are the same thing if that is the case. Quantpole (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say Townships and others say Chapelries. I think they are the same thing, but to be sure tended to use whatever the relevant source was telling me. MRSC (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "township" is a more generic term for a defined area of an ancient parish, with "chapelry" having a specific meaning in that there was a daughter chapel in which baptisms, marriages etcetera could be performed. Worth double-checking: some could be both of course. Lozleader (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like they are somewhat interchangeable, and they are the same level of administration on the Vision of Britain site. I would suggest keeping the term as chapelry for consistency. Quantpole (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought townships were for demarcation/administration/law and order and parishes and chapelries were for ecclesiastic purposes? Though I understand a difference evolved between northern and southern England regarding these... --Jza84 | Talk 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at this page all of the areas are called chapelries, with the exception of Beeston, Potter Newton, Seacroft and Temple Newsham, which are called townships, and Leeds which is called an ancient parish. Quantpole (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fraser, Derek (1982), A History of Modern Leeds, Manchester University Press, ISBN9780719007811 calls all of them townships, even after 1866 when they became civil parishes.
"This book [1] from MDCCCXLVI (1846?) calls them all townships (page 8). It helpfully lists the hamlets of Templenewsam (or is that Templenewsham) in the borough. It also includes translations of the charters of incorporation so shall I can see it appearing in the references section soon!
I think what this all means is that the areas were all townships, and some were also chapelries (they had their own church though they were part of Leeds parish). Might be safer to call them townships rather than having to investigate their ecclesiastical history!Lozleader (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That gives us two sources calling them all townships which is good enough for me. VoB always has to be used with some caution (more a starting point than an ending point). MRSC (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, my main concern was to call them one or the other for consistency. I thought VoB was fairly authoritative, but you clearly know more about it than me! Quantpole (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I was thinking of shovelling in some more information but on reviewing WP:GACR and WP:SS I see this might be going into unnecessary detail. For the record this was what I was planning on adding:
1. We have no mention of Leeds Corporation Transport: probably most notable as being the first operators of electric trolleybuses in the UK (albeit jointly with Bradford Corporation Transport). It was one of the constituents of West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. There is a poor Leeds Tramway article (which surely needs renaming and has referencing issues) obviously written from a tramlovers POV. I might be able to work this up and link it from a summary section.
2. The politics of the early borough council are interesting: a Whig-Radical alliance were accused of "tyranny" and the Conservatives gave up nominating candidates for a while. This oligarchy appears to have been challenged by the Chartists who had quite a few councillors elected, including the editor of the Northern Star. From the 1890s Leeds saw activity by the Independent Labour Party and Social Democratic Federation. Again, maybe a summary section and a spin off Politics of Leeds 1836–1974 or something?
3. Something about the Coat of arms of Leeds which actually belonged to this municipality and is used by the present city council without authority. The existing article on the subject needs improving but a brief sentence or two could include a link.
4. Some mention of the corporation waterworks, electricity department, gasworks, like we have at County Borough of Bolton.
There are coats of arms for Leeds readily avaliable from a Google search [2]. Pbroks13 (talk·contribs) is an excellent graphicist able to re-draw coats of arms in SVG format. The arms may be in the public domain now, due to age, but I'm not sure. --Jza84 | Talk 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brown Owls! This is from Commons and will probably do nicely. Although it is from c. 1870 it passes muster as they have repainted it! The only difference in the pre and post 1921 arms is the colour of the owls which used to be silver but are now "proper".Lozleader (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on County Borough of 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.
I have just modified 5 external links on County Borough of 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.
