Talk:Leeds/Archives/2012/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Leeds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Leeds nicknames
The references being used to describe Leeds as having the nickname "Capital of the North" are not reliable and hence I removed the reference, but this has been reinserted without explanation. I could not find reliable sources which used this nickname. To be honest most nicknames are pointless puffery and brinksmanship that has no place in an encyclopedia. I was only happy to include "Knightsbridge of the north" because lonely planet is a very well known and generally reliable publication, and the nickname is at least distinctive to Leeds (whereas "capital of the north" has been applied to 5 or 6 different cities). Can we have some consensus on what nicknames (if any) should be included? Polequant (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- My guess is that any nicknames here are incorrect and should apply to the City of Leeds article if anything as this is for the settlement rather than the whole City. Keith D (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let's face it, some cities do have nicknames, Birmingham is Brum, London was The Smoke etc, but some don't. Titles like "Capital of the..." are just claims by tourist boards and the like. "Has been called" is not the same as "is nicknamed". Leeds does not have a nickname (though the inhabitants are entitled to be called loiners).Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the nickname then. In any case "Knightsbridge of the North" is probably applied to the Victoria Quarter rather than the whole city. Polequant (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let's face it, some cities do have nicknames, Birmingham is Brum, London was The Smoke etc, but some don't. Titles like "Capital of the..." are just claims by tourist boards and the like. "Has been called" is not the same as "is nicknamed". Leeds does not have a nickname (though the inhabitants are entitled to be called loiners).Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Population of "Main urban subdivision " - ref 4
An IP changed the figure from 443,247 to 423,247 with no edit summary, so I reverted it on the basis that there was no reason to think it a correct change. BUT, the link at ref 4 does not work, and the replacement KS01 2001 table I found, linked from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-211026, did not seem to give figures for "main urban subdivision". Has anyone got a current link to source that figure? PamD 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those tables are a real pain. There isn't a single KS01 table. What we are after here is the "Urban Areas" one from this page: [1]. This shows 443,247 as the right figure. Polequant (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)