Talk:Leeds (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Yorkshire

Leeds (disambiguation) 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

Red links

The red links will be eliminated by linking to appropriate page sections when the current debate on the Leeds article talk page has been resolved.--Harkey (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Hi Pam, thanks for splitting off the names. Until they were split, my understanding is that as PTM they should go in the See also per MOS:DABNAME for short lists. For longer lists like this, as you saw, I temporarily put as a subsection in See also with a comment. You didn't seem to agree with that here [1]? I used to put them just before the Other uses or See also (per the older wording of DABNAME) but, after exactly this was discussed (at MOSDAB talk?), DABNAME was changed (about 6-12m ago AFAIR). I'm sure you actually know this very well...my point being is we didn't define this situation of a longer list on a dab, so as undefined and the only correct way is to split (something I'm much happier you doing than me), both ways seem OK. Maybe creating a redlink to the name article is a better temporary solution?

Re "Kent" ending on the Leeds Castle entry etc I thought there was consensus that repeating section names are redundant (same as removing the US from those items). This is despite the "Kent" referring to "Leeds" in England, it isn't ambiguous so is still redundant
I put the fictional character in the See also too per DABNAME (I normally defer to your more experience on names).
I couldn't find a DABMENTION / incoming redlink on the redlink items so commented them out. Widefox; talk 10:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - sorry only just saw your "disappointment" edit summary. Think we may be in agreement. Only creating a name article is specified, which is bearable I suppose. Widefox; talk 10:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always thought that MOSDAB specified a list of name-holders as a section after "Other uses", but was so shocked on checking WP:MOSDAB and finding that you were right, that I moved the section out. I wonder whether MOSDAB has changed lately or whether I've always misunderstood/misremembered. I really don't like them under "See also".

As for the castle, it just strikes me as worth reinforcing, for someone looking quickly at the page, that this isn't the main English "Leeds". Yes, technically it's redundant, but I reckon it's helpful.

I've fixed the historical entities by making useful redirects. PamD

Yes, it was a few months ago. JHunterJ and others included, can't remember if anyone pinged you, but can't imagine why we wouldn't have done!

Pleasure seeing your work Pam, I refrained from increasing the section level for the historical due to the county being modern. I can see it both ways. Widefox; talk 11:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town

I don't think Leeds should be described as a town on the DAB page, it is described as a city on the main article and Leeds is still really a city, even though the city status is held by the district. The same is the case with Truro which is actually held by the parish. Suggesting describing it as just a "city". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main page really need changing as well, town was a compromise as stated in the editor note, it really should be settlement as it does not hold city status. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would urban area be better or would that refer to the larger built up area, maybe urban settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]