Talk:Leeds

Clubs
Can you really call the Cockpit a club? HiFi? Whats really a club? 81.105.110.59 21:08, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Visitor Feedback
Leeds is a great city to visit, for a day, a weekend or a week. You can easily explore all the Yorkshire has to offer, based in this shoppers, diners and drinkers mecca...

Leeds somehow manages to have the worst cinema this wikivoyager has ever experienced in the Kirkstall Road complex. Filthy and with no information whatsoever about current film showings, the staff give you a good reason to stay at home and rent DVD's online! You are much better off attending Cottage Road Cinema[11] in the centre of Headingley. Plenty to do afterwards as well. The Hyde Park Picture house is another good independent cinema (only 1 screen) with a wide selection of both modern and classic films on show. It retains many of its original features including gas lighting.

Sorry youve had such a bad experience, but i grew up in Ilkley (just outside Leeds), and this is the cinema I use most, and i have never had a problem with it. Adding in that comment in the main articel is unprofessional and just adds to the impression that WIKI's are totally useless for serious research into a place. I am removing it as it is obviously POV.213.48.73.89 09:13, 25 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Please understand that this wiki is not Wikipedia, and we welcome travelers' POV about the places they visit. What we ask is that they be fair. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Questions for potential visitors
Want to come to Leeds but the Wikiguide doesn't tell you something you need to know? Post your question here and a Leeds Wikivoyager will try to answer asap.

"Leeds City Guide [106]" links through to a website that hasn't been updated since 2002. What about www.skiddle.com/cities/leeds/ as an alternative?

Huge city?
I mentioned this on one of the district pages, but as it looks like there is more than one at this point, I'll bring the conversation here. The district idea is really only for Huge Cities, ie Mexico City and New York (city). It's not just a matter of where folks go to work, or what's real close by, etc etc. These places are either destinations in their own right or, maybe, neighborhoods of Leeds. But from the article contents it seems as if it's the first case. Comments from folks in the know? (WT-en) Majnoona 17:30, 4 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Maj, Leeds is obviously not as huge as New York or Mexico, but with a population of 715,000 it is quite large. These are neighbourhoods of Leeds rather than distant suburbs, you could walk to them in 20 minutes / 1/2 an hour or so. To me it is arguable whether they actually need articles, but in the past (small towns in North Dakota), you have expressed the desire to keep articles, whether or not there is much to see there. I moved the article to districts, rather than leave them as separate articles to highlight the fact that they are actually neighbourhoods within a large city, rather than separate communities. Other medium sized cities (such as Krakow) have many districts. I am not against this changing back to separate articles, but it should be born in mind that they are neighbourhoods, rather than distant suburbs. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:36, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

I think Headingley is both. Obviously a part of Leeds, it is effectively a town within a city. I think that some visitors may well visit Headingley in it's own right, visiting student friends, watching live sports or maybe just for the famous night life. I'm sure many people who come to watch sport stay for the evening for a meal and a few drinks or shopping. Chapel Allerton is less of a destination in it's own right, but is a district/suburb of Leeds which is worth going to for a day. By creating a separate article, it makes the main Leeds article more concise.

Travel in leeds
I had some bad experience in leed with taxi's and good one if you just flag a taxi dow they will charge you whatever they can just to go a couple of miles you can pay 10 pounds I use a couple of bad ones who charged me much more than it should have been but the one that i would recomend is Owl Cars 0113 2 28 28 20.

Where did the Metro train route diagram go??

Photos
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO UPLOAD PICTURES AND EMBED THEM ON THIS PAGE!
 * Project:How to add an image &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:03, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Hi, can the person who has been adding pictures (I don't have any of my own/any i have copyright to on the computer i'm using at the minute), possibly add one of City Sq with the fountains/Old Post Office/No1 City Sq (there are some nice ones of Queens' Hotel at night too) and one of the Town Hall if it's not too much trouble? otherwise i should be able to get round to it eventually

What happened to the file directory at the top? It currently states West Yorkshire: Leeds. It used to state Europe:UK:England:Yorkshire:West Yorkshire...

City Sq & Town Hall pics now added - feel free to move/remove any I just plonked them in. Now I've done you a favour you can help me to update the Yorkshire Moors, Yorkshire Dales, and Yorkshire articles - all of which supplement the Leeds article...

Thanks! Okay, but i don't know as much about them (though obviously living nearby most of my life im not completely in the dark)...i'll just add bits regularly for the next few weeks when i have the time (As have been doing with this article) :)

Getting to guide (now achieved)
what more do i (and others) need to do to have this upgraded from an outline to a guide article? i dont see how there isnt enough information, okay the see:central leeds by area isn't finished yet, but i mean there was a fair amount there to begin with and i've spent ages adding and updating information to it (and some kind individual added pretty pictures!), and im pretty damn sure a visitor could use this guide and have a very productive/fruitful/enjoyable/succesful visit to the city...there is information on transport, accomodation, sights, shopping, safety, eating, nightlife...what more do i need to add/do to make it a "guide"? the manchester one is less detailed but classed as a guide...


 * You can plunge forward and do that, I doubt anyone would challenge that. It looks like at least a Guide article to me. What does need to be done, is some moving of information to the district articles. On a huge city we prefer to have the actual listings in the districts and general information in the main article. This article is getting a little too large and some of the information could be moved. Also if districts need to be added or modified, feel free to do that also. This is your guide as much yours as it is for anyone. Thank you for your contributions. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:58, 23 November 2006 (EST)


 * I wouldn't call Leeds a 'huge' city, a large one, but its under a million. There are district guides for the three major out-of-centre destination districts (Headingley, Chapel Allerton, Roundhay), but do you think it would be apropriate to divide the city centre into district guides - it has distinct quarters but the central area is fairly compact, nothing like Manhattan/central London/Paris etc...and its hard to know where the boundaries are: also where would out of town attractions/attractions in the surrouding area fall? I'll think about it but i'm not exactly sure how i would go about restructuring...

Getting to Star/Destination of the month
This article is looking pretty amazing now - really indepth. As we work towards 'Star' article status I though a good way would be to use benchmarking. IE look at other Star articles/Articles of the month to see what features/info they have that this one lacks. There was a Metro train diagram on here - anyone know where it went?

See comments: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_Month_candidates#Leeds

what happened to the images?
they've all gone. i havent updated/edited this page for ages, but i will try over the next few weeks when i have time to make it more concise/logical etc (tho i dont agree that the district articles are a bit 'thin')

i dont understand also why so much of the text is being edited out

ive looked at the history but i cant seem to view the page where discussion about this goes on - and yes various english cities are near beautiful countryside but no other major city in england is as near to as much beautiful countryside or as close to as many national parks - this is to an extent objective fact!


 * The images were deleted for being violations of the copyleft and appeared to have been taken from other websites. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm still not entirely sure why so much of the text etc I spent so long over seems to be gradually removed/made worse/grammatically incorrect/use of american spelling/etc. It's quite disheartening to have something you worked so hard on ruined tbh.

Restaurants
Is anybody who knows these restaurants able to move them to ====Budget====, ====Mid-range==== and ====Splurge====? Many Thanks 62.49.204.235 09:06, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Voted Best City
If someone thinks it is significant to include that it was voted best city in 2003, then I think its entirely reasonable and informative to say where it was placed in the same survey this year. Personally I think all the surveys are useless, but balance in all things.. --(WT-en) Inas 18:24, 18 December 2008 (EST)

LBA car parks
Since this section is about getting into Leeds I don't understand the rationale for a table detailing car parks for people catching flights out of Leeds. Any objections to deleting the table? --Dakinijones (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Districtification - work in progress?
It looks like somebody started to split the article into district articles, but the result is an article sitting on the fence, with most of the city centre left in the article and several very short sections carved out.

I do not know much about Leeds, but I tend to think there are two options which one could follow:
 * 1) Make "Leeds" a region, and then subdivide into the the City of Leeds proper and suburbs (even if forming a part of one municipal body called "Leeds")
 * 2) Reintegrate description of suburbs and districts into the article. It does not seem there is too much to do outside of the city centre, so the list of pubs and all resulting from the remerge could be trimmed. It is great to know there are places to go for a pint outside of the centre, but if it is the only thing to do there, then it is of little interest to travellers.

You thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that there are an awful lot of districts of Leeds sitting at outline something clearly has to be done. But I don't quite know what... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any policy against just having one or two districts (i.e. those that can support an entire article such as Headingley) with the rest moved back into the main city article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe so. Cities aren't supposed to be incompletely districted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems unnecessarily inflexible. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood your question. Are you suggesting dividing the entire city into two districts? If that serves the traveller well, sure, why not? What is your proposal? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The first odd thing is that the main article is also the article for the centre of of the city as well as some listing for the whole area. I think before the districts can be sorted out the listings should be checked to see if still valid and coordinates added to see exactly where they are. Headingley could make sense as its own article/district but the other are a little arbitrary. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that the district articles which have enough (updated*) content in them be kept separate, while the rest be either re-integrated into the main Leeds article, or removed if their information isn't relevant. So I guess I'm proposing a "semi-districtification" whereby only a couple of districts actually have separate articles. I have to admit, I don't know Leeds well at all, but just looking at the district articles Chapel Allerton, East Leeds, South Leeds, West Leeds and Roundhay seem to have little in the way of actual attractions (in the 'see' and 'do') sections anyway and are more just lists of local shops and restaurants, much like a local directory. This is in contrast to Headingley, and North West and North East Leeds, which do seem to have something touristy going for them besides places to eat and drink.

* I agree with User:Traveler100 that the listings need to be checked that they are updated. You'll notice many of the Leeds district articles lack proper listings, and one or two even don't have a proper banner contents. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought that was what you were suggesting. I would reiterate that that is against policy. Instead, a better solution would be that if there are several districts which don't have enough of interest to visitors (i.e., not that the work simply hasn't been done to input the relevant information, but they actually lack enough points of interest), some districts could be combined in whatever way best serves the traveller. But deliberately leaving some specific templated listings in the parent city article while moving others to districts is confusing, and therefore a bad practice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I don't see much difference between my proposal and yours if I'm honest, unless you're also suggesting this article's listings be put into a new Leeds/City Centre article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should create a city centre article and move listing there from the main page. Can we also agree that some of the listing can be deleted from the other districts? Thinking in particular the jewellery and cloths shops, which will make some of the districts clear for deletion. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I am in agreement with all of that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead
Anyone else feel the leading section is perhaps a little too promotional? I'm fully aware there's no need to be encyclopaedic on here, but that part just seems a bit too much like a tourism brochure and not a travel guide. Just wanted other opinions before I made any changes -- Half past (formerly SUFCboy) 18:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess one might want to tone down the wonderfully exciting lingo there and provide some actual information on the city instead. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Leeds' lead sounds more like New York than Old Yorkshire. So go ahead, Half past. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO, the info provided is good enough, but we could cut out the superlative rubbishː "famed for its excellent shopping" (I suppose it is called the 'Knightsbridge of the North', but still...); "extremely attractive" (it's Leeds, for God's sake, not Venice) and all this talk of "fantastic", "excellent" and "beautiful". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. I've half-rewritten the lead around what was there already, I'm sure somebody could improve on it but I reckon it's sufficient and preferable to the old one. -- Half past (formerly SUFCboy) 08:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just realised, 'former SUFC boy', that you may be a little biased when it comes to the topic of Leeds ;-) Am I right? Anyway, nice re-write, much more down-to-earthǃ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha, I try to leave any prejudices behind when I'm editing :P Have to say that Leeds is a decent city and suitably different to Sheffield. And thanks! --Half past (formerly SUFCboy) 14:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very nice panorama and a very well-composed photo. I think I would favor it over the current banner, which though nice is not actually as interesting to me as the panorama. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Leeds' skyline is so uncharacteristic that it really doesn't work for me. The city is known as the birthplace of modern-style retail, shopping arcades, Marks&Spencer etc., so I believe a shopping arcade is much more Leeds than a anonymous composition of night lights. --PrinceGloria (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. - Fabimaru (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. There are apparent compression issues with the night skyline banner, seems like the original pic was in much lower resolution.
 * I have a slight preference for the new banner. The last time I passed through Leeds was on an evening train and this reminds me of the view. The original pic is 8,159 × 2,972 pixels.
 * Whichever banner is not used here might be used on West Yorkshire. AlasdairW (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I plunged ahead and went with you suggestion, AlasdairW. I guess the "new" banner is more anonymous, so it is not really "Leeds", but it sure is representative of the urban nature of West Yorkshire, which incidentally lacked a banner. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, you are in a minority opinion on this one, as both me, Ikan Kekek and AlasdairW prefer the new banner being used in the article Leeds, while only you and Fabimaru prefer the old banner being used in this article. In addition, I must also state that although you mentioned above that you believe the new banner is based on a lower resolution picture, in realty, the picture which I used to create this banner is actually of a very high resolution (8,159 × 2,972 pixels!). ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know Leeds or Yorkshire, so I was just reacting to the look of the pagebanners and would give some deference to people who do. Moreover, a 3-2 lead is not necessarily a clear consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is great that the new banner is now on West Yorkshire, and I have only visited Leeds while passing through, so I am happy to defer to those who have spent longer there. AlasdairW (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should say that I'm perfectly happy with this solution and respect the knowledge that went into making it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Description for the Met Hotel
A 4-star hotel and event venue offering 120 bedrooms, 18 event suites and a restaurant on King Street in Leeds. The hotel is a Grade II listed building built in 1898 and Victorian terracotta facade. The cupola on the roof was taken from the demolished 4th White Cloth Hall. VerbInteractive (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, don't hesitate and plunge forward everytime you have a good idea - if somebody will disagree, they can always discuss or propose a better version by means of editing the page.


 * He can't, as he's an employee of the owners of the hotel. I'll add the listing --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

District discussion
Considering that all districts listed as "outline" on the England Expedition are parts of Leeds and they make up seven of the nine total districts and the fact that the current district map looks weird (at least to me, who's never been to Leeds), maybe we should try to redefine districts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Headingley, probably the single weirdest part of the map, almost definitely deserves its own article. Other than that, I am broadly in agreement. Perhaps some hefty merging is the order of the day (e.g. into north, south, east and west, with Headingley and the City Centre, as the main tourist areas, kept separate)? There was a discussion about this a few months ago that came to nothing. Let's try and decide what to do and then do it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we go through the all the listing on the main article and districts, weed out the closed or non relevant entries and add coordinates and full address to the others. We can then more effectively reorganise the districts, which really are a mess. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Coming to conclusion that the think to do is merge Headingley into Leeds/North West; and Chapel Allerton and Roundhay into Leeds/North East Leeds. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should also have a new district map at the end of it all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Perhaps you are interested into how this map came into being. Some two years ago I discovered we had a load of cities, including Leeds, that were districtified but had no maps at all. I decided to start making them myself as noone else seemed to be interested (and to get some experience in map drawing and the workflow of Inkscape ;)). Other than Prague, I hadn't been to one of these cities myself so I had to look in the district articles for clues and google POIs to get an idea of the size and shape of the districts.
 * The current map is probably not too inaccurate but not too beautiful either, and if changes to the districts are made a new map will be necessary anyway. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So how come I can paint over the boundaries in image edit software but it still shows? Any chance of creating the new one? I was not complaining about the map but the spliut of districts and the fact the content overlaps. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Vector files and stuff exported from vector software may behave in funny ways. I will look into the matter tonight or tomorrow. 213.204.37.227 11:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC) (Ypsilon who didn't log in on a public network)

Traveler100, while it's brilliant that you're willing to get on with the job, I don't believe we've achieved any kind of consensus over this except that we all agree the districts have to be changed somehow, and that quite a few irrelevant listings should be deleted. You proposed one solution (at 18:16 last night), and then implemented it a few hours later (9:30-ish this morning), without giving much of an opportunity for review or discussion.

Just to clarify, I don't currently have any objection per se to the merges you're doing, but I also don't feel as though I or others have been given an opportunity to think about or discuss them. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I was a little hasty. It was just that I was working on the listings and finding duplication on different pages so decided to move all to one place then try and sort it out. If someone comes up with a better definition of districts we can easily move things around. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's alright! It's good that you're being pro-active rather than talking but doing nothing, but yeah I'm looking at the districts today, comparing the old with the new. My understanding of Headingley was that it was quite touristy, but so far I haven't found much evidence of that except that there's quite a lot of accommodation. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So is Woodhouse, North West or Central? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's outside the inner ring road so North West, but only just. Some of the southern parts of Woodhouse are pretty much part of central Leeds, but most of the area is housing and university buildings. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the new districts are pretty much spot-on. The North West seems a tad overstuffed, but that could just be a question of thinning out the listings a little and cutting down the gigantic list of neighbourhoods in the lead to only those that are of interest to travellers. —The preceding comment was added by ThunderingTyphoons! (talk • contribs)


 * So, is the new version of district setup the one that's in the map above? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ϒpsilon: Yep :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What I don't like about the map is that the sectors simply go into the frame and there is no real indication as to which part of the city they actually cover. Compare that to the district boundaries of Berlin and you get a much clearer picture there. Another probelm with the Leeds map is that there are no bodies of water, major streets or major landmarks shown in the map, which is something we have in (almost) all other district maps. For someone not from Leeds it's really difficult to tell "where you are" with this map.Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. The ideal in the long term surely would be to incorporate each district map into the existing dynamic map of a city, but that is probably a couple of years away, so for now we have to try to make the region maps as good as possible, with some roads and local landmarks if possible. Ypsilon's maps are still better than anything I could do, however, so I don't wish to be too critical. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Assume southern border of central Leeds (for this article purposes) is the river? There are a few sights and bars just south of the river, checking which district to place in. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks about right. Residents seem to use the ring road (A58(M)) for the northern edge and the river for the southern edge. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All the Sleep, Eat and Drink listing that where on the main city page are not in the district pages. The city centre listings in the See section of the main Leeds article needs changing from see listings to text paragraphs. Have not yet done the other attractions section and the Buy and Do sections. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Restarting this
So after a year of dormancy, how about reviving this? There are five outline districts in all of England - all of them in Leeds. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Traffic lights
I just commented out a claim about traffic lights that I find to be highly dubious (and furthermore unclearly worded). For one thing our sister project makes no mention of Leeds on its article on traffic lights. And a very breif glance at google lets me also doubt the claim. If any of you know better, please provide some source (anything, really) put it on the talk page and update the wording accordingly. Thank you. Edited to add: The claim was also made on the Discover nomination page, where I similarly commented it out Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This webpage, cited on Park Row, Leeds states that Park Row had the first traffic lights in Britain (rather than the world) in 1928, so my guess is that someone has heard about this and misremembered and augmented it in their mind when writing about it on Wikivoyage. That ought to have been an end to the whole sorry affair, but...
 * Wikipedia also claims that Britain's first electric traffic lights were installed in Piccadilly Circus in 1926, two years earlier than Leeds, and that Wolverhampton also got some in 1927. So it seems that even the lesser claim of "first traffic lights in Britain" is unsupported and almost certainly false, and our references to it should be removed, which I'm going to do now. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. When copying fun facts from articles I assume what's written in our articles is correct (just as readers/users of our articles do). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think most of us do. Thanks for spotting this, Hobbitschuster --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. My default assumption also is that WV is correct in what it claims, but sometimes I like to double check stuff. In the process I learned that Potsdamer Platz in Berlin only had the "first" traffic light in Europe/Germany/what have you if you tweak the definition a lot... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Districts once more
Sooooo....

We gonna do summink 'bout dem districtis? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Headingley
is marked on the static map but has no mention in the districts section, nor does it have an article. Should a district be created for Headingley, or should it be removed from the static map? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Leeds/Headingley used to be an article, but it was decided back in the 10s to consolidate Leeds' large but incomplete district list into the current set-up. Probably best to remove it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will remove it from the map sometime soon. Are there any other changes that need to be done while I'm at it? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, you've seen the map. It's pretty basic and could do with more information, but it's up to you as to how much you want to do. Good city maps have roads, railways, parks, rivers... When doing the routeboxes for Leeds, I remember struggling to work out which districts certain roads went through, and eventually realised that some of the boundaries had been drawn following the roads I was routeboxing. But I won't blame you at all if you decide to just remove Headingley, as it can't be easy to map a city you don't know.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I must say, the static map is not a very good one. I'm probably biased by saying this, but even the sixth static map I drew looks better than this – honestly, I felt like redoing the map from scratch when I saw this today. I'll start compiling the resources tomorrow and will make a start once I do. The boundaries are a bit vague, but I'll try my best.
 * But before that, I'll try and make an interactive dynamic map using geojson.io and convert that into mapmasks using Renek78's geojson-mapmask converter. It seems the boundaries follow important highways and freeways so doesn't seem too hard. I'll keep you updated with how the dynamic map goes. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you need any help with geography, I might be able to advise.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the airport (somewhere near the top of NW Leeds) would be a useful addition.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just finished tracing out the Central, South, East and NE districts and just about to do NW, so will keep that in mind. I've noticed that some of the listings fall outside the mapmasks, but they seem to be kilometres out. Would that be okay or should I extend the districts out even further? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bigger mapmask, I reckon, unless the listings should really be on one of the other city articles in West Yorkshire. But Leeds is quite a big city, without immediate neighbours to the east or north, so some of the POIs will be far out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just realised I screwed up all but West and Central. At least, the boundaries for the others aren't so fine-grained. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redid NE and NW. Now just E and S left. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally done the dynamic map – see the result at User:SHB2000/Leeds. Anything else needed before I transfer the data to Commons? Once I transfer all that to Commons, I'll start the static map. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Linking https://github.com/SHB2000/SHB2000/blob/main/leeds.json if anyone wants the code. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks really good. I think you're using the municipal boundaries as the outer border; do all the POIs fit inside? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did use the boundaries from OpenStreetMap. Many of the listings are now in the wrong district (but still within Leess) and all but Craiglands Hotel in NW Leeds are now within Leeds. I'll transfer this to Commons just in a moment.
 * But before I start the static map, which roads should be included, and is there a specific colour scheme that's officially used in the UK (e.g. red for freeways, yellow for major arterial roads or something like that) that I should try and follow? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And which roads should I include?
 * Here's what I think should be marked, at least from side observations from hours of tracing last night ;-)
 * All freeways (i.e. M1, M62, A1(M), and M621)
 * A58
 * A61
 * A6120
 * A63
 * A660
 * Are there any other important roads that I've missed? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any other important roads that I've missed? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like hard work. Those roads, plus the A64 and A65, seem the main ones. I'm not sure how important it is, but the A58 (M) and A64 (M) form an incredibly short motorway in the city centre (so short, they have their own entries on Pathetic Motorways).

I wouldn't say there's an official colour scheme as such, but most UK road atlases colour motorways blue, and the main A roads green, following the colour of the road signs (e.g., ). You probably don't need to worry about them, but secondary A roads are red, B roads are yellow, and very minor roads white. Google Maps used to follow this scheme in the UK too, before imposing their orange and white nonsense on the whole world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking with fresh eyes, on the dynamic map a couple of things have jumped out at me regarding the boundaries. The balance between East and North East seem skewed heavily in favour of East, resulting in the town of Wetherby being sliced in half; perhaps it would be better if the boundary followed the A64 once out of the built-up area (so say from around where that line called ELOR meets the A64 near Scholes). Also, that section of West Leeds from the really narrow bit around Yeadon, up towards Hawksworth, is probably more logically placed in North West Leeds. Feel free to say "it's too late to nitpick, we're doing it as it is", because I realise this has turned from a quick "removing Headingley" tweak to a wholescale "redesigning Leeds" endeavour from your perspective.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out that ELOR is the East Leeds Orbital Route, an under-construction dual-carriageway.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I could do the map again, but the boundaries I drew were deliberately designed based on where the listings were, and the boundaries that the now-removed static map used. I could do it again, but my 7-day isolation period due to well, The Virus is nearing to an end so I won't have 3-4 hours of spare time on my hands and I guess it's (sadly) too late to nitpick (apologies for that).
 * As for the roads, jokingly, A58(M) and A64(M) remind me of the Sunshine Motorway in Queensland, except this one's a pathetic motorway not due to distance, but because it looks like this, this, or this for half its length (that said, there are bits that do look like a motorway like this or this. So unusual, that it doesn't even have exit numbering like all the other motorways in the state. Back on topic, I can certainly do the A64 and A65 as well. It shouldn't be too hard to do – all I have to do is to simply trace the roads from OSM, and that's about it. I'll start the map this arvo, and I'll let you know how that's coming along.


 * and btw, thanks for the Pathetic Motorways website :-) An interesting website to look around. I just had a look at some other pathetic motorways and a lot of the motorways seem to be rather unusual. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair play, I just thought I'd ask. Well done on getting through self-isolation. I haven't tested positive once in over two years, but can still imagine it's pretty tedious. Hopefully, Pathetic Motorways managed to alleviate some of that tedium 😆 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words :-). My isolation period ends tomorrow, so time to say goodbye to clicking "remove" to all The Devonshire Manuscript entries a hundred times (see b:Special:History/Wikibooks:Correct typos in one click/16 for a bit more context).
 * Done. I made a start on doing some of the minor roads but decided to get rid of them as it was becoming too crowded. The same reason is why the motorways aren't labeled, but I think this has to be my second or third favourite static map I've made, after Southeastern NSW and possibly Canberra/Civic. Turned out a lot better than I thought. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the airport might not show up. I forgot to add the airport when I first uploaded it, but I've reuploaded a map with the airport. The airport still doesn't show up on Commons though, at least on my end, but it does on both en.voy and it.voy. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's come out well, and the airport shows for me both on WV and Commons. Thanks for the hours of work! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strange how the airport still doesn't show up on my end on en.voy + it.voy but it does on Commons. Perhaps a cache issue? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Very likely.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * random, but the static map has now been promoted to a quality image on Commons :-). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah nice. They have taste. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah nice. They have taste. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)