Talk:Guiseley railway station

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Guiseley railway station 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.

Thanks for taking the stub message. The main reason I've not taken it off before is that, being new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure at what point an article stops being a stub! The only other comment I'd make is over the sentence "It is on the Wharfedale Line which operates Northern Rail electric train services on the line between Ilkley and Leeds City station/Bradford Forster Square railway station." The Wharfedale Line doesn't operate services, it's only the name of the line. I'd suggest:

"It is on the Wharfedale line between Ilkley and Leeds/Bradford Forster Square and is served by Class 333 electric trains run by Northern Rail, who also manage the station." Dupont Circle 16:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guiseley location[edit]

Guiseley is indeed inside the City of Leeds metropolitan district, but NOT inside Leeds. Please see the list of "Areas of Leeds" in the Leeds article and you will find that Guiseley is not on it, instead Guiseley appears on the "Leeds environs" list of places within the met', but outside Leeds itself. If you go to the City of Leeds metropolitan district article you will see that up to the 1974 reorganisation Leeds was a County Borough, whereas Guiseley, along with Rawdon and Yeadon, since 1937 had formed the separate Aireborough Urban District. So Guiseley was not then and is not now part of Leeds. 15 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.188.124 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is not where the station is but with the definition of the category - does the category apply to the City of Leeds or does the category apply to just Leeds. I think we need to look at the wider picture on these categories and see what the coverage of categories in locations with a similar situation apply to. My guess is that the category should apply to the City of Leeds area and not just the city of Leeds itself or you would end up with a large number of categories covering different locations. We have a similar problem with the Transport in Leeds article, probably need to centralise discussions on this. Keith D (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other subcategories for Railway Stations in West Yorkshire, we have categories for Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Kirkless and Calderdale which are the 5 metropolitan districts that form the ceremonial county of West Yorkshire. Therefore, I stand by my decision to re-instate Guiseley as part of the Leeds category, even if it is not really in Leeds itself. -- NRTurner (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at various wiki pages and would agree to replacing the current Category:Railway stations in Leeds with Category:Railway stations in City of Leeds metropolitan borough. It is vital that we avoid any ambiguity or confusion. 18 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.246 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best way forward. I agree to this. -- NRTurner (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to change the name of the category, to something long and contorted, the existing title is fine and lines up with usage in the rest of England. We just need to add a note at the top of the category, and presumably the others as to the scope of the category. Keith D (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Railway stations in City of Leeds" is fine with me. Have a look at the way Kirklees metropolitan borough and its main settlement/admin centre Huddersfield is set up. I find it very impressive. They have separate categories ie "Category:Kirklees" and "Category:Huddersfield". This common sense method seems to work well and avoids any ambiguity and confusion.21 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.62.101 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Kirklees ones are not a very good example and lots of the articles need deleting from the Kirklees category as articles appear in both the category and its sub-categories. As there are so few entries in Railway stations in Huddersfield then I would get rid of that category and just place the entries in Railway stations in Kirklees. Looks like an IP has incorrectly been adding Kirklees to them all when they should only appear in a sub-category of Kirklees. Keith D (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor NRTurner and I agreed earlier to an arrangement of the inclusion of both the Leeds and non Leeds railway stations provided the page was renamed: "Category:Railway stations in City of Leeds". 14 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.87.164 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added a note to the top of the set of 5 categories saying that they cover the wider area. The change of name, as said above, is not necessary, the name as it is is in line with other categories. Keith D (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "set of 5 categories"? 18 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.122.99 (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple DfT categories present[edit]

There are multiple DfT Categories present in the article. Therefore, I left the article alone.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]