This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Bradford 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bradford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bradford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BradfordWikipedia:WikiProject BradfordTemplate:WikiProject BradfordBradford
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Chaotic "Religion" chapter
Wouldn't it make MUCH more sense to put the '(christian!) saints Blaise and Cuthbert' into the 'christianity' section, best before the the part about the Roman Catholics, and after the catholics also add the piece about the (also christian, I believe?!) "Nonconformists" there ?!?
As it is now, it's suddenly christian saints between the Hindu and the Sikhs chapters, and more christian groupings suddenky at the end again, and the saints not even classified as belonging to which religion and confession.
The Climate section says that the highest temperature was 32.2°C in August 1990. However, the table shows the highest was 33.9°C in July, but I was unable to find any source for this number and I would like to know what that number was sourced from and why not it is mentioned in the text paragraphs. 2A00:23C4:2318:F101:43C:290B:178:7AB (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent, since you ask. Personally I marginally preferred the original: the narrower white space leaves more space for the images, and the inclusion of the mosque adds colour and variety (the City Hall and Wool Exchange are rather similar Victorian buildings, and the picture of the latter is underexposed). But this is a subjective matter of taste and an edit war isn't justified. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Echo Dragon. The whitespace is too severe and takes up far too high a proportion of the picture. City Hall is better composed in the new version. Cathedral is slightly better, with less whitespace maybe it can capture the full height and more architectural design. Skyline is the skyline, I mean there's not many ways to take a picture of a town from high up and capture anything relevant or distinctive. Cartwright Hall or St Georges Hall is a matter of opinion. I personally prefer Cartwright because it's a nicer composed photograph. The Wool Exchange is a good addition as it's important to the town itself. I think the Mosque is a nice inclusion on the original however - so I wonder if by losing the skyline we might retain all the featured items, and loss the inconsequential view of some rooftops. Koncorde (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer the updated montage, a less simplistic approach to the picture arrangement is eye catching and the photos selected are potential tourist attractions and shine a light on the positive historical architecture of the city. Bradford4life (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say lose the skyline photo, add a new photo of Cathedral and mosque, keep the wool exchange, city hall, Cartwright hall and maybe st George's hall. But also sort out the white spacing. Bradford4life might like it but the other two editors agree on the white spacing needing sorting DragonofBatley (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new collection of pictures is preferable, i never liked the inclusion of the mosque which should be in the religious section, i also thought that collection was poorly put together and the inclusion of aka in the description seemed poor to me. All in all i think the new montage is by far the best.Epicforest (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't having a cathedral part of being a city even though Bradford becoming a city in 1897 but didn't have a cathedral until 1919. It's inclusion certainly had no religious connotations. Beautifulscarlet (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I could make a proposal to @Beautifulscarlet: (without being seen as offensive or canvasing). Why not use the same photos you have already included but use the 2021 collage photos of or a new photo of both the cathedral and city hall). So keep yours as is but change the Cathedral and City Hall ones to new ones as the one you have included already in the 2021 collage and cathedral front tower should be visible then a portrait panoramic which cuts the tower off?
I'll have a tweak of both and post it here as a proposed montage. Then other users and the OG author can comment on it. Give me a few moments and I'll post it. Note I won't post it as a creative photo. Just add it to the discussion before a pact could be agreed. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of them:
Proposed Bradford Montage 1
So I have included in that one: Bradford Wool Exchange, Bradford City Hall, Cartwright Hall, St Georges Hall, Bradford Cathedral, Bradford Skyline, Manningham Mills and Market Street, Bradford. Thoughts on that one would be good. Will post second one now: DragonofBatley (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The picture top right in 2 is better covered in the skyline shot. If you putthe bottom left pic there it will avoid the rather unhappy meeting of two similar coloured buildings. I woud suggest then adding either the mills or the mosque in its place. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like both as is, lightening the top left picture of the bottom montage would be good. I obviously prefer mine but both those montages are far better than the one up at the moment. Beautifulscarlet (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am not looking to put you down or offend. I think maybe following a similar pattern to the montages at Leeds, Sheffield, York and Lancaster. Might be worth a look at. I think the proposed 1 is the best as it covers your topics of interest and mine. The second is good but really only follows a set of five then seven photos. Again, I will remain impartial to others and respect others opinions and preferences. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1 is better, I think a small amount of white space would be useful as some pictures blend in with each other in both examples. Some of the shots need better composition to focus in on the object, but #2 in comparison is messy. The skyline in #1 (given the shift in focus and size) makes it somewhat redundant as it's (as previously mentioned, a common issue with such skylines) just some rooftops. In contrast something like the "City Park" would better sell both the modern cultural aesthetic and regeneration (such as this or this type thing). Koncorde (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wool ExchangeI made a lighter version of the underexposed Wool Exchange image, in case someone wants to use it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the Wikipedia page that you linked, it seems anyone can manipulate the stats anonymously that are used by Numbeo. Thanks for the link Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Beautifulscarlet (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Bradford got the same treatment as Lund and Malmo. Good that Linus Trulsson proved a great point about how bogus Numbeo is. Thanks for the Linus Trulsson link Gråbergs Gråa Sång Beautifulscarlet (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The absence of anything about Islam is another obvious failing of this section, as noted above, but I'm not qualified to write it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
