text:
Fred Dryer

John Frederick Dryer (born July 6, 1946) is an American actor, radio host, and former professional football player.

He was a defensive end in the National Football League (NFL) for 13 years, participating in 176 games starting in 1969 until his retirement in 1981. He recorded 103 career sacks with the New York Giants and Los Angeles Rams. He is the only NFL player to score two safeties in one game.

Following his retirement from football, Dryer had a successful career as a film and television actor, notably starring in the series Hunter, with his height of 6ft 6in and physique proving useful for action roles.

Early life
Fred Dryer was born and raised in Southern California. His parents were Charles F. Dryer and Genevieve Nell (née Clark) Dryer. He played football at Lawndale High School in Lawndale, California.

College
Dryer attended El Camino Junior College before transferring to San Diego State University (SDSU).

Dryer was inducted to the El Camino Community College Athletic Hall of Fame in 1988 as a charter member and was the Athlete of the Year for his 1966 performance on the football field. Dryer was also a 1966 Junior College All-American.

During Dryer's junior and senior seasons at San Diego State, in which he lettered both seasons, the Aztecs had a combined record of 19–1–1. They were the College Division National Champions in both seasons. In 1967, the Aztecs topped both the Associated Press and United Press International polls as #1. In 1968 San Diego State was voted the champions by UPI and North Dakota State University topped the AP poll, and thus the two schools shared the College Division title.

Dryer was voted the outstanding defensive lineman on the team and as such was the recipient of the Byron H. Chase Memorial Trophy.

One of Dryer's teammates was Carl Weathers, who played Apollo Creed in the first four films of the Rocky series. In 1967, the Aztecs allowed 12.9 points a game on defense, which is still ninth in program history. In 1967 and 1968, the Aztec run defense allowed just 80.1 and 100.1 yards per game, still fourth and fifth, respectively in school history after over half a century.

Dryer was named to the Little All-America team in 1968 since at the time the school was 1-AA. Dryer played in the East-West Shrine Game in San Francisco, the Hula Bowl in Honolulu and the College All-Star Game in Chicago where the college stars played the world champion New York Jets.

In 1988, Dryer was inducted into the San Diego State University Aztec Hall of Fame.

In 1997, Dryer received college football's ultimate honor in being voted to the College Football Hall of Fame and is one of only three Aztecs in the collegiate Hall of Fame. When voted into the San Diego Sports Hall of Fame in 1998, he joined athletes such as Ted Williams, Dan Fouts, Dave Winfield, and Tony Gwynn in receiving the preeminent recognition for a San Diego athlete.

NFL career
Dryer was selected in the first round of the 1969 NFL Draft by the New York Giants and won a starting job as a rookie. He was the starting right defensive end from 1969 through 1971. Although the NFL did not officially recognize quarterback sacks until 1982, teams did record their own sack data for the time. As such, he led the team in sacks each of those three seasons with 8½ in 1969, 12 in 1970 and 8½ in 1971. He was among the defensive leaders in other categories as well. In 1969, he tallied 58 tackles (39 solo), six passes deflected and forced two fumbles, recovering both.

The next season, Dryer was an alternate to the Pro Bowl but could not play due to a bruised hip. He was Second-team All-NFC after recording 59 tackles (43 solo) four pass deflections, three forced fumbles, while recovering two to go along with his 12 sacks. In 1971, he again led the team with 8½ sacks, and totaled 52 tackles (33 solo). He deflected two passes, forced two more fumbles and recovered two for the third consecutive season.

After several run-ins with Giants management in 1971, Dryer was traded to the New England Patriots in February 1972 for three draft choices (a first and a sixth in 1972; a second in 1973). The Giants used the first round pick to select defensive back Eldridge Small. Because Dryer had not signed a contract for the 1971 season, he was eligible to become a free agent in May 1972. He refused to report to the Patriots unless they signed him to a long-term contract making him the highest paid defensive lineman in pro football. The Patriots refused to meet his demands and instead dealt him to the Los Angeles Rams for a 1973 first round draft pick (which they ultimately used to select fullback Sam Cunningham) and backup defensive end Rick Cash, four days before Dryer would have become a free agent. This trade gave Dryer what he wanted all along—a move to a West Coast team—and he agreed to a multi-year contract with the Rams. In his first year with the Rams, he backed up left defensive end Jack Youngblood making only four starts but playing in every game despite a broken hand and broken nose. His primary role in 1972 was to come in on likely passing downs and rush the passer. He had 40 tackles (17 solo) and 4½ sacks.

In 1973, Dryer started all 14 games on the right side and became the only NFL player ever to have two safeties in the same game by tackling opposing passers in the end zone twice in the fourth quarter. He ended the season with ten sacks, three forced fumbles with three recovered fumbles (all three were second on the top-ranked Rams defense). After the season, he was a Second-team All-NFC pick by Pro Football Weekly. He finished the season with 39 tackles (21 solo), three forced fumbles and three fumbles recovered.

In 1974, he had 15 sacks, which co-led (with Youngblood) the league, and he was also voted the Rams Outstanding Defensive Lineman. He was named NEA First-team and AP Second-team All-Pro and All-NFC. Statistically, he had another solid year versus the run, totaling 49 tackles (34 solo) and two forced fumbles.

Dryer scored his first NFL touchdown in 1975 on a 20-yard interception return against Philadelphia. After scoring his touchdown against the Eagles, Dryer promised that if he ever scored another, he would set his hair on fire in the end zone. Against the Eagles that day, he chose to celebrate by "rolling six", a touchdown celebration where the player scoring rolls the ball like an imaginary pair of dice with some of his teammates looking on. He ended 1975 with 12 sacks, behind only Jack Youngblood and was voted All-NFC. Additionally, Dryer played in the 1975 Pro Bowl. Statistically, Dryer was excellent against the run with 61 tackles (39 solo) and two passes deflection, two fumbles recovered to go along with the 20-yard TD interception.

Rule changes in NFL offensive line hindered Dryer, because of his small frame, after the 1975 season. He had a 55-tackle, five-sack season (33 solo) in 1976. He did deflect two passes and forced three fumbles to lead his team. In 1977, Dryer adopted a new diet and was winning praises from NFL sportswriters for the start he had. He recorded 35 tackles (28 solo) and six sacks. He also knocked down four passes, recovered three fumbles and caused one fumble. The next season, 1978 was much of the same. Dryer was the starting right defensive end on the NFL's #1 defense. Personally, he had 51 tackles (33 solo) and forced two fumbles, recovered three, blocked a kick and blocked one pass as the Rams went 12-4 and won their six straight division title.

In 1979, Dryer would be named an honorable mention All-NFC after recording 49 tackles (31 solo), ten sacks, and three forced fumbles (with one recovery). Against the New York Giants on October 28 of that year, Dryer recorded a career-high five sacks. At last, the Rams would finally break through and reach the Super Bowl. Dryer played in Super Bowl XIV when the Rams met the Pittsburgh Steelers on January 20, 1980. The Rams led 19–17 against the defending champions, but the Steelers scored fourteen unanswered points to win the game in the fourth quarter 31–19. The following season, Dryer split the time at his right defensive end position with third-year player Reggie Doss. They combined for 67 tackles (Dryer 31, 20 solo) and 12 sacks (Dryer 5½, Doss 6½).

Dryer ended his career with 104 career sacks, although as mentioned the statistic was not recognized until after he retired. Dryer played on a tough Los Angeles Ram defense that allowed fewer points, fewer total yards, fewer rushing yards, and sacked more quarterbacks than any other defense during the 1970s.

In January 1981, Dryer made the cover of Interview magazine, published by Andy Warhol from the late 1960s through the early 1990s and was considered the very essence of "magazine chic". In 2003 the NFL Alumni presented Dryer with its Career Achievement Award which is presented to former NFL players "For Getting to the Top of His Field".

Record game
Dryer's record-setting game on October 21, 1973, at Los Angeles was a 24–7 win over Green Bay. Down 20–7 in the fourth quarter, the Packers found themselves deep in their own territory when Dryer came storming in from the right side of the defense and chased down Green Bay quarterback Scott Hunter, dropping him in the end zone for a safety.

On the Packers' following possession near their own goal line, Dryer attacked again. He looped through the middle of the Packers' offensive line and dragged backup quarterback Jim Del Gaizo down for his second safety of the game, setting an NFL record. For his efforts, Dryer was named the Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Week.

Acting career
Prior to the start of his show business career, Dryer helped cover Super Bowl IX for SPORT magazine. In response to the perceived grandiose and self-important nature of the NFL's championship match, then-editor Dick Schaap hired Dryer and Rams teammate Lance Rentzel for this journalistic assignment. Donning costumes inspired by The Front Page, "Scoops Brannigan" (Dryer) and "Cubby O'Switzer" (Rentzel) peppered players and coaches from both the Pittsburgh Steelers and Minnesota Vikings with questions that ranged from clichéd to downright absurd. He briefly served as a color analyst on CBS's NFL coverage in 1981 and 1982.

In the early 1980s, when producers/creators Glen and Les Charles and James Burrows were developing the soon-to-be hit sitcom Cheers, Dryer, along with two other actors, was considered for the role of lead character Sam Malone. Ted Danson ultimately won the role, but Dryer later appeared as sportscaster (and former Red Sox teammate of Sam's) Dave Richards in the episodes "Sam at Eleven", "Old Flames", "Love Thy Neighbor", and "'I' On Sports". He appeared on CHiPs as Lt. John LeGarre in the Season 5 episode Force Seven, about a secret LAPD unit implemented for special situations.

Dryer's best-known acting role came in the 1980s television crime drama Hunter, in which he co-starred with Stepfanie Kramer, followed by Darlanne Fluegel, then Lauren Lane. He starred in the action-thriller movie Death Before Dishonor as well as playing Mike Land in the TV series Land's End (21 episodes, 1995–1996). In 1998, he portrayed Police Chief Masters in Diagnosis: Murder. He portrayed Sgt. Rock during his appearance on Justice League.

In January 2009, Dryer was seen in a cable TV commercial for SMS research company, which obliquely makes reference to his NFL record of two safeties in a game from 1973. Dryer is also now a spokesman for the law service Injury Solutions.

He starred in the drag racing film Snake & Mongoose, which depicts the rivalry between drivers Don "The Snake" Prudhomme and Tom "The Mongoose" McEwen and their groundbreaking accomplishments in the world of drag racing. Dryer played "Ed Donovan", McEwen's engine builder, who coined the nickname "Mongoose".

Dryer appeared in the NBC series Crisis in 2014. In 2015, Dryer joined the ranks of the Marvel Cinematic Universe when he played the evil HYDRA leader, Octavian Bloom, in an episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. On October 23, 2018, he played a Vietnam veteran on the CBS show NCIS.

Personal life
Dryer has had a long interest in nutrition. In the late 1970s Dryer was consuming 70 raw egg yolks a week. He has since excluded red meat from his diet and eats chicken and vegetables.

He married actress and Playboy centerfold Tracy Vaccaro in May 1983; the couple divorced in 1988. Together, they have at least one daughter. Dryer still resides in Los Angeles and has his own production company (Fred Dryer Productions).

title: Fred Dryer


text:
Talk:Palazzo Farnese

Residence of Christina
Who sanctioned her stay in the palace in 1656? Was it the Pope or the Duke or Parma? --Ghirla-трёп- 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Four wonders of Rome"
The following text was added, in perfectly good faith. I've moved it here:

"In its time the "Cube of Farnese" was considered one of the four wonders of Rome, along with the "harpsichord of Borghese"."

There were many wonders of Rome, noted from the Middle Ages in Mirabilia Urbis Romae, but never four. Neither is there a special reason to pick out Palazzo Borghese, disguised under this sobriquet. If the imagined list is "Items in Rome with Nicknames", there are more than four. Not a help to the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I took it from the Italian page as linked. Not living in Rome, I don't know whether the 4-line rhyme quoted in the linked page is familar to Romans; perhaps someone can tell us. Coughinink 12:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Palazzo Farnese
I've been told to wirte a message on this talk about a link I wish to add to the page. The links takes to a website that I am creating with views of Rome from past centuries. Books about Rome and othe useful information. I was linking to the page dedicated to Palazzo Farnese where I added three beatuful prints from the 18° and 19° century and will add more as soon as I have time to scan them. This is the link: http://www.romanbookshelf.com/prints/Farnese%20Palace/Farnese.html. Let me know what you think about it and if you believe it could be a good one to add to Palazzo Farnese's page. Thank you. Oct. 26th, 2007

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Palazzo Farnese


text: Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands

title: Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands


text: Category:Coeur d'Alene tribe

title: Category:Coeur d'Alene tribe


text:
Talk:City of Bradford

Merge (1)
Right, I have merged this with the article Bradford and added a bit of extra information about the history of the city. It still looks entirely crap though compared to most other British cities, but that's a job for someone else! Brummie dave 20:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge (2)
And I have reverted the Merge. The whole matter is under discussion at WikiProject UK Subdivisions. PLease do not jump the gun again. There is a world of difference between articles about the Area and about the Town. --Tagishsimon

For what it's worth (I'm an official with Bradford Council who has just discovered Wikipedia and made a few minor edits to both Bradford entries) I agree with Tagishimon - The Bradford District does contain a number of quite distinct settlements which though part of the Bradford Metropolitan District are definitely not part of the city of Bradford by any commonsense definition, so they do need to be separate. Part of the confusion arises from the headings though - the page titled "City of Bradford" is actually about the Bradford Metropolitan District. I'd suggest keeping the entries separate, but tidy up the "Bradford" entry to ensure it ONLY talks about the actual city area itself. E.g. Saltaire can legitimately be included as a place in the Bradford Metropolitan District entry, with a link to its own page, but it really shouldn't be included in the "Bradford" entry - it's part of Shipley, and only came under Bradford Council at 1974 local government reorganisation. The whole issue of geographical identity is anything but straightforward! Phil.

Discussion of City & District vs. merged pages
There is currently a discussion on WikiProject_UK_Subdivisions, discussing whether it is better to have a single article for, for example Bradford (the city) and City of Bradford (the district).

If this issue is of interest to you, please comment on WikiProject UK Subdivisions.

Demographic Data
Source www.mapsandstats.com, ultimately ONS 2001 Census.--ElvisThePrince 15:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Demographics
Many of Bradford's "ethnic Pakistani's" are in fact Kashmiris. Why isn't there no mention of this in the article?
 * Without second guessing I think it's likely because it uses the ONS ethnic classification system which only has pakistani/indian/bangladeshi for South Asians.--ElvisThePrince 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-bradford-city.jpg
Image:Arms-bradford-city.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge (3)
I have restored the consensus reached at Talk:Bradford on 05/05/09, by moving this page from City of Bradford to Government of Bradford and redirecting the former to Bradford. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What criteria are being used to select the articles for merging? MRSC (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A discussion is now ongoing at Talk:Bradford. MRSC (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Static image.... infact, all images!
The images in this article are pretty poor. The static image is grainy and not befitting to such an important English city. This gentleman has alot of free-to-use images of West Yorkshire, and he has skylines in this set such as this that we could ask to use?

Other free panoramas include a few here. I haven't really found anything at www.geograph.org.uk. --Jza84 | Talk  15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think poor is an epic understatement! The current images do a complete disservice to what could (and should) be a good article, in time. A good find - there are some fine pictures amongst them. Let's just hope he'll oblige... Thisrain (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article name
I would like to move this article to City of Bradford Metropolitan District. I note the discussion I was much involved in at WikiProject UK Subdivisions. The reasons for the move are this: (The current naming invites us to put information relevant to the Bradford article in this article - namely the date of the grant of city status in the info box. The area was not granted city status. The settlement was. Discuss. --00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The City of Bradford is a settlement given a City Charter in 1897. We describe that city in our Bradford article.
 * There is a Metropolitan District called the City of Bradford Metropolitan District. It has a council called the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The district and council are currently described in an article called City of Bradford
 * Wikipedia espouses the use of common names for articles. City of Bradford is not the common name for the area or for the council. In my experience, the common name would be, variously, the Bradford Metropolitan Area, the City of Bradford Metropolitan Area and Bradford Met. It would not be City of Bradford. An Ilkley resident would not say "I live in the City of Bradford". They would say "I live in the Bradford Met area" (were they forced to talk about the area they wive in w.r.t. the word Bradford).
 * I cannot think of a single good reason for this article remaining under its present title.
 * The council and area is the City of Bradford and so the article should be there not some addition of metropolitan borough. We do not normally add the MB tag to articles for City of X articles, there is no reason for this article to be an exception to this. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the last point the city status was transferred from the settlements to the MB when they were created as several have said in various discussions that have taken place on this. Keith D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth is your view consonant with Article titles? Who on earth refers to Bradford Met or the Bradford Met area as the "City of Bradford". Certainly not the ratepayers that I know in the area. Certainly not the council. Who? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would be clearer if this article was called the City of Bradford Metropolitan District. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I work for the Council, and we call ourselves Bradford Met. The Metropolitan District was originally a set of Unitary authorities which included a city council for Bradford. These were combined to make what was initially BMDC - Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Unlike City of Leeds, it is never referred to as City of Bradford, because it contains 143square km, six urban centres, and several moors. random link from Council's website. The area is always referred to as the Bradford District or the Bradford Metropolitan District nother random page from website. I would have said that Bradford Metropolitan District is the right title for the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know all our wheelie bins, park, equipment, etc says "Bradmet" on it. I am pretty sure that nine out of 10 people living in Bradford would only know of "City of Bradford" as meaning the central city area, and think the council area is "Bradford Metropolitan District". Incidentally I find it amusing to show people pictures of top withens, Harden Force, etc. and tell them that they are taken in Bradford! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I do talks and people (particularly from 'down South') are always baffled that we have moors, sheep, prize herds etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Parishes
Is Baildon a parish? Stuffed cat (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the parish council has a website which includes maps of the area covered. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a list on the City of Bradford MDC site. I added all the councils except for something called "Bradford Trident Community Council". Their site describes them as a "community led company". I don't know what this is exactly but it doesn't sound like a parish council. If someone does know what they are, please could they either add them to the parishes list (if applicable) or mention them somewhere else in the article. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move
Following the previous discussion I propose a move to Bradford Metropolitan District. The council refers to itself as Bradford Metropolitan District Council or City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council as shown in various council sites, more of which have been given above. Locally people refer to the larger area as the Bradford Metropolitan District and would assume that City of Bradford referred to the central area. Council equipment is marked "Bradmet" a shortening of the above.

This move will reduce confusion and bring the name in line with normal usage. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted support. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I have reverted this as the council web site you quote clearly states City of Bradford - it is qualified by Metropolitan District Council. The change in name of this article would not prevent people thinking that the Bradford article is not the article on the district, which is much more prevalent than the reverse. A better solution to this, in line with other locations with the same name of borough/district and of settlement, would be the one that was starting to implement but stalled. That is to use the model for the City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester with a dab page residing at Salford. This model was being implemented for similar cases but stalled before it got to Bradford, probably because of a bad move where dabs were not done in advance of the move. Thus the Bradford article would move to Bradford, West Yorkshire and a dab page created at Bradford. Keith D (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * In that case I propose that we either complete the suggestion, so that Bradford is a disambiguation or move this article to City of Bradford Metropolitan District. 99% of people living in Bradford would assume that City of Bradford refers to the central area and Bradford to the whole metropolitan district. It clearly leaves a lot of confusion with people adding things to the wrong article. Personally I think that City of Bradford Metropolitan District is better because it reflects the council website and the meaning is immediatly clear. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Sigh. Would you have any great objection, Keith, in us renaming this page City of Bradford Metropolitan District now? Because that is what it is about. Surely there can be no doubt whatsoever that City of Bradford is an ambiguous term which will be taken by most people to refer to the city and by a very few people to refer to the Metropolitan Borough. As to disambiguation pages, I'd opine that the city is better found at Bradford and the dab at City of Bradford, since it is this last that might be construed either way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The legal name of the local authority is the entire thing - City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council - not 'City of Bradford'. The legal name of the area it serves is Bradford Metropolitan District. If Keith is going to quote the website, he can quote this page which explains this quite clearly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote on move to City of Bradford Metropolitan District

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 43 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

move City of Bradford → Bradford Metropolitan District — People assume that this article is about the centre and the Bradford article about the metropolitan district. It does not reflect normal local usage. See discussion below -- Q Chris (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, I propose a vote on moving to City of Bradford Metropolitan District. This includes the name of the "City of Bradford", but it is clear what it is.

 * Support Q Chris We continuously have people who edit the wrong article because they don't believe that the city refers to the metropolitan district and Bradford to the central area. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Should reflect the correct name of the local authority --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as above, though noting that voting is evil. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This move does not solve the problem that has evidenced itself at the Bradford article of confusion between the settlement and the wider local authority area. A solution to this has been implemented on a number of articles and this should follow the convention that has been established. For example see City of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester and the dab page at Salford by following the established pattern then confusion should be minimised by the use of the dab page at Bradford. Keith D (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know about the usage in these other places but nobody in Bradford would ever refer to the metropolitan borough as the City of Bradford, and most would not know that this refers to the metropolitan area. Either Bradford is different to the other locations, or it is a bad confusing convention. If people in other locations would also not understand City of XXXX to be a barger area than XXXX then perhaps they would like to follow Bradford's proposal and have a name that people will understand. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that a central complaint is that the City of Bradford title is ambiguous (in the sense that it can be taken to mean the main settlement, or perhaps the met district), to suggest as Keith does that the solution is to rename another article entirely - Bradford - to, presumably, Bradford, West Yorkshire is nothing less than incredible. An incredibly stupid idea. The City of Salford "solution" is no solution at all to the complaints made in respect of the naming of this article: that it fails in any way to describe its content, and that it suggests that it is about the main settlement and not the district. The solution is to rename this article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the beloved Salford, Greater Manchester pattern is not followed by Leeds, Birmingham, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, Wakefield, York, Chester or indeed most English cities. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Support, as better than status quo - but its not ideal. The established convention referred to by Keith is awful IMO: The title of both the article for the district and the settlement should be clear and unambiguous. Bradford, West Yorkshire and City of Bradford are bad locations for either article, as both could equally be referring to either the settlement or the district - they don't clarify matters at all. The exception is if Bradford, the settlement, is the primary topic (over both the district and all other uses), in which case that should be at plain Bradford with a hatnote to here (and to the dab).
 * My natural inclination is the simplest possible solution, namely Bradford (city) and Bradford (district). For the article title I'm not bothered what the official name of the district is, I'm more concerned with what its normally called in source like media. If its typically "Bradford Metropolitan District", that's fine, if its the "City of Bradford" then "City of Bradford (district)" or the proposed title, if its just "Bradford" then Bradford (district). As long as the title includes the word "district" I'm happy. Regardless of this page's title, the first line should state official title (of course).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the settlement article cannot go to Bradford (city) because the status of city is held by the district and not the settlement and would therefore confuse uninformed readers. Green Giant (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose - I think we are pushing in the wrong direction; the naming should be the simplest and most accurate. I don't believe that anybody calls the district by it's full name except maybe in official situations like the banner at the top of the local council website but note that the copyright at the bottom is attributed to "Bradford Metropolitan District Council". The district and the settlement are really both primary uses of the name since the district is an official entity but equally the largest settlement is still called "Bradford" by some people. However, this is an informal name without much presentable evidence; this article claims the settlement comprises 18 of the 30 wards in the district, the source is a deadlink at Bradford council's website; a simple search doesn't turn up much and the Wayback archive doesn't seem to have a copy. The only hint is a 1991 census PDF (linked from City of Bradford's external links), which appears to show the population of the settlement. Whilst it would be helpful to see what other sources like the media call the settlement, I fear that it would be a laborious and unproductive task to sift through their definitions. Instead I think the district article should go to Bradford District (but not Bradford district because that is too informal), the settlement article should be at Central Bradford and the dab page should be moved to Bradford. I am less inclined to support Bradford Metropolitan District because I don't think we need to disambiguate that much, especially when there are no other significant districts with a similar name. I am even less inclined to support names with commas and brackets unless it is absolutely necessary. Especially I think Bradford (city) is very likely to be confused with the local football club (Bradford City A.F.C.). Green Giant (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO the use of bracket or not depends on what its called by sources - if the term is "District" or "Metropolitan District", then that is what we should use. If common term is plain "Bradford" then brackets are more appropriate (the bit outside the brackets is the name, the bit inside is for clarification). As long as the word "district" is in this pages title :)
 * As for the settlement, IMO it could stay at plain Bradford as the primary topic. ONS defines it as part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area, and thats the source of the population in Bradford. The district council apparently uses the same term- Bradford Urban Area, that could work as that article title for the settlement. Central Bradford would be a poor location for the settlement's article, as Central Bradford naturally describes the city centre but not the settlement as a whole.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 1 - Further up this talkpage, there is mention of the city council's definition of it's area, which seems to indicate that the settlement does not have a specific name; indeed they call it the "traditional Bradford City". The Settlement Study PDF uses the term "Bradford District" several times. A quick Google search reveals several local organisations and bodies using "Bradford District" or "Bradford district" - the faiths forum, the credit union, the fire & rescue service, the police, the Bradford District Assembly, the local teachers union, the Safer Communities partnership, the Bradford District Parks service, the chamber of trade, the volunteers partnership, the local newspaper, and the Bradford District Care Trust. The local council uses the term in several documents including this list of MP's so I think the district article would be fine at "Bradford District". Green Giant (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 - The Settlement Study PDF you mention defines "Bradford Urban Area" as "the inner city areas and suburbs surrounding Bradford City Centre, Shipley and the area of Baildon south of Otley Road" (page 61) whilst the map on page 57 specifically excludes Queensbury and Thornton. This does not match up with the definition in the settlement article, which says that 18 wards form the settlement including Queensbury and Thornton but excluding Shipley or Baildon. Thus "Bradford Urban Area" would be an inaccurate name for the settlement article even though the article uses that term. It makes me wonder whether there is a standard definition of the settlement. Green Giant (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why the nominator is in such a hurry to move this article as in this rushed example. The proposed name of the article is unacceptable because it is an example of over-precise naming. What is wrong with just plain Bradford District in line with the several examples of common usage in my comment above? Green Giant (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I proposed moving to Bradford Metropolitan District first but people thought this was too far from the original name. City of Bradford Metropolitan District is a compromise because it contains the legal name and is understandable. The mechanism for deciding moves means that if we can't agree on a name it will never be moved, as a new poll on the other name will be needed. I think the best thing is to move it to something that people knowing or living in Bradford will understand and then maybe look for alternatives. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But why not move it to Bradford District, which is simple and common enough that uninformed readers will find look for it? Green Giant (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that Bradford District it is a bit vague, because it could just refer to things that are in the vicinity of Bradford. It is however better than City of Bradford which would be misunderstood by the majority of people. My preferred Bradford Metropolitan District was not liked so I am trying to change to the compromise name of City of Bradford Metropolitan District. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose As per user Keith D. This works perfectly well for some good and featured articles. Locals refer generally to the council but this is an encyclopedia and should use the correct terminology. Misconceptions can be avoided by improving both articles to include the correct and appropriate information. Bradford District doesn't exist, Bradford Metropolitan District isn't it's title.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Chris and J3Mrs, I don't see how "Bradford District" is vague or doesn't exist, when the council, police, chamber of trade, local credit union and the local newspaper seem quite happy to use that term without any other qualifiers like "Metropolitan". The external links in my "Comment 2" above demonstrate quite clearly that several prominent bodies use the term "Bradford District" and it is thus a common way of referring to the district. I think we need to read WP:UCN carefully and note that the official name is not always the correct title for a Wikipedia article. Green Giant (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Bradford Metropolitan District is the title of the area. City of Bradford Metropolitan District is the title of the Council. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the common name, not the official name - so for example Rhode Island, not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations). I've seen no indication that the very confusing "City of Bradford" is used to mean the district, and plenty of other phrases used frequently. I'd dispute that "City of Bradford" is the offical name in any way shape or form: The council's constitution, which is one document you'd expect to use the official name at all times says 5.1 The Lord Mayor shall take precedence and be the First Citizen of the Bradford Metropolitan District., not "the City of Bradford". A Google search for "City of Bradford Metropolitan District" -"City of Bradford Metropolitan District" gives hits from numerous sources talking about the area as "City of Bradford Metropolitan District" without mentioning the council, dropping the "City of" returns many many more. Dropping the "Metropolitan District" in contrast gives very few things that are referring to the district, not the settlement. Therefore "City of Bradford" is not the common name, and its not the official name of the district either, so is inappropriate as the title whatever way you look at it.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment I think we should move to a centralised discussion covering this and other articles that use the "City of X" format so that we have a consistent approach. Keith D (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection, but remember consistency is a less important facet of naming than recognisability and precision - if you cannot tell if an article is about the district or the city, the existing convention is poor. Consistency may be poorer, as different names will suit different districts.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose per City of Salford, and because I don't think it clarifies anything; I can't see a valid reason to move it.  Chzz  ► 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of failure of the imagination are you suffering from, Chzz, if you cannot see that a) it is reasonable to suppose that City of Bradford means the central settlement otherwise known as Bradford, rather than the district, and that such ambiguity in article naming is a bad thing, and, b) the people living in distinct towns in the Bradford Met district loathe and despise the misapprehension that they somehow live within the City of Bradford. Given that less ambiguous and arguably more descriptive titles, such as Bradford Metropolitan District exist, is there any good reason to continue to saddle this article with its ambiguous and unloved title? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all Tagishsimon, please be civil and avoid using language like "failure of the imagination". Seccondly, "City" status belongs to the district and not to the main settlement, even if a majority of people think otherwise. Green Giant (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It matters not whether "City" belongs to the settlement or the district. It matters that we continue to hang this article about the district under a title which without doubt is ambiguous and disputed, when we have available to us unambiguous titles such as Bradford Metropolitan District and City of Bradford Metropolitan District. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are pushing for over-precise names like when there is evidence (in my "Comments 2" above) that the term "Bradford District" is also a common name used for the district. Surely WP:Precise applies here and would indicate that "Bradford District" is the simplest, clearest and most unambiguous term. "Bradford Metropolitan District" and "City of Bradford Metropolitan District" should only be used if there is a possibility of another district somewhere that is also called Bradford. Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't give a stuff whether it becomes Bradford District or Bradford Metropolitan District or City of Bradford Metropolitan District. Take your pick. I do strongly object to the nonsense of it being called City of Bradford --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to control your temper, because that is the second example of your uncivil behaviour on this thread alone. If you can't use civilised language you need to find another hobby. As for the name, I pick "Bradford District". No other name makes sense if we are not going to merge the two articles. Green Giant (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My temper is perfectly well in control. I don't give stuff which of the three names is chosen. I think the current name sucks and is indefensible. And that latter thing, rather than the former thing, is the thing of importance. Thank you, though, for your "concern". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the frustration comes because we are in danger of a bad name continuing because of arguments over which of Bradford District or Bradford Metropolitan District or City of Bradford Metropolitan District are best. All are infinitely better than the current name that has the opposite meaning to what most people think. I dropped going for Bradford Metropolitan District because of arguments that the name should include the legal name. Since changing to anything else will need a new proposal and vote, starting from scratch, I urge you to support this move, after which if you want to propose a move to Bradford District I promise to abstain, and I would support a move to Bradford Metropolitan District. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The person who closes this shouldn't just count support/oppose votes and pick the winner of the 2. They should be looking for if there is any consensus and if so what best meets that consensus - this page may be moved to somewhere other than City of Bradford Metropolitan District as a result of this discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Green Giant, there are other terms that make sense and avoid any confusion apart from Bradford District. The proposed target of this move request does that, as does Bradford Metropolitan District. Bradford District is simpler than either, and as a result is your preferred option. BMD is also widely supported by sources, and the full version is also unambiguous and makes sense - even if it is overly wordy.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot support a move to a name that is even longer and more precise than the current one when WP:Precise and WP:UCN, the two guidelines that best fit this debate, suggest "Bradford District". Since there does not seem to be a clear consensus in any direction, I suggest the admin relists this to alloow more time. Green Giant (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the Council at its outset termed itself Bradford Metropolitan District Council and the area has, to my knowledge, been known as the Bradford Metropolitan District. The district is not any old Bradford District, such as the poor law district, or some other district of your imagination. It is a very specific district, defined as the district administered by the now City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Calling the article Bradford Metropolitan District is arguably not over-precise but merely as precise as necessary. As to common names, I assert that Bradford District is the uncommon name, being wretchedly ambiguous, and Bradford Metropolitan District is the common name. But, as I said above, any name along these lines is better than the perverse title the article current sails under. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

was called the Bradford met
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

An alternative proposal
It seems to me that we are potentially missing something here, debating what to call the two articles on the district and the main settlement. I wonder whether it would be better to just merge the two articles and immediately end confusion. Firstly without doubt the settlement forms by far the largest portion of the district (about 60% of the population and about one third of the land area) as well as providing the name of the district. Secondly, the two articles have a considerable overlap:
 * The settlement article has a six-paragraph history section which could be merged with the two paragraph history of the district because the first five settlement paragraphs are very relevant to the district history. Additionally the settlement article has two images whereas the district article has none.
 * In the Government/Governance sections, the sentences about the European representatives, the 2009 voting patterns and the Labour party history are virtually identical. The settlement article's text about MP's is just a subset of the district articles text and could be easily incorporated into the latter text. Where the two differ is that the district article has a subsection on the city council, the coat of arms and a list of wards. The settlement article simply lists 18 wards which form the settlement, something which could be done by adding an asterisk in the district article's table with a footnote saying that these wards form the main settlement.
 * Both Geography sections have similar sentences on "Unusually for a major (city/settlement), Bradford is not built on any substantial body of water. The ford from which it takes its name (Broad-Ford) was a crossing of the stream called Bradford Beck." The rest of the two respective sections could be combined into a more sizeable section. The settlement article has a couple of geography images whereas the district article has none.
 * Where the two Geography sections differ is that the settlement article has a climate section (which could just as easily apply to the whole district) and the district article has a list of parishes but these should really be in the government section.
 * The two Demographics sections differ in several areas but there is some overlap, mainly statements like:
 * "Nearly half of all Asians living in Yorkshire and the Humber live in Bradford", although each article mentions different areas within Bradford;
 * Quoting exactly the same religious figures (16.08% Muslim, 60.14% Christian, 1.02% Sikh, 0.95% Hindu and 13.3% having no religion).
 * Both articles mention the ONS Regional Trends report, published in June 2009.
 * The two Economy sections begin with almost exactly the same sentence, with the settlement article then mentioning business and the district article mentioning figures (although it appears the district article has confused itself with e.g. "As of the 2001 UK census, Bradford had 326,774 residents aged 16 to 74" - a population figure which sounds more like the main settlement than the district. There is no reason that these two sections could not be merged easily.
 * The two Education sections sit in stark contrast to each other. The district article barely mention education listing two schools, a college and a university which are located within the main settlement. The settlement article seems to be devoted almost exclusively to the college and the university with schools getting one solitary sentence. At least the settlement article has some images though.
 * The two Transport sections contain a lot of overlap and a lot of information in one article but missing from the other. The two sections could be combined to create a single better section:
 * The settlement article has transport images whereas the district article does not.
 * Both articles have very similar sentences on the M606 motorway, and both mention other major roads, but the district article does it better with prose while the settlement article simply lists them. The settlement article does however mention a little bit of history.
 * The settlement article has better information about buses but misses a couple of points that the district article covers.
 * Both articles mention the airport but the settlement article has meatier paragraph whereas the district article seems almost perfunctory.
 * Both articles have fairly decent coverage of railways but when you read both, you realise there bits missing from each section.
 * Both articles have fragments on the canals but again neither is complete.
 * The "International relations"-"Twin towns" sections contain overlapping information, using the same source and would be very easy to merge.
 * The two See also sections could easily be combined and the title of one of those linked articles could be changed to just Grade I listed buildings in Bradford.
 * The settlement article's Further reading section would be more than adequate for a merged article. The district article's References section is unnecessary because it effectively duplicates a link provided in the External links section.
 * They share one external link (the local council one), could quite easily share the tourism, wikitravel and dmoz links, and still have room for the two statistics links with an appropriate note indicating whether each refers to the district or the settlement.
 * They share two navigation templates in Bradford (which has a silly arrangement with the district article linked twice in the top rows) and West Yorkshire. There would be no harm in having the Bradford Constituencies, Wards of Bradford, Yorkshire and the Humber and Metropolitan counties and metropolitan districts templates. The only question would be what to do with the UK cities template.
 * The extra sections in the settlement article are just as relevant to the district so it would not be difficult to incorporate them into a merged article. For example the short Etymology section applies to both the settlement and the district. The City of Film and City of Sanctuary designations apply to the district as a whole and not just the main settlement so they would be more appropriate in a merged article. The Landmarks and Memorials, Museums and Galleries, Sport, Carnivals and Festivals, Crime, Notable Bradfordians and Popular Culture sections contain very little that cannot also be applied to the district. The Public services section is actually about healthcare; the first hospital it mentions provides the only emergency department for the whole district, not just the main settlement; the Born in Bradford" study applies to the entire district. The Culture section mentions theatres, a concert hall and cinemas in the main settlement but also mentions the Bronte sisters who are traditionally associated with Haworth, near Keighley; whilst the radio stations, the television station and the newspaper are not exclusively for the main settlement.

 * Thus overall, I think there is considerable overlap and a lot of potential for creating a better single article than two articles fighting for content. The result of a merger would be that we could have a single article at Bradford and no potential for confusion. Green Giant (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose a merger - The district and the settlement are distinct from each other and are clearly notable in their own right. Its just unfortunate they have (approximately) the same name, if we were talking about Kirklees and Huddersfield there would not be confusion. A similar situation applies there (Huddersfield is 40% of population of Kirklees, Bradford is 50% of Bradford).
 * I disagree with some of your points - for instance the history. The history in the settlement article is a reasonable quality, whilst the district's history is poor. The settlement's history should be (and is) exclusively about the settlement. The district article should cover the history of the district not just its largest settlement, so should include details about other towns such as Bingley. Those details are irrelevant to the settlement's history. The fact there's scope for 2 different histories is an indication that 2 articles are sensible.
 * Both pages need cleanup, for instance in the lead of this page says that "It forms part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area conurbation which in 2001 had a population of 1.5 million". That's not true, its the settlement, not the district, that is part of the conurbation. Both articles should be gone through with a fine-toothed comb to work out which Bradford each sentence is talking about.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually neutral on this matter, because I think it depends on whether we can define the main settlement properly. At the moment, there is no question that a main settlement exists but in the settlement article we have a very weak definition that does not possess a credible source because of the deadlink and the lack of Wayback archival. I think we are in danger of original research if make our own assumptions about what exactly the settlement includes. Green Giant (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (and certainly the name of the district article should be resolved first). In terms of definitions of the major settlement: Before 1974, Bradford MB corresponds reasonably well with the settlement. The modern urban area (p57 of that study I linked) is possibly the only formal definition of the modern settlement, but there's still disagreement there: The council includes Shipley, the ONS treats Sihpley as distinct. On the ground, the road signs to "Bradford" change to "City Centre" at some point within that boundary, like you'd expect. I'd suggest this thread properly belongs at Talk:Bradford, its discussing that more than this one.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose a merge. Both articles need expanding and improving and overlaps sorting out. The Bradford article should be about Bradford the settlement and the City of Bradford an overview of the metropolitan area with appropriate links to the settlements, services etc. The Greater Manchester settlement and metropolitan area articles have managed to do it.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Manchester doesn't have the naming and definition problem that Bradford does. What you are calling the settlement is actually the City of Manchester (at the same level as Bradford District), whist the metropolitan area is Greater Manchester (corresponding to West Yorkshire). The city/main settlement forms just a fifth of the population and less than a tenth of the area of Greater Manchester. There is no ambiguity because the two have slightly different names and thus clear articles can be written. However with Bradford, we have a clearly defined district but an unclearly defined settlement for which nobody seems willing to put forward actual evidence other than guessing what local Bradfordians might think. Green Giant (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The line of argument that as we cannot define the boundaries of the main settlement settlement we should not have an article about it for fear of OR is, for me, nonsense on stilts. The boundaries of most towns and cities are ambiguous and vary according to context. There is a major and ancient settlement in England called Bradford. It deserves an article just as all other towns and cities deserve articles. There is also a notable district dating back to relatively recent times, also deserving of an article, but which is currently sailing under a wholly inappropriate name - inappropriate because it is ambiguous, inappropriate because there is strong dispute that any but a very few would understand it to betoken the district, and because there are eminently sane, well referenced and entirely unambiguous alternatives such as Bradford Metropolitan District or City of Bradford Metropolitan District, and which also have - and this is OR - the distinct advantage of being the name commonly used for the district. Is there any possibility we could stop muddying the water with a merge debate and get on with renaming this article now? And then get on with sorting the content of the two articles out such that each dealt only with appropriate subject matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The muddying of the waters is being done by people trying to push this name-change through without providing realistic answers to opposing viewpoints. From the discussion on the Bradford talkpage it appears some editors are involved in a war of words and that has spilled into this talkpage with a move proposal. I have asked on Talk:Bradford and I will ask here: which areas form the main settlement as you see it? If you can give a clear answer on this issue, then it makes sense to rename this article. Otherwise we are debating a name change for something that we have invented ourselves. Green Giant (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand this article to be about the City of Bradford Metropolitan District, that is, the area having as its local authority the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Questions of the precise extent of the settlement known as Bradford is entirely irrelevant to the naming of this page. Indeed, I simply don't understand the line of questioning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK bear with me and I will explain why the extent of the settlement is absolutely vital to the name of this page. I believe that there is a strong possibility that we have invented a "settlement" that does not really exist. Yes there is a district (defined by law) and yes there is a large urban area that has grown up around the centre of that district. However, we have no reliable sources to indicate that this large urban area has a distinct identity of its own. If there is no official definition, and no reliable sources, then we are relying on hearsay like "people saying they are going into Bradford to shop". I have gone through both articles carefully and it seems to me that there is more overlap than difference. I cannot see a good reason to keep two separate articles and thus if they were merged we would solve all of this headache by having a combined article at Bradford.
 * I grant that we are struggling to find a definition of the bounds of the settlement. That does not lead me to conclude that we should merge the articles. Neither, especially, does it mean that we should delay getting rid of the rotten title under which this article sails. Bradford would be as inappropriate a name for the district article as is City of Bradford. Here's the easy test: ask someone from Ilkley if they live in Bradford. Answer: no. Ask them if they live in the Bradford District. Answer: yes. Bradford is synonymous with the settlement only. District is synonymous with the, err, District. As to Bradford the settlement: we know some stuff about it. We know, for instance, that Ilkley isn't in the Bradford settlement, and so we can start to draw distinctions. We can reach for history books which talk of its a 900 year industrial history and we can, in short, be fairly certain that a major settlement called Bradford exists. We can make the leap to thinking that, despite the issues over ascertaining its limits, there is such a place and it is deserving of an article - perhaps an article which discusses the ambiguity of its boundary. Applying the logic that ill defined boundaries mitigate towards merger would, surely, lead to us folding Ilkley and Ben Rhydding and Burley in Wharfedale & Baildon & Saltaire into the District article. We can no more conjure up precise boundaries for these than we can for Bradford. Really, we have enough distinct things to say about the settlement and the city to warrant articles on both and, indeed, a third on the Council which is noteworthy in its own right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Ilkley test is as bad as Chris's "people going into Bradford to shop" test; it defies the guidelines on OR and verifiability. The only clear and straightforward approach is to have a district article called Bradford and thirty ward articles such as Ilkley and City (ward), because the wards are at least defined by law. Green Giant (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And get rid of all the settlement articles? Because you cannot precisely define the boundary of the settlement. So no Burley in Wharfedale article, but instead a Wharfedale Ward article. No Ben Rhydding because there is not a ward of that name. Exactly which settlements across Britain will survive the suggested cull? No article on an ancient town/city for which there are any number of references, albeit few immediately delineating boundaries. That really isn't going to fly. But guess what. Whether or not it does fly, we can be absolutely certain that that Ilkley is Ilkley, and is not Bradford. I have a pile of histories of Ilkley attesting and referencing the existence of this Ilkley place, And so we can be pretty damned sure that this article should not be called Bradford, nor City of Bradford, but rather Bradford District, or one or its expanded namesakes, since we know that Ilkley has only been part of Bradford District since 1984, before which is was part of the Ilkley Urban District Council. Bottom line: no amount of more or less specious arguments on whether or not the Bradford settlement is deserving an article or not in any way changes the necessity for this article to have a title which denotes its content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this should wait until the name discussion is resolved. If we continue to have names that most people will assume have the opposite meaning to the normal usage (Everyone I know would assume that the City of Bradford is the central area inside Bradford, and not that Bradford is inside the City of Bradford) then I would support a merger to avoid the continued confusion, and possibly some other people would too. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe we have statements like this - "Everyone I know would assume that" when the benchmark of articles is verifiability, neutrality and reliable sources. Seriously, you can't expect us to take it on good authority that your friends and family should be regarded as reliable sources? Green Giant (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, I'm sure that they didn't insist on a peer reviewed survey to decide that Rhode Island was better than State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as an article name. However I have found a research paper from Bradford University] that says that from a branding aspect the logos saying "City of Bradford" refer to the central city area rather than the surrounding district for which Bradford Metropolitan District has responsibility. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Could we change the name of this article first, and then debate the (IMO barren) idea of a merge. The bottom line remains that this is a badly named article for the reason that (at best) the title City of Bradford can be understood as the name of a large settlement commonly called Bradford; and is probably rarely understood as the name of a metropolitan district. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment (can't see where to fit this into the threading). Bradford as an entity seperate from the district is certainly backed up by lots of reliable sources, and though the precise boundaries may be fuzzy (as with any other settlement) it certainly exists. The ONS defines a Bradford sub-division of the West Yorkshire Urban Area. Bingley, Keighley and Ilkley etc are all clearly distinct. The settlement study I mentioned is about that area, though it may use a slightly different definition to ONS. Note that that report in Section 3.1 states: "Around one third of the District comprises of built up urban areas, with the main Urban Area of the District comprising of Bradford – the inner city and suburbs surrounding the City Centre; Shipley and Lower Baildon." Because the settlement Bradford is large, many documents refer to portions of Bradford - details information about Shipley and North Bradford - North Bradford clearly meaning the northern bit of the settlement of Bradford, not the district (or the constituency). There are hundreds of mentions of "Bradford" on the BBC, and in context that is often (not always) the settlement of Bradford, these stories  both refer to Shipley, near Bradford. Or about the big grey bit on any road atlas that is invariably labelled "BRADFORD"?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tourism
I've just noticed that the tourism section is basically a copy of Helen Mead's article in the T&A (which is at least cited). But the section could probably do with expanding upon, if anyone has the inclination. Nick Watts (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012
The graph demonstrating the distribution of seats on the Council is inaccurate - at any rate, it does not match the cited figures next to it. I'd like that to be sorted out, and thought as I may as well do it.

Additionally, at the top of the Council section there's a lonely sentence fragment that's presumably been left after a previous edit.

Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll get on correcting the table. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the column showing the previous number of seats for each party and have expanded the table to be 90 columns wide to represent the 90 seats available on the council. It means the table is rather wide and has a lot of empty cells, but when it was only 60 columns wide it gave an odd impression of the council's make up. Is this acceptable to everyone? Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Crime rate stats
I've removed the crime rate stats as they were bogus and only related to the inner core of the city, thus giving a slanted picture of the whole expanted City of Bradford.92.22.206.154 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradford Riots/History section
Hi there, I'm looking for a consensus for or against regarding the amount of space given to this subject. I post under the login tag Epicforest. I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining other than show you the two edits. My edit is B, I believe it's more in keeping with the page rather than A which in my opinion is overblown in comparison with.. for example.. how the troubles are covered on the Belfast page and riots in London and Leeds on there respective pages. The two Bradford incidents are adequately covered on wiki pages regarding both incidents. The gentleman who produced edit A kindly showed me how to go about things regarding getting a consensus on Wikipedia or not... which I thank him for.

edit A......With a large influx of Asian immigrants and the local council's pursuit of a policy of multiculturalism in the 1980s, separatism between ethnic communities became an issue.[12] In 1989, a section of the Muslim community led a campaign against Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, and caught the attention of the international media by publicly burning a copy of the book.[13][14] In July 2001, ethnic tensions led to rioting. The Ouseley Report, written shortly before the riots broke out, noted that Bradford had become deeply divided by segregated schooling, with communities deeply ignorant of each other, and there was widespread fear of crime and violence which West Yorkshire Police had insufficiently tackled for fear of being branded racist.[15][12] In response to the Ouseley Report, approximately £3 million was provided by the Home Office and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to regenerate the city.[16] A further £2 billion was invested in regenerating the city centre, building a banqueting hall, new housing and leisure facilities.[17]

edit B......In 1989, copies of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses were burnt in the city, and a section of the Muslim community led a campaign against the book. In July 2001, ethnic tensions led to conflict, and a report described Bradford as fragmented and a city of segregated ethnic communities.[12][13]............. thanks Epicforest..92.22.209.145 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Just to say, as the editor responsible for edit A, that I originally added material to do with The Satanic Verses burning, the 1995 and 2001 riots and the Ouseley report as there was no mention of any of these major events in the article. These were all not merely local events, but events which were nationally reported (in the Satanic Verses case internationally), and which had a notable impact on national policies on multiculturalism. It seemed absurd to me that all this was missing, while relatively trivial info such as Bradford being voted the "greenest city" in the UK in 2007 was included.
 * I would suggest that further info may, and I think should, be added to fill out the history section to help balance these additions. My adding info about the programme to regenerate the city after the 2001 riots was with that aim. What I think should not be done is to remove any of the info about Rushdie and the riots, as Wikipedia's business is not to flatter the subjects of its articles but to present NPOV and pertinent information about them. Alfietucker (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
Removed population break down from info box, it's covered in the demographics, also noted that other major UK cities ie Birmingham and Leeds don't have this feature as I'm surmising it would be repeating information given in the demographic section of each city page.Epicforest (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored this as it is on FA articles such as Manchester. You would not expect it on Leeds as that is about the settlement, but it is on the City of Leeds article which is the equivalent of this article. Keith D (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, I got mixed up between Leeds pages, but how does that work regarding the Leeds and City of Leeds page and the City of Bradford page compared to the Bradford page, I've just checked what I'm surmising is the Bradford settlement page and that only covers the old boundary population of around 293,000 compared to 523,000 on the City of Bradford page, where as both Leeds pages have populations of around 750,000. Both city's were expanded in 1974 as were many more in the UK at that time, surely then both Bradford pages should have the same population statistics.Epicforest (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problems lie with the Leeds page. There were too many arguments in the past over the page and it has never got sorted out. The page needs to focus on the settlement and not on the wider borough which is the purpose of the City of Leeds article. The infobox also should be switched to the UK one as per our guidelines. People keep mentioning it but there is no real effort to correct things, possibly trying to avoid stiring-up the dormant users and IPs who keep an eye on the page. Keith D (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to update the City of Bradford population figure in the information box, could you possibly add the exact 2011 census figure 522,452, here is the reference.... http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/government_politics_and_public_administration/2011_census — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicforest (talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reomoving the Muslim density graph as it's use makes no sense to just use one ethnic grouping in it, a density graph including everyone has been uploaded, British white is by far the biggest group in the city, so not quite understanding the use of the muslim density graph. If you want to use a graph in this way all ethnic groups should be included with different colours representing each ethnic grouping. Epicforest (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220124535/http://www.bradfordinfo.com/census/pdfs/Key_Stats_Initial_Response.pdf to http://www.bradfordinfo.com/census/pdfs/Key_Stats_Initial_Response.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090628181712/http://www.bradford.gov.uk:80/life_in_the_community/twin_towns_and_villages to http://www.bradford.gov.uk/life_in_the_community/twin_towns_and_villages

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090824071641/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/articles/RegionalTrends/RT41-Article3.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/RegionalTrends/RT41-Article3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090731042835/http://www.westyorkshireeconomicpartnership.org.uk:80/NR/rdonlyres/C02E32CD-AF2F-477E-9E57-3E0FE9EF9DD5/0/SEA_District_SummariesJan_2007.pdf to http://www.westyorkshireeconomicpartnership.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C02E32CD-AF2F-477E-9E57-3E0FE9EF9DD5/0/SEA_District_SummariesJan_2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120813211545/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/doc/1162085.doc to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/doc/1162085.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303175945/http://bradfordeconomy.com:80/facts_and_figures/people/current_population to http://bradfordeconomy.com/facts_and_figures/people/current_population
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429233452/http://www.waterways.org.uk:80/Restoration/WaterwaysPlannedforRestoration/BradfordCanal to http://www.waterways.org.uk/Restoration/WaterwaysPlannedforRestoration/BradfordCanal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628203215/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222060604/http://www.leedscityregionatmipim.co.uk/wp-content/themes/MIPIM/images/MIPIM%202013%20Bradford%20Brochure.pdf to http://www.leedscityregionatmipim.co.uk/wp-content/themes/MIPIM/images/MIPIM%202013%20Bradford%20Brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102095857/http://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/westyorkshireregiment6.php to http://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/westyorkshireregiment6.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007214258/http://www.cityforpeace.org.uk/htdocs/site12-14.html to http://www.cityforpeace.org.uk/htdocs/site12-14.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041202200705/http://www.bradfordinfo.com:80/ to http://www.bradfordinfo.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220124535/http://www.bradfordinfo.com/census/pdfs/Key_Stats_Initial_Response.pdf to http://www.bradfordinfo.com/census/pdfs/Key_Stats_Initial_Response.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429190334/http://www.urbanaudit.org/CityProfiles.aspx?CityCode=UK003C&CountryCode=UK to http://www.urbanaudit.org/CityProfiles.aspx?CityCode=UK003C&CountryCode=UK
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030912211414/http://www.warpath.orbat.com/regts/w_yorks.htm to http://www.warpath.orbat.com/regts/w_yorks.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/elections/overall1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-bradford.html
 * Added tag to http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-manchester.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090502/http://www.bradford-city-of-film.com/shared/cms/interface/view.aspx?id=1 to http://www.bradford-city-of-film.com/shared/cms/interface/view.aspx?id=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bradfordinfo.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040219215945/http://www.mapsandstats.com/ to http://www.mapsandstats.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729183215/http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/government_politics_and_public_administration/2011_census to http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/government_politics_and_public_administration/2011_census

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108180615/http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/BradfordAnimationFestival/AboutPages/AboutBAF.aspx to http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/BradfordAnimationFestival/AboutPages/AboutBAF.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615130748/http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/07DB2BEE-9BEB-4D78-91D9-66FDFA96A351/0/LeedsLiverpoolCanalMap14.pdf to http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/07DB2BEE-9BEB-4D78-91D9-66FDFA96A351/0/LeedsLiverpoolCanalMap14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Population
I'm confused. I came here to check the population. This article says c.535K. But the one on Bradford itself also has c.530K (to add to my confusion, it actually quotes two similar but different figures!), and the one on Keighley, for instance, has 50K. Simple question, I hope, but what are the pop. figures for the city itself and wider council/borough area? Could this be be presented more clearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Cathedral city
Is there any tangible proof of Bradford being a cathedral city? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The settlement is, not the district, the district is a district with city status, Collins Dictionary uses the term "city" implicitly for the settlement because it says city in Bradford unitary.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * is correct. City status is conferred on Bradford, not the wider district of the City of Bradford. See Bradford Dale (Yorkshire) third paragraph down with reliable sources. Of note, it wasn't built as a cathedral, but the church was elevated to cathedral status in 1919 by Royal decree. Bradford was established as a city in 1897. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clarify. The statement that the borough has city status has been in the lead a long time... since this 2005 edit by, so should not be discarded lightly. Pam  D  09:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * City status transferred to the new district in 1974. MRSC (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the city status was transferred to the boroughs then the settlements should not be called cities. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think the settlement is still a "cathedral city" within the borough which has city status. Pam  D  19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect hyperlink under Parliamentary constituencies section
Someone's linked the wrong Robbie Moore! 188.28.183.34 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:City of Bradford


text:
USS Greenling (SS-213)

USS Greenling (SS-213), a Gato-class submarine, was the first ship of the United States Navy to be named for the greenling.

Construction, commissioning, and shakedown
Greenling was laid down by Electric Boat Company, Groton, Connecticut, on 12 November 1940, launched on 20 September 1941, sponsored by Mrs. R. S. Holmes, and commissioned at Naval Submarine Base New London in New London, Connecticut, on 21 January 1942. While she was conducting shakedown training from New London, she suffered damage on 28 February 1942 when a PBY-5A Catalina amphibian of U.S. Navy Patrol Squadron 73 (VP-73) mistook her for a German U-boat and bombed her.

First war patrol, April – June 1942
After completing shakedown training, Greenling departed New London on 7 March 1942 for the Pacific. She arrived Pearl Harbor 3 April and sailed 20 April for her first war patrol, in the Marshall Islands and Caroline Islands. The submarine attacked the cargo ship Seia Maru four times 30 April – 1 May off Eniwetok, but due to faulty torpedoes was not able to sink her. The tenacious submarine even closed for a night gunfire attack in an attempt to cripple her adversary. Finally forced by Japanese aircraft to break off the attack, Greenling turned her attention to the huge Japanese base at Truk. As the Japanese converged on the Solomon Islands, Truk became a busy shipping point and a fertile ground for submarine operations. The submarine recorded her first kill 4 May when she hit cargo ship Kinjosan Maru amidships, breaking her in two. As the Japanese were turned back in the important Battle of the Coral Sea (history's first carrier air battle), Greenling attempted to intercept the retiring enemy units, but her speed was no match for the fast Japanese heavy units. The submarine departed the Truk area 4 June, the day of Japan's first great naval defeat at the Battle of Midway, and arrived at Pearl Harbor 16 June.

Second war patrol, July – September 1942
Greenling departed on her second war patrol 10 July 1942. One of the first submarines to operate in the Truk area, she now joined in the undersea blockade of that important base, in an attempt to cut its supply lines to Japan. After damaging ships on 26 and 29 July, Greenling sank the transport Brasil Maru off Truk on the 5th of August, and just after midnight the same night torpedoed and sank the cargo ship Palau Maru. Next morning the submarine took periscope photographs of Truk, and steamed to the New Ireland area, attempting to intercept Japanese fleet units retiring from the Solomons. The submarine encountered surface opposition in the area, but evaded a destroyer attack 20 August and set course back to Midway. En route on 26 August she used her deck gun to destroy a large Japanese sampan of from 50 to 100 tons at 5°13'N, 160°-17'E; she arrived Midway 1 September 1942.

Third war patrol, September – November 1942
Greenling's third war patrol took her off the Japanese home islands. Departing Midway 23 September, the submarine sank the cargo ship Kinkai Maru 3 October, and Setsuyo Maru the next day. She fired three torpedoes at cargo ship Takusei Maru 14 October, scored three hits, and watched her sink in the space of 6 minutes. This attack brought a host of escort vessels to search for Greenling, but she evaded them and attacked a large freighter 18 October. One torpedo set the target aflame, but the second "fish" ran erratically, circled, and almost hit Greenling. The next ran true, however, and cargo ship Hakonesan Maru was sent to the bottom. After destroying a sampan in the Tokyo–Aleutian Islands shipping lanes 21 October, Greenling returned to Pearl Harbor 1 November. The attrition on Japanese shipping by submarines was already being felt and would be a major factor in their eventual defeat.

Fourth war patrol, December 1942 – January 1943
Steaming into the Solomons–Truk area for her fourth war patrol, Greenling departed Pearl Harbor 9 December 1942. Immediately upon her arrival off Bougainville 21 December she attacked a tanker and two escorts, sinking Patrol Boat 35 before being driven down by depth charge attacks. Moving to the familiar Truk traffic lanes, she sank freighter Nissho Maru 30 December. She attacked a destroyer-escorted large tanker early 10 January 1943, but after scoring one hit was fired upon by the tanker's large deck gun and was forced to break off the action. Off New Britain on 16 January she torpedoed and sank cargo ship Kimposan Maru. On 18 January Greenling claimed to have damaged ammunition transport/survey vessel "Soya" in Queen Carola Channel, although the Japanese ship was not damaged and recovered a torpedo for later examination. Greenling then reconnoitered the Admiralty Islands before steaming to Brisbane, Australia.

Fifth and sixth war patrols, January – July 1943
The submarine arrived Brisbane 31 January 1943 and remained there until departing on her fifth war patrol 21 February. Greenling steamed to the Solomons–Bismarck area, and landed a party of intelligence agents on the coast of New Britain 2 March. In a patrol characterized by bad weather, she scored no hits on enemy shipping and returned to Brisbane 26 April 1943. Greenling cleared Brisbane 17 May to conduct her sixth war patrol, in the Solomons–New Guinea area, long the scene of bitter sea and land fighting. During this patrol she damaged oiler Akebono Maru on 9 June, and is also alleged to damaged ships on 10 June, and 27 June, but was unable to record a sinking because of heavy escort activity. She returned to Brisbane 8 July 1943.

Seventh war patrol, July – September 1943
The submarine sailed 29 July on her seventh war patrol, which consisted largely of special missions. She landed a party of Marine Raiders in the Treasury Islands 22 – 23 August to select a site for a radar station and prepare for the landings there, scheduled for October. Greenling reconnoitered Tarawa 10 September and sailed to San Francisco via Pearl Harbor for overhaul.

Eighth and ninth war patrols, December 1943 – May 1944
Returning to Pearl Harbor 5 December, Greenling sailed for her eighth war patrol 20 December 1943, in the Caroline Islands. She ended the old year with a late night attack, sinking freighter Shōhō Maru, reconnoitred Wake Island, and returned to Midway 28 January 1944. Her ninth war patrol, 20 March – 12 May 1944, was a special mission entailing photographic reconnaissance of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan in the Marianas Islands, work which did much to aid the coming amphibious campaign for the Marianas.

Tenth and eleventh war patrols, July – November 1944
Greenling sailed from Pearl Harbor on her 10th patrol 9 July 1944. Operating off Formosa, she formed a coordinated attack unit ("wolfpack") with USS Billfish (SS-286) and USS Sailfish (SS-192). Closely watched by enemy aircraft, Greenling recorded no torpedo sinkings, though she sank a trawler with gunfire 8 August north-east of Luzon, Philippines in position 19°50'N, 119°58'E. She returned to Midway 12 September 1944. The veteran submarine departed 5 October 1944 for her 11th war patrol, in the ocean approaches to Tokyo. Sighting a 5-ship convoy 7 November, she fired 4 torpedoes and sank both oiler Koto Maru and transport Kiri Maru 8. Continuing to prowl off Japan, Greenling sank her last ship 10 November 1944 when she torpedoed old destroyer Patrol Boat 46. She returned to Pearl Harbor 23 November 1944.

Twelfth war patrol, December 1944 – January 1945
Greenling's last war patrol, her 12th, was carried out in the Ryukyu Islands. Departing Pearl Harbor 26 December she found no targets until 24 January 1945, when she intercepted a nine-ship convoy. While making her approach, Greenling was attacked by escorts, and after a four-hour depth charge attack managed to make her escape. The submarine suffered minor damage and steamed to Saipan 27 January 1945 for repairs. There it was decided to send her to the United States, and Greenling steamed via Pearl Harbor, San Francisco, and the Panama Canal to Kittery, Maine. After overhaul at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the submarine decommissioned 16 October 1946 at New London, Connecticut.

Post-war service
Greenling was placed in service for the 1st Naval District in December 1946. Stationed at Portsmouth, she assisted in the training of reservists there and at Boston. The submarine continued this vital service until 18 March 1960, when she was placed out of service at Boston. She was sold 16 June 1960 to Minichiello Brothers, Chelsea, Massachusetts, and scrapped.

Awards

 * United States Navy Presidential Unit Citation ribbon.svg Presidential Unit Citation for her outstanding performance in her first three war patrols
 * Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with 10 battle stars for World War II service

All of Greenling′s war patrols except the fifth, tenth, and twelfth were designated "successful."

title: USS Greenling (SS-213)