Jump to content

Talk:Hunmanby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hunmanby/Comments)

Untitled

[edit]

i removed the line about this town also being known as "Humbleby" as vandalism. If there is independent conformation for this please replace it. Thanks. --jonasaurus 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Largest village claim?

[edit]

This needs referencing or removing. If kept, some sort of measure of population or area (ie the measure of "largest") is needed. Population would be useful anyway. Halsteadk (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village trail

[edit]

The village train includes the following sites:

  • the village pinfold and prison. This was built in 1834. This saw frequent use after the annual fair and Martinmas which often ended in trouble. Attached is a pinfold which was used for stray cattle
  • All Saints Church
  • The Old Vicarage (Wrangham house)
  • The Church Hall
  • Low Hall
  • Temperance house
  • the Old school
  • the Wesleyan chapel
  • Cross hill Methodist church
  • The White Swan pub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelcoates (talkcontribs) 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hunmanby/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires inline references
  2. Requires infobox  Done
  3. Requires photographs
  4. Could be sectionalised to allow for easier expansion & locating of information
  5. External links need to be checked out for relevance
Keith D 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunmanby. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Census

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why 2021 census information is not valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D (talkcontribs) 13:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted as the reference in the article was for 2011 census data not 2021. Though I try and avoid https://www.citypopulation.de as a source as they tend to update the page regularly so our articles that use it fail verification quickly. Those without an |accessdate= are particularly useless. Keith D (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]