Talk:Hunmanby

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Hunmanby is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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?

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

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 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires inline references
~~Requires infobox~~ Done
Requires photographs
Could be sectionalised to allow for easier expansion & locating of information
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)

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211022309/http://www.allsaintshunmanby.co.uk/ to http://www.allsaintshunmanby.co.uk/

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

Is there any particular reason why 2021 census information is not valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D (talk • contribs) 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]