Talk:Kingston upon Hull/Archive 4

Suggestions for improvements
Thank you for your comments, please don't delete this section. The intro mentions 'regeneration' but does not say how long this has gone on. Since when? The 80s, early 2000s? (It seems forever in Hull) I still think more Hull highlights could be added to the intro as some of the statements lack facts or context. More could be added to underline how far 'regeneration' has relied on retail and tourism along with the increased student population and ethnic groups over the last decade. I will restrict my additions to updating the Larkin 25 section and any obvious errors such as 'it's' for its.WilberforceHope (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody would be inclined to remove a new section on suggestions for improvements on an article talk page, as long as the discussion remained on topic.


 * There used to be two sections in the article on Reputation and Regeneration a few years ago; these were removed as a recommendation from the good article review as they seemed to give undue weight to the city's decline and efforts to rebuild (for instance, few or no other articles on UK cities in similar situations had sections like that), and the remaining relevant information from those sections was incorporated into the rest of the article.


 * I'm not saying we can't improve the lead paragraph along those lines, and would be happy for the attempt, but I think we would need to be careful not to stress the regeneration and attractions too much, again for consideration of undue weight. If we aren't careful about it, the lead might also start giving the impression of a non-neutral point of view, coming across as less encyclopaedic and more of a civic-boosterish travelogue (and I say this as a big fan of the city and its attempts to regenerate). Still, keeping those caveats in mind, I don't see a problem trying, and also tracking down sources and developing context for the other items already in the lead you mention. Anybody else like to weigh in? Northumbrian (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a note that the lead should summarise the rest of the article so you should not introduce anything into the lead which is not covered in more detail in the remainder of the article. See WP:LEAD for details of what should be in the lead and the approximate length to aim for with a lead section. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert!
A user, AndewJockley or somesuch is inserting a line on 'crap towns' in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.159.212 (AKA: [[User:LarkinToad2010|LarkinToad2010)]] (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a vandal. Check my long history, and don't make unjustified accusations. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap town redux...
It looks like this topic is rearing its head again.

Several years ago, the article used to mention the Crap Towns listing; its suitability for inclusion was discussed at the time with no real consensus reached then and several times thereafter, so it stayed in.

However, during the course of efforts to raise the quality of the article to Good Article status that I and several other regular editors took, one of the peer reviewers (under item #20 listed here in the archive) recommended removing the sections with titles such as The case against Hull and Reputation (the old Reputation section is, in fact, stored on this talk page) and incorporating relevant material into the appropriate sections of the article such as History, Economy, Education, etc. As part of that effort, I seem to recall the consensus was to remove items such as the Crap Towns reference and Channel 4's Worst Places in Britain as trivial and unencyclopaedic, and not conducive to achieving and maintaining Good Article status.

I don't see that the Crap Towns reference has become any more relevant or suitable for inclusion again since the Good Article reviews. My preference is to leave it out, for the same reasons given during the Good Article efforts. Northumbrian (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not think it really adds much to the article, is rather dated and needs balancing with other reviews of the city as by itself it is really out of place. Keith D (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article reads like something the tourist board produces, apart from generally uncited negative remarks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such should point out that a number of prominent sources have ranked Hull as among the most unpleasant places in the UK.  Crap towns, whilst humorous, is also a reliable source, as its creation accords with due process.  Just because something is funny doesn't stop it being an RS. (eg Roger's Profanisaurus).  If you don't like Crap towns, then find another source which properly describes Hull's unpleasantness and include it.  Wikipedia is not an advert, and if this article doesn't improve it needs to have a warning banner put up for lack of balance as regards sourced criticism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, if you're so concerned about the article, its quality and its neutrality, may I suggest that you: rather than push to have the city labeled as a Crap Town? To be honest, comments of yours like these suggest to me that your interest in Hull begins and ends with doing so rather than actually improving its article, as does your seeming quest to slap the label on other towns with no other edits to improve those either. And all that, in turn, suggests that you seem less interested in promoting a neutral point of view than in spreading the Crap Town word. Northumbrian (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * remove some of the more egregious unsourced positivist fluff that makes it read like a tourist board publication to you, or
 * find other, more specific reliable sources such as news services or government statistics (for instance, like those for school ratings in the Education section) that provide some of the negativity you think the article needs, or
 * choose an item from the to-do list at the top of this page to work on
 * When I find a good source, be that book, journal, etc., I like to weave it into articles. I don't usually have a problem with POV-pushers trying to remove such sources.  The problem here isn't what's in the article (I'm sure that even Hull has nice parts) but instead what's missing.  Scroll up and you can see a consistent pattern of removal of negative sources and comments - crap towns being only one example.  I really don't have the time to edit war against a bunch of people who are apparently defending the honour of Hull against the cruel onslaught of truth.  I've noticed this quite a lot with town articles on Wikipedia.  You take the trouble to point out that somewhere's a dump with some properly cited comments, and then a bunch of locals(?) come along and try to convince people that despite the obvious general collapse of the place, it's just like Henley-on-Thames. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some kind of game to make your favourite place look good to people who don't know much about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there might be a way to 'work these in' to the Henley-on-Thames article, but I've no desire to. I don't harbour excessive grudges against localities based on personal prejudice. They are mainly just opinion anyway: http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/2004/07/henley-on-thames-yes-surprising-i-know/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/03/communities.guardiansocietysupplement

Similarly, the 'Crap Towns' book is a collection of online postings and personal opinions eight years out of date. It is not a 'good source'.

By the way, the Wiki Hull entry mentions the city's economic decline on several occasions and also gives details related to it's causes (WWII, Post-Industrialisation, the Recession etc.) and effects using education data, crime data, population statistics etc..alongside balanced information related to recent attempts to reverse issues facing the city. At no point does it resort to using 'references' containing coarse language and heavily class based stereotyping. Radiator4612 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the article stemming from the Larkin 25 festival
Please feel free to follow the links in the discussion below as you come across them; they lead to useful Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Over the past month or so, there has been a huge increase in editing traffic to the article by anonymous editors from IP addresses, along with newly created accounts, dealing almost exclusively with the Larkin 25 festival specifically and festivals in the city generally. There are several issues that this situation raises with regard to article quality and Wikipedia policies and guidelines:


 * 1) Undue weight. When many similar edits are made to one aspect of a large article like Hull's, they can start to lend an air of undue weight to that aspect, inflating it, however worthy and notable it is, out of proportion to the rest of the article's content.
 * 2) Conflict of interest. I suspect, from the pattern of edits and from the user names of the some of the new accounts, that the editors might be connected to the Larkin 25 festival. This can indicate an inappropriate conflict of interest; in general, it's not good form for editors closely linked to an organisation or event to write about that event, as this can raise two questions:
 * 3) Neutrality. Editors closely connected to a subject run the risk of not presenting a neutral point of view, a core Wikipedia policy
 * 4) Advertising. Another core Wikipedia policy is that an article not be used for any sort of promotion, no matter how worthy.
 * 5) Recentism. This guideline helps keep content in an article in historical perspective. Some editors sum this up as "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news service."

I think those are the key involved policies and guidelines. The recent edits are also having some direct mechanical effects on the article.

Several years ago, I and some other dedicated editors, including Keith D, worked very hard in accordance with the project's guidelines to raise the Hull article to good article status. This involves, among other things, proper references for material, removal of non-encyclopaedic content, and consistent formatting. We've also worked to maintain those standards since then. The history of those efforts are in the talk page archives.

Some of the recent edits, while done in good faith, have been introducing inconsistent formatting (in some cases, breaking wikiformatting for existing references) and, to a lesser extent, other inappropriate items such as peacock terms, a form of non-useful puffery than can seem to violate the neutrality of the article. I, and to a far greater extent, Keith, have been very busy trying to correct these as they appear, but it would be much easier if new and recent editors could be aware of these issues to start with (and thanks to those editors who've responded positively to the suggestions made on their talk pages regarding these issues!)

Keith and I are aware that we do not own the article; we welcome fresh material. However, he and I do have a vested interest in the article in which we've both put a lot of work to make good, and we're hoping that many of the new Larkin-centric editors will stay on after the festival is over and help us keep the article quality high. There is a lot to learn but also a lot of good information available and experienced editors willing to help.

Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Larkin 25 festival details on this article are far too promotional in their style. There is no requirement to repeat virtually complete details from one article into other article, that may have a geographic or cultural connection. The inclusion of an internal wikilink is sufficent to take people to the main article. Accordingly I have trimmed it down in both this article and the University of Hull article. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably gone over the top on trimming the University of Hull article as there is nothing left on student life. Keith D (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry concerns
There are now concerns raised that many of the recent edits by IP addresses and new accounts to this article are being performed by one user or group of users, based on similar editing patterns.

Please be aware that this behaviour is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, even if the edits are made in good faith and aren't obvious vandalism. Please follow the link for details on the policy.

Wikipedia's policy is that if a user wishes to regularly edit, then the user should


 * register an account (that is, create a user name and login)
 * log in to that account when editing (so that edits don't appear only as IP addresses in edit histories)
 * use only that account, and no others

The policy also requests that there be one user per account; group accounts are highly discouraged.

If patterns of editing contrary to the sockpuppet policy continue (that is, similar edits continue from many different IP addresses or multiple accounts), then a sockpuppet inquiry will be opened, which could result in IP addresses and accounts being banned from editing. The best way to avoid this, again, is for one user to log in to one established account and use only that account.

And, as an aside, as this is a group project, engagement on the talk page regarding concerns raised about particular edits or patterns of edits is always encouraged. Northumbrian (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear established Users. No, there is no 'agenda' to the updates and Larkin 25 entries other than to update readers on a current event and to add temporary edits where there is crossover during Larkin 25.  I felt the University of Hull section needed filling out to place it better in Hull than just 'on Cottingham Road'.  All future edits will be logged in by LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) now that I have migrated onto this single User account.
 * Thank you for the response and acknowledgement. There's no need to label us as "established users", as if you are excluded; all good faith editors are welcome to the project. As noted on this talk page and that of Keith's, many of the recent edits are welcome and refreshing.
 * I suppose also that a thank-you for the retraction of this edit is also in order, as it would seem to be extremely uncivil to imply that the good faith efforts of an editor to try to keep the level of quality of the article up over the last several years, albeit from a distance, are somehow of less worth than the recent edits of a local editor. Northumbrian (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It always takes new users time to get into the swing of things and edit within the rules so do not be put off. We are just trying to keep things on track as with all good articles the scrutiny is a little higher. With thoughts of having a stab at featured article at some point it is even more important to keep the standards high, especially on the citation area. It is easier to do the cites when adding the material then having to go back and relocate the sources someone else has used when adding material. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To date the suspect list of Sockpuppets are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010. The editing histories are open to checking and it is also noted that one of the IPs 86.161.54.220 has already aquired several vandalism warnings and two editing block periods. Should any other Sockpuppetry happen a WP:SPI may be called for. If the investigation finds the listed entries to be the same person having used other IPs, or Logins, to evade the editing block may result in an indefinite block from editing any article for all the listed entries. Note that more entries to the list may be added. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Larkin 25 section and innacurate information
Thanks a bunch for removing the Larkin 25 section and giving the wrong date! You're not worth the hassle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We're thinking it's not worth the hassle either. Northumbrian (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why not stop deleting free contributions given in good faith and save yourself some? No freelancer would give away good copy like this and after this experience, neither am I any more! Let's leave it to the HDM to do its good work in making Hull England's top city. And 'leafy' is just an objective description of a suburb, after all, there's a big tree in the picture of HU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.230.9 (AKA: [[User:LarkinToad2010|LarkinToad2010 / Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010 )]] (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there are too many (or perhaps just one) who have too much time on their hands and spend all day undoing informative edits. That makes this site not worth it. So, if you want out-of-date and inaccurate info, you're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.81.196 (AKA: [[User:LarkinToad2010|LarkinToad2010)]] (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

William Dent Priestman
Founder of Priestman Brothers Ltd, Historical business who probably not as well know as ought.
 * http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Dent-Priestman-First-Engine/dp/0859580393
 * http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/wiki/Priestman_Brothers
 * http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Priestman_Brothers
 * http://www.ssplprints.com/image.php?id=90244
 * http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/priestman-william-dent-tf/
 * http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/Display-tells-story-of-iconic.1129482.jp
 * Probably a candidate for an article if anyone wants to start one. Keith D (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done (well start class anyway) .. William Dent Priestman and Priestman Brothers. Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2009 Population Statistics
Hi

The new population statistics are available from the website of the Office of National Statistics and give the new 2009 resident population figure of the city as 262,400. Link here: 	http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432013/report.aspx#tabrespop

Radiator4612 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you need to get the list article List of English districts by population updated so that all pages have data to the same date and then from that page update the templates that are used to display the information in the individual articles. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers! Think I better ring my parents and tell them I won't be over for christmas!

Thanks for the info Keith.

Radiator4612 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

|The Famous Side Of Hull
An article about a new book of biographies of high-achievers including inventors, astronomers, engineers, professors, artists, designers, actors, composers and sportsmen from Hull. Provides some good pointers for content including conductor Andrew Penny, BBC Apprentice entrepreneur Michelle Dewberry, sporting legends Johnny Whiteley, Ken Wagstaff and Chris Chilton as well as mountaineer adventurer Andy Kirkpatrick and novelist Valerie Wood all attended the launch, which was hosted by town crier Michael Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.223.220 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Public sector cuts undermining Hull's regeneration?
Doesn't that rather remain to be seen? Furthermore, citation must surely be necessary to shore up this claim. Seeing as there was none I took the liberty of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.234.184 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC link to justify the sentence, The economic crisis since 2008 has caused some setbacks to these developments http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-11777953. MartinSpamer (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip Larkin statue at Paragon Station
Suggest a picture of this new landmark be included at some stage. References added to mark official unveiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.76 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Points and minor corrections

 * Noticed that Princes Quay and St. Stephen's Hull are not linked from the bolded text in the "Economy" section. Please fix as you see fit. At the same time I think there is something wrong with the St. Stephen's Hull article - I tagged it - It just doesn't read right in my opinion.
 * The words are linked earlier in the section and there should only be one link to them in the section per WP:REPEATLINK, probably should not have the bolding either. Keith D (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Economy/Shopping
 *  The port area of the city has diversified to compensate for the decline in fishing by the introduction of Roll-on Roll-off ferry services to the continent of Europe. I really don't think this is quite right - RoRo ferrys replaced already existing continental freight work - it's just a shift to unit load handling - and thus not really "compensating". Nothing really replaced the loss of the fishing industry - as the closure of the fish docks etc testify.
 * The section doesn't mention the food industry and the caravan industry (also extend into east riding) - both are large employers from a wider base (smaller factories) - at the same scale of employment as the ones already mentioned.
 * The section says Another major industry was oilseed crushing to clarify - it still is - or more specifically vegetable oil extraction processing eg Croda, Cargill, ArrhusKarlshamms and smaller units - also probably should mention the paint industry which came from the use of extracted linseed oil in paint.
 * The retail section mentions "Princess Avenue" and "Newland Avenue" - I think this is probably undue weight possibly coming from a student influence - the notable shopping streets are "Holderness Road" and "Hessle Road", Lesser shopping streets include Spring Bank (now strongly Kurd(?) influenced), and Beverley Rd (increasing east european influence). Princess avenue has become a centre for "cafe culture" (last decade) and is notable. Newland Avenue is a shopping street but minor, no more notable than Chanterlands Avenue, Greenwood Avenue of several others that could be mentioned.


 * larger problem - the section "Recession" might need looking at - a couple of problems - minor recentism, and also the claim that " The city has been particularly hard-hit by the coalition government's programme of public sector cuts to regeneration schemes" - to state my opinion openly - the effect I've seen is that a number of "white elephant shopping, hotel, and casino" projects will not be going forward - projects that were (in my opinion) never good ideas in the first place - eg "Princes Quay" shopping centre has been steady denuded of shops since the more recent "St. Stephens" opened - showing that there is an oversupply of shops. anyway that's enough of my opinion an WP:OR.
 * I think someone very sensible should look at the regeneration section, and make sure it can be verified from neutral reliable sources - ie what is characterised here as "regeneration" could easily be characterised as a "building and construction bubble" which collapsed due to lack of economic viability. Possibly considering looking at again it in a years time when a more subjective view can be taken. The real estate bubble is clearly described in the article Late-2000s recession - I'm not just making this up.. :) Thanks.


 * There is definitely a whole article on economy of Hull if the history is included - and there are plenty of good sources - most of the large companies have had books written about them - in addition to the ones already in the article - Fenners, Ideal Standard/Ideal Boilers, Needlers (sweet factory, defunct), various paint works (many defunct).. Crown paints is still there. Otherwise thanks - the other sections are very informative.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You could create a sub-article Economy of Kingston upon Hull along the lines of the Economy of Manchester article. Keith D (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - added a little more about a problem with one section)
 * Thanks for the suggestion - I've started work towards an article Public transport in Kingston upon Hull including history, trams etc, (and don't really want to begin the economy article) (can of worms) - but if anyone else does create a stub - I'll be willing to have a go at expanding parts of it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In case anyone was waiting - my attempt at Public transport in Kingston upon Hull is on hold - after trying to improve Trams in Kingston upon Hull I've come to the conclusion that the article will be very time consuming to write. ... So if anyone wants to take up the challenge please feel free to do so (I've given up for now) - however at least the tram article is partially done. (I'm just can't get that interested in buses or trolleybuses). I might have a go a the economy article instead (but don't hold your breath) Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Name - problem John Wyke
The article states ". It was originally an outlying part of the hamlet of Myton when, in the late 12th century, it was chosen by the monks of Meaux Abbey to develop a new town named Wyke upon Hull after John Wyke, Archbishop of York.[5] " the reference http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=549
 * in Archbishop of York there is no "John Wyke" - there's a John le Romeyn died 1296 - no mention of Wyke in that article/
 * The reference states "Before the foundation of Wyke the site had been uninhabited and was part of the territory of the hamlet of Myton. The mouth of the River Hull, giving in to the Humber, may nevertheless have attracted ships to its shelter much earlier: it was the Scandinavian vik, or creek, which gave its name to Meaux's new town" http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66771 - so "Wyke" comes from "Vik" meaning creek.
 * I'd would just change this - but as the info must have come from somewhere I'll wait a bit and see if I've got it wrong, or there is a reference that confirms what the article says currently.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I raised this here but did not resolve what to do. Keith D (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source above is reliable, also "History of Hull (Hull Univeristy Press)" also gives the "vik" explanation - I'd assume both of these to be reliable ... but they don't explain why they have stated it to be true. An older book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lQ0WAAAAYAAJ&dq=hull+wyke&source=gbs_navlinks_s gives an assumed etymology "Vic" from the saxon for Settlement, in particular see chapter 2 "Of the name and state of the Town antecedently to the period of its supposed foundation in the year 1296." - the author appears to have done more research than the later sources I would usually assume totally reliable. I think I would say that the origin of the name "Wyke" is unclear - and may come from a or b. The author also notes that the name was frequently actually written "Le Wyke"
 * I'd assume that both name etynologies are academic guesses, and without a time machine there will be no way of knowing.
 * Found the diff - and the source - doesn't look like it needs to be taken seriously http://www.europe-cities.com/en/571/uk_england/kingston-upon-hull/hotels/
 * Removed the mysteroius Archibishop Wyke and added possible origins .Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Section "recession" problems
See also two sections above. (thanks to however fixed one POV issue - but I uncovered an appararent attempt to mislead later on)

Removal diff

Hull's nascent regeneration programme has suffered a number of major setbacks since the economic downturn of recent years. The city has been particularly hard-hit by the downturn and public sector cuts to regeneration schemes and public spending, combined with cuts to the local authority budget. This added to a general post-war economic decline and the damage created by the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s and the new government's proposed programme of public sector cuts. A number of local factories have closed or relocated away from Hull in recent years. In June 2010 the local economy suffered a double blow with the withdrawal of funding from regeneration agencies Hull Forward followed by the abolition of the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, in the emergency budget of 22 June 2010. Funding for economic regeneration projects in Hull is now under government review, with the main responsibilities of Hull Forward and Yorkshire Forward passing to Hull City Council and a new Local Enterprise Partnership. Among major casualties of the recession and austerity measures have been the waterfront Fruit Market development and some local authority contractors' jobs. The planned Castle Street redevelopment scheme to relieve waterfront traffic congestion and improve pedestrian access to the Marina quarter has been another casualty of government austerity measures.

Refs:

I think this section includes synthesis, and is also tending towards an un-neutral point of view - in particular the last sentence The planned Castle Street redevelopment scheme to relieve waterfront traffic congestion and improve pedestrian access to the Marina quarter has been another casualty of government austerity measure seems to be completely untrue according to the references given. I hope to look at this later, when I have time to look at sources. If someone can fix it it the meantime...

Points:
 * Please don't resort to WP:recentism concentrating on what has happened in the last 2 years or similar, and please don't formulate conclusions/theories on the cause/effects of various events - (eg the closure of a factory being related to ...) unless a reliable source clearly states that it is. Thanks.

Clearly the economic state of Hull is notable, and there should be more in the article on the post war economy - I'm not suggesting that this shouldn't be in. Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've readded the stuff about the regeneration agencys in the regeneration section diff

For anyone wanting to make an article on the economy, the recent closures include Northern Foods (see above) as well as the ADM cocoa factory, also pre-recession Holliday Pigments, and during the recession a number of caravan/mobile home manufacturers went into bankrupcy/receivership etc (but possible are now back in business - under new names), also 'Connaught' (council service provider) has been in some trouble. These should help with a web or paper search anyway.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Parks and gardens link
The part about certain parks being listed by english heritage is a dead link. eg - I couldn't find the pdf so I don't know what I'm looking for -maybe someone else can.?

As an alternative this seach might do : Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Name
This article doesn't say why the city is referred to as Hull rather than Kingston. In essence it be called hull is like calling Newcastle, Tyne or Stoke, Trent. Is there any specific reason for this especially one that can be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.234.89 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the simplest answer to that is 'because it is'. The list of places commonly, if not invariable known by a lass than full title is endless and which bit gets retained and which bit gets dumped depends is not subject to any rules (or logic).

Calling Hull 'Kingston' would lead to confusion with Kingston on Thames. As far as I know there is only one River Hull so it's hardly surprising the city goes by that name.92.40.155.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Section "museum", also music, ferries, shops
The deep isn't actually a museum (or is it) - is there a better collective noun for these things -musuems, art gallerys, aquariums etc. Also the "Yorkshire water museum" is closed (and has been for some time) - according to the internet a roof is damaged or something. Can someone check on this.

Also replaced image of Newland Avenue in section "Pop music" - I think an image of the "Adelphi" nightclub should be here, but I couldn't find one.

Also replaced the slightly odd looking image of a ferry (the humber does not look like the caribbean usually, also no clear location/date etc) - with one of a Zeebruge ferry. There are other choices if you don't like this one.

The retail section Kingston_upon_Hull probably needs looking at - it's got wp:recentism issues, and has too many names, eg lists too many different shops - it already appears out of date - I've tried to clean that up but it still needs referencing, and some historical context - especially about the development of the town centre.

Also needs markets info. eg "trinity square" market, indoor markets etc etc. Imgaril (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also removed this Nothing to do with the section it was in.Imgaril (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Businesses in Hull deliver an annual turnover of almost £8 billion, and over 5 million annual visitors contribute almost £210 million to Hull's economy.

I put it in the economy section, and then removed this from the same section
 * In August 2010 a 110% increase was reported in tourism enquiries to the city, with Hull becoming an increasingly popular destination for "staycation" short breaks.

I'm not saying it's wrong but again wp:recentism, and the article isn't documenting a current event. Also context - and what are "enquiries" - does this equal sales ?? !!

Consistent patterns should be reported - this and the wealth of information on regeneration projects with were suspended make the article need a minor tidy up - there are literally hundreds of years of history too report, including many decades of shopping development - it shouldn't have too much emphasis on the last 5 years. Especially when the truth of the phrase don't count your chickens before they're hatched is repeated proven over the last few years.Imgaril (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also removed: Just not reliable, (or basically -not true) - simply put, unlike Brummies or Scousers, but like many people from other places in the world there is no accepted or commonly used nickname for hull people. Anything else is personal invention. However there are these http://www.hullensians.org/
 * People from Hull are called "Hullensians" and t


 * Can someone double check the edits for obvious mistakes, and stuff that shouldn't have been edited etc. Imgaril (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored Hullensian as that is what is the accepted name for people from Hull and is used in a number of sports teams in the city. The information on the detailed history of the place should go in a sub article as indicated previously. Keith D (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Floods
"Hull was hit particularly hard by the June 2007 United Kingdom floods " true but superlative needs cite or changing to concrete data point such as 1 in 150 year event from off-wat report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6270236.stm http://www.coulthard.org.uk/hullfloods.html http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/sustainability/waterresources/rpt_com_hullflood2007wrc.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.111.172 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fix, also note the floods of the 1950s, particularily the winter 1959 flood, which were probably worse, but apparently completely forgotten.
 * One of the OFWAT report author's is called Andy Drinkwater. Imgaril (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"www"..
Please be careful about www prefixes eg - despite Template:URL behaviour and common perception www.X.com is not always the same as X.com

This is shown in the example st-marys.hull.sch.uk vs. www.st-marys.hull.sch.uk

eg http://st-marys.hull.sch.uk vs. http://www.st-marys.hull.sch.uk shows that the two are not the same. In the worst case this feeds cybersquatters and other lowlife.Imgaril (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bombs
quote :Of a population of approximately 320,000 at the beginning of World War II, some 192,000 were made homeless as a result of bomb destruction or damage. doesn't match source, and doesn't appear realistic - unless it means "were homeless for a short time". see diff Mddkpp (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Endike pub
diff removed this - I'm not sure if it needs a separate article - note - appears to have made worlwide news - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/weird_but_true/weird_but_true_zg3n5zku6PSVOuxlTdmvcP, or at least national news. Mddkpp (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

People
Re - this edit ] - I've added the people mentioned to the 'Hull People' category, but not to this page. The list of potential entries is long and I am not going to be the one to make the decision.

If some-body would like to re-asses the summary of famous people using the lists and categories that would be welcomed.Mddkpp (talk)

Three Theatres?
There's only mention of two (New Theatre and Hull Truck). There's talk of the Northern Theatre School but this doesn't appear to have a venue. MikesPlant (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Name
Although it's undoubtedly true that there is a mouldy old piece of parchment somewhere that names the city "Kingston upon Hull", it is referred to that way in everyday use precisely never. All of the local institutions, such as the City Council, University, port, newspaper, football team, puppeteer and sign-makers. I challenge anyone to find an example of a phrase such as "my uncle lives in Kingston upon Hull" or "I'm just off to Kingston upon Hull to get my hair done" in any source.

I'm not proposing a page-move. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means that the article would probably end up at Hull (city). However, instead of beginning:


 * Kingston upon Hull, frequently referred to as Hull, is a city and unitary authority area in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, England.

it should begin something like:


 * Hull, sometimes referred to as Kingston upon Hull, is a city and unitary authority area in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, England.

Formerip (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Except it's not a question of "mouldy old piece of parchment somewhere..." The full name of the city is used all the time in maps, government documentation, Land Registry records, etc. Coloquial shortening has no bearing on the fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article title should start the first sentence which it would not do with your proposal. Also the main signs on the approaches to the city say "Welcome to Kingston upon Hull". Keith D (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick: I don't think colloquial comes into it. The names of City Councils, Universities etc are formal and official. I think You're making my point for me, really. "Kingston upon Hull" is indeed used, but within an extremely limited arena including things like Land Registry forms, Letters Patent and, perhaps occasionally, maps. It isn't in general use at all, in colloquial speech or otherwise. Keith: There's no rule that the title should always start the first sentence, and plenty of examples where it doesn't work that way. It would not make sense, in particular, where the title has a disambiguator. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The current wording reflects the fact that the geographical entity is "Kingston upon Hull," colloquially shorted to just "Hull." Your suggested wording implies the opposite - i.e. that it's really called just "Hull." It's exactly the same as Royal Tunbridge Wells - virtually nobody uses the regal prefix (except ironically) in everyday speech, but it is the full and official name of the town. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cycling
Hull is 4th best city for cycling with over 12% cycling to work. Needs adding to transport section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source for this? Keith D (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source: www.hullcc.gov.uk - http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HOME/COUNCIL%20GOVERNMENT%20AND%20DEMOCRACY/ABOUT%20HULL%20CITY%20COUNCIL/COUNCIL%20POLICIES%20AND%20PLANS/TRANSPORT%20AND%20STREETS%20STRATEGIES/CYCLING%20STRATEGY/CYCLING_STRATEGY_2003.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have added a note on cycling, could not spot the 4th best city in the reference so have left that out. May be needs some more recent document giving details of present usage and facilities available to expand on this. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hull is fourth best cyling city. 84.93.49.181 (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locating a reference, I have added a sentence to the end of the transport section. May be it is time to thinking about starting a Transport in Kingston upon Hull article to allow for expansion of the transport details. Keith D (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Northern Theatre Company
The article asserted there were three "main theatres" in Hull. The Northern Theatre Company (mentioned in the text, but without identifying a venue) is not a "theatre" as such, even if it is still in operation. As to that, the single-storey premises at Charterhouse Lane which it occupied have a floor area of 2,871 sq. ft. (267 sq. m) and so can never have justified the accolade "main theatre"; but, in any event, since at least September 2013 those premises have been on sale pursuant to a fixed charge receivership order, and are publicly described as the "former" premises of the Northern Theatre Company. See details on the websites of two local estate agents: Scotts, and Begbies-Traynor which specialises in distressed property sales. Unless and until the Northern Theatre Company, or any other, announces a new venue, reference to "three main theatres" in Hull must, regrettably, be left in abeyance. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move
Move Proposal: Kingston upon Hull → Hull, East Riding

I do not live in Hull (in fact, I live in America and have never even visited the UK), but I am under the impression that the city is called simply "Hull" almost exclusively. This includes official channels, such as the local soccer team as well as on road signs (I checked on Street View). I also know that shortened name is even reflected in the postal codes (HU) and in the telephone code (01482, "48" corresponding to the letters "HU" on the phone buttons). Keep the official name bolded in the first sentence, but let's face it: most people who want to know about Hull will type "Hull." It's time to admit that and set this move in motion. 161.130.188.203 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is plenty of use of Kingston upon Hull around. Typing in Hull will just get you to the dab page so no advantage in a move. The proposed dab is also wrong Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire would be the appropriate dab if a move were it take place. Keith D (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and comment - I also oppose the move as per Keith D, but "Hull" as a name seems a bit more important than its current status as a "nickname" in the infobox suggests. Surely it's at least an alternate name, but probably actually the main name, with Kingston upon Hull as the official name? That's what the current wording in the lead implies too - the article should at least be consistent JimmyGuano (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure "Hull" is the most commonly used name for this city in the UK. Not sure that on a global level the name Hull is most associated with this city. 92.40.87.129 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as strongly as is humanly possible - The official name of the city is Kingston upon Hull, and it matters not a jot that it is colloquially shortened, any more than Royal Tunbridge Wells is. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - If you're american and have never visited KuH how would you know what's mainly used ? .. Nonetheless it's ridiculous proposal - KuH is used alot more than Hull. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  13:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is. Try driving there for example, every road sign says just "Hull". 92.40.87.136 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? Place names are often shortened on road signs, "Tunbridge Wells" being an obvious example, but Middlesbrough gets contracted to "M'bro" on some. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Kingston upon Hull is the official name. Moving it because lots of people say just Hull is like moving New York City to NYC or the Big Apple because of that being what a lot of people call it. Thomas.W talk 15:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Hull is the correct name per COMMONNAME. Kingston upon Hull is not the "official name" (although our article currently makes this unsourced claim), it's a less commonly used variant. "Hull City Council", "Port of Hull", "University of Hull" - how is this unofficial? It also isn't a "colloquial shortening", as suggested above, since it is attested to long before "Kingston upon Hull". In any event, WP policy is explicitly not to use an official name if it not the name most commonly found in sources. Formerip (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kingston upon Hull is the official name of the city, as can be seen in many places, such as the full official title of the Lord Mayor of Hull, in the formal name of the employer when Hull City Council announce vacant positions, when Hull City Council publish official documents and in many other places, such as this information sheet from ITV about Hull being named the UK's Culture City 2017. Thomas.W talk 16:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That sourcing is really quite weak, though, isn't it? Would a bulleted list of "interesting facts" on the ITV website count as a reliable source? Would a third-party recruitment site that happens to have put the wrong name into it's database? You can use that website, however, to click through to the actual recruitment documents produced by the Council, and none of them have the words "Kingston upon Hull City Council" on them.
 * There's only one real way to look at the question of what the "official" name of the place is, and that's to look at what is used in official contexts. Clearly, both "Hull" and "Kingston upon Hull" are used. There's no further way to decide on officialness, unless you think a mayor is more official than a city council or the Land Registry is more official than the Highways Agency or the Prison Service. Formerip (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Office of National Statistics certainly uses "Kingston upon Hull." Both the ONS and the Land Registry are far more "official" in that part of the function is to define geographies, whilst the like of the Highways Agency, the Prison Service, and even the City Council merely operate on a geographical basis. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you only commented on the ITV link and not the rest, which is more relevant to this discussion since it shows that Hull City Council uses the name Kingston upon Hull City Council whenever the full official name is required. I can add that the Hull City Council website says that the copyright to the site and all of its content is owned by Kingston upon Hull City Council, and that the same goes for all rights to the name Hull City Council, clearly showing that the formal/legal/official name is Kingston upon Hull. Thomas.W talk 10:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't the name be written with dashes as in 'Kingston-upon-Hull'? Zacwill16 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The official spelling is without dashes. Thomas.W talk 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? Zacwill16 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is the City Charter a good enough source?

By this charter, dated 1 April 1299, King Edward gave to the town a new name, Kingston upon Hull, http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/sourceguides/1299charter.aspx
 * Or the UK parliament

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/karl-turner/4030 http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/diana-johnson/1533

Why is it shortened to Hull, rather than Kingston? Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ebenezer Cobb Morley - Father of Football Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Cobb_Morley http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/hull_people/ebenezer_cobb_morley.aspx http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Let-s-build-statue-Ebenezer-Cobb-Morley-Hull-City/story-23185825-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Unitary authority
I restored the fact that Hull is a Unitary authority to the lead here after it was pruned but this was reverted. Hull is a unitary authority and I think that this should be stated in the lead of the article. As it stands now it reads as though it is part of and governed by the East Riding of Yorkshire which it is not. What do others think? Keith D (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that unitary authority status needs to be mentioned somewhere in the lead, and the opening sentence seems the most natural place to do this. So I've restored it but split the long opening sentence into two shorter ones. --  Dr Greg   talk  18:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Greater Hull merge
The article Greater Hull should be deleted not merged, it is an invention. No sources.

Headline image?
The headline image is not very good, there's a lot of nice CC photos on Flickr that show Hull landmarks, may I suggest something showing the Deep, the Uni, a KC telephone box, Hanseatic Hull by the riverside, Queens Dock gardens, Scale Lane bridge, tidal defence barrier, the Avenues etc etc

Here's some examples:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/andi-cj/9862431555/in/photolist-7eEK9w-o9NJ2G-g2vxin-ojiK8r-7VaPyT-g3odxT-gMJT5L-iH1e2L-nd9PuX-pcG9ao-oXMLa4-6PU2tZ-nT6Y3H-6PZgNu-pM43xk-psRNJR-iGYmsb-5uYaQq-pLme92-feNY9B-oXKsH5-nvQdDN-6PY8pQ-7eabRt-711JXA-AwHqk-7eXeFE-5z7oS8-697usV-iFyFPD-jXmGma-7fb32H-oBGSQf-5vrAGZ-fZneT-6PVam4-7pGWJC-d73TDu-aEXXJz-6ZWKSK-ot8V6n-psNLYz-8kpWzK-5p5Z3A-a39gLn-696Y2c-ptUUzX-fMTi7v-nU5LZX-nTZYMU https://www.flickr.com/photos/21158777@N06/2070415027/in/photolist-49XqfP-b96x2x-mCRGzN-6AY2dF-6i5GJ2-mCQg74-mLjovM-pcF9kL-8w3Wxb-5gpaQf-i8xN4i-gMJT5L-mLmaAU-ayZSXn-my8BNb-aGwxQ2-3wEYvm-mLggyf-my7Mwm-5To51y-mAsJeg-mLex8X-d7mu7-5Zrseu-5ZrrdS-5Zn9Eg-5ZroxL-5Zrokf-5Zn7pZ-5Zro2u-5Zn7DD-5Zn9vZ-5ZndW8-5ZrrJh-mCRU7f-HphXb-5Zn7UP-5Zrjbq-5Zrp9b-5Zn6bZ-5ZrszA-5Zndai-5Zn8fi-5ZrrVW-5ZrsPU-5ZrqEj-5ZrmTE-5ZrspN-5Zn5Xz-5Zrrpu https://www.flickr.com/photos/allan_harris/2799695162/in/photolist-5gpaQf-i8xN4i-gMJT5L-mLmaAU-ayZSXn-my8BNb-aGwxQ2-3wEYvm-mLggyf-my7Mwm-5To51y-mAsJeg-mLex8X-d7mu7-5Zrseu-5ZrrdS-5Zn9Eg-5ZroxL-5Zrokf-5Zn7pZ-5Zro2u-5Zn7DD-5Zn9vZ-5ZndW8-5ZrrJh-mCRU7f-HphXb-5Zn7UP-5Zrjbq-5Zrp9b-5Zn6bZ-5ZrszA-5Zndai-5Zn8fi-5ZrrVW-5ZrsPU-5ZrqEj-5ZrmTE-5ZrspN-5Zn5Xz-5Zrrpu-5Zn7Ln-5Zrr1C-5Zn83t-5Zrjxy-nuF6Rj-4tefHG-4tefLo-8w3Wxf-b7hxvF https://www.flickr.com/photos/yellowbookltd/9368587985/in/photolist-fgSsP4 https://www.flickr.com/photos/abooth202/2477055122/in/photolist-4LTybW-6Gjt1M-55AfBB-7zSZXD-6GowLq-7zWKdo-sfX9s-7zT15e-55AgNR-4Kn5xe-4Krndf-4otWU4-4oxYzU-4otS9D-55aCnf-4otU1M-4otQz6-sfXbQ-hCrTi-hCrTh-4ZeP6Q-7zSZiF-55AehR-4ZaYmv-8msSnM-huRy6-4ufJke-8msCXx-hymGd-55EpK7-8msDXK-hymGe-hCrTj-hvaCF-hCrTg-55AhER-55AfMe-55kUye-55ErZh-55EppY-55Es6S-55EqJ1-55Aeb4-55EqT5-55EphA-huhwi-6Gn1a5-55Ep7A-huhwg-55EqA5 https://www.flickr.com/photos/noggin_nogged/413044453/in/photolist-CuXJ6-4tV6mM-4RXtKf-5751y7-4CpBDs-LeGo-6zFHBC-6zFKYS-4xGxiq-6zCti4-6zGzS7-4tV6S4-EkL7S-4tZ9ES-4tZ9NS-5qqhzu-4xCmEB-4tZ9bb-4tV6Dz-4tZ9pu-4tV6yK-6zGzCj-6zCteD-6zCtsn-6zCtcg-7Ap6Q6-5qpWkC-5qpW4q-5qkBk2-5qpWdd-6zBBZD-6zBDeg-6zFJEE-5qm58v-7UFZLJ-7BkY2K-7UCHYR-LeaK-6zBCSc-dNUdG5-7AsLdf-7AsLQY-6zFHXu-4xGtum-6zFHZQ-6zBEwv-6zFHTA-5qqhrS-5qqgud-5qm5f4 https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepearson/431593014/in/photolist-E92yS-8ydxNc-bb7rtF-8ATXyB-bb7ri8-pNCSAP-oRYd2s-Le2n-bHpUB-AeKMT-6YS3sH-fkvEvh-pivTu-pivKw-6iKDKV-4jkR5q-5b5vdg-4jgL4R-34uymC-qtjvwP-iE8d7a-iE74Rr-iE8FR8-iE8jXe-iE84Gz-iEbyv3-iE8gRV-iL6u8u-iL3QZT-E92mS-e4xSPC-6oa25K-6KTKTY-6oa1vg-sjSwh-bNyZPP-4dfhft-8ReSot-P6DT6-bpNCpG-ivSV5-2bQoi5-GykyE-r3XX6-e4sf6p-LeGo-JxswB-5ijEPR-gTDW23-3Hy59P https://www.flickr.com/photos/akandbdl/16734144705/in/photolist-ruJSdi-dvj6qX-nLY6KN-pAPCh8-8tGH5T-8tGHdX-o9idzX-5vnr2h-iEaw4Z-8Bu1Ka-4U3pzb-4cGSEy-5jk6HE-8jwb3n-4cGPcY-8jwh2v-zw5whg-8uR1zf-ztLgRw-bgGmnT-dfu6gA-dftZaW-a3BdEF-a4cf1Z-a3BdEn-damEE2-damE3d-damCZZ-damG25-damER6-damFAb-damELn-nsvX6X-9Q1RYc-damGFL-damDjX-damFsE-damDY5-damDeV-damEZe-damGwq-damFqd-damF92-damEub-damD9i-damFGp-damGC3-damCMZ-damEz3-damDsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.10.101 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Main image
I have been playing with a montage for the main infobox image and come up with the image on the right. If anyone has suggestions for other images to include then please note here. Keith D (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As no one has commented I will put on main page and see if there is any reaction. Keith D (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hull U ranking
Comparing List of universities in Yorkshire and the Humber and 2019 rankings http://www.studyin-uk.com/uk-study-info/university-rankings/ Hull U is 2nd last! Leeds #11 York #22 Sheffield #25 Huddersfield #62 Sheffield Hallam #67 Leeds Trinity #87 Bradford #98 York St John #102 Hull # 103 Leeds becket #124 Alanf777 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The text was "It is ranked among the best in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. " Alanf777 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2018

 * 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.

Not moved. There is a unanimous consensus against the proposed move. bd2412 T 03:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull → Hull – Nobody knows Hull by its full name. I suggest moving this page to "Hull" and the disambig page called "Hull" to "Hull (disambiguation)". When people search for this page, they are most likely to search "Hull" not "Kingston upon Hull"  IWI  ( chat ) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not the primary topic of all things called "Hull"; the common noun is in prominent use. See |Hull_(watercraft)|Fuselage|Chassis|Hull,_Massachusetts this. Dekimasu よ! 19:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is the highest on that chart fairly consistently. Anyway we could instead have "Hull, England" if just "Hull" is to broad.  IWI  ( chat ) 20:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore "Hull" isn't the common name for Chassis; Hull is definitely the common name for Kingston upon Hull.  IWI  ( chat ) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is definitely not the primary topic from the list on the DAB page. The name is used in full in several places, including by the council itself and signs in the city. Hull, England is not really a useful alternative for something that self identifies itself as Kingston upon Hull which is a natural DAB for the article. Keith D (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kingston upon Hull is not the WP:Primarytopic and using the full name of the town is a better disambiguator than "Hull, England". jamacfarlane (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose next editor speedy close please. Obviously not going to pass in this form. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As pointed out above Kingston upon Hull isn't the primary topic for "Hull". While the council is Hull City Council, the settlement and district includes the Kingston upon part. WP:COMMONNAME is only when third party sources rarely use the full name, see Tunbridge Wells v Royal Tunbridge Wells. By contrast "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" for Rhode Island doesn't appear to show up at all on the website. There is also Hitler v Adolf Hitler and Windows v Microsoft Windows.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even as an Englishman, I'd think that people searching for Hull are more likely to be looking for Hull (watercraft) or something similar. Certainly no clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where I used to live, you could see the Humber Bridge,Babs' amazing White Elephant by which people could travel faster from Scunny and Grimsby to Hull, correctly known as Kingston upon Hull. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

1991 population
The Pevsner book about the East Riding states the 1991 population to be 254,117, something which the article makes a mention of in the notes section. The article has 260,000+ as the population. Clearly one is wrong and the ref note states that the Hull Daily Mail articlei states the population as 254,117. As we now have two cites that agree, does anyone object if I change it? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , a third source gives 254,104, so I would make the change. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ta, though another number seems confusing! Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)