Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Kingston upon Hull

Good articleKingston upon Hull has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 14, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Kingston v Hull

One thing that could be included in the article is why "Kingston upon Hull" is normally abbreviated as "Hull" rather than "Kingston" some suggestions here and here (a forum) suggest it was because it was formerly "Wyke on Hull" and renamed in 1293 but that doesn't explain why it isn't shortened generally by its current specific name unlike Newcastle upon Tyne as "Newcastle" and Southend-on-Sea as "Southend". The other suggestion is because as a place name "Kingston" is more ambiguous due to the likes of Kingston upon Thames though still you'd expect the specific name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders

@User:Polly Kiersten, we can discuss here. valereee (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders

Sorry to bother you again, but if I find a more substantial citation, regarding Spiders Nightclub, perhaps you could have a look at it again. I don't think I know any other independent nightclub in the UK that is as old as Spiders. That's why I think it deserves recognition on the Kingston-upon-Hull page. There is also a book dedicated to the club, called, "Spiders - Tales from Behind the Web", but that only takes me to an Amazon link, and Goodreads too.

Thanks for your time. Polly Polly Kiersten (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston versus Hull

Local people rarely ever use the term 'Kingston' in spoken language. It's nearly always 'Hull'. However, in written form, some people still add 'Kingston', as in 'Kingston -Upon-Hull'.

Polly Polly Kiersten (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday usage of Wyke on Hull?

At the time of writing this the infobox claimed the city is also known as Wyke on Hull. This claim was added by User:Chocolateediter on 23 April 2022 changing the infobox from stating Hull as the city's other name. I had not heard of Wyke until I read about it in the History section of this article. I am from the West Midlands but even here the city is commonly known simply as "Hull". In response, I ran a Google Trends comparison and found that "Kingston upon Hull" is much more common in searches than "Wyke on Hull". However, both those terms are dwarfed by "Hull City" (the football club) and "Kingston upon Hull" (the city as opposed to the search term) which suggests that "Hull" is much more common in Google searches despite, unfortunately, being an ambiguous term (hence my inclusion of "Hull City" in my comparison) (see Google Trends Kingston upon Hull vs Wyke on Hull and Hull City (past five years)). As I am not an expert in the local area, I am not sure the name "Wyke on Hull" refers to the whole of the modern day city as opposed to just a historical part of it. However, I do feel that "Hull" should be included in the infobox if its usage is so common. Tk420 (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)-edited[reply]

@Tk420:, The other name field is "For places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon" key words are "former" and "or".

I like this field it shows it is a old place. I wish it was on UK Place infobox, this article has the international infobox since it includes the council area.

Please re-add it if you see fit now that I have explained, you could have came here first before editing however as you didn’t have the reason why it was there. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put "Hull / Wyke" as Hull (as a word) would appear too many times at the top.

Wyke is found in business names and probably other stuff (interesting if it is more common then Kingston in some cases) it’s just that Hull is more dominant. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hull merger

[1] DragonofBatley (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? Mcljlm (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the merge proposed header, as the consensus appeared to be 'not merge' Kingston Upon Hull into East Riding of Yorkshire, and there's no further discussion after 16 October, when the discussion was archived. (Archived discussion: "Merge Hull into the East Riding of Yorkshire article or create two articles for East Riding of Yorkshire and maintain Hull article")
Side note: DragonofBatley, please don't use external mobile links to link within Wikipedia, article to article, like you did above on 10 Sept. It forces the mobile format onto desktop users. It also interferes with "What links here".--The Navigators (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming. Kingston Upon Hull ....

Moving this article was incorrect. Should remain at the city's real name. I propose it be moved back. -Roxy the dog 11:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons in the edit summary of the move. --- Tbf69 P • T 11:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been at least one previous move discussion, so I think an undiscussed move was out of order. It should be moved back and a new discussion opened. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... aaand now it's been moved back. well done User:SilkTork. - Roxy the dog 11:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: If you still think the article should be moved, then you should follow the procedure at Wikipedia:PCM. That procedure should always be followed if a) there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or b) someone could reasonably disagree with the move. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, closing early per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kingston upon HullHull, East Riding of YorkshireWP:COMNAME. --- Tbf69 P • T 12:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of alternative name(s) in infobox

The infobox has previously featured the alternative names of "Hull" and "Wyke" in the infobox in an Other name section. This was removed on 7 December 2023 arguing that "Wyke" is primarily historical and "Hull" is mentioned in the body text. However, I believe that the inclusion of "Hull" is relevant to let newcomers to this article know they have found what they are looking for considering that it is the most common name for the city (outside the area as well as locally) although it is agreed that natural disambiguation is desirable over alternatives in the article title. It appears to be standard practice to include other common names in the infobox if a place is commonly known by something besides its official name. I intend to include "Hull" in the infobox but I wrote this entry in case it is challenged. Tk420 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)-edited[reply]

Kingston upon Hull

The correct title for Hull or Kingston upon Hull is, The City and County of Kingston upon Hull. it is a city and a county within its own right. This can be verified by the City Archivest and by looking at the Charter. Hull4me (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only the unitary district (which has city status) not the settlement which this is mainly about, in many cases like York/City of York the articles are split but we haven't here probably due to the boundaries being similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I count 28 citation needed tags, some of which span entire paragraphs. True, the article is large, but I still think that's probably too many to ignore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on this, you can strike about eight of the CN tags off the list of those needing attention. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The joy of all things and Keith D: do you two intend to keep working on this article? Thanks (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Heartstalk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Hopefully will be continuing with this, but time is a bit limited at the moment and will be without internet connection for 12 days at end of month. Keith D (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Aye, 'appen tha knows! (translation: "Yes I do intend to carry on".) Sorry, will get round to it soon. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D and The joy of all things: ?? 750h+ 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
750h+ ?? I have done as much as I can, Keith D is away. The joy of all things (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: what are your thoughts? 750h+ 13:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are still 3 cn tags. 750h+ 13:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a number of the sources added were to tourism sites? either that or they were in there already. hrm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out a couple of bits I cannot find references for, also dead links and added a few to cover other parts requiring references. I think that covers all of the tags. The part about the Energy Plant needs an operational date and ref, I put in some update to say it would be operational by end 2019. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
iii don't wanna get caught in the FIXLOOP, so I'm gonna back out here. There's still some sources that I'd say are questionable, but it's not egregious enough that it's worth continuing a GAR for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.