Jump to content

Talk:East Riding of Yorkshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEast Riding of Yorkshire was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 12, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 16, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Break into sections

[edit]

This article definitely needs to be broken into sections: the infobox is massive, and it's confusing (and I understand it). In particular the ceremonial county and unitary authority need to be separated. The coat of arms only related to the ua. The admin county had a completely different coa and anyway needs its own section. Basically we have a number of entities which share the same name, but very different areas.Lozleader 20:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to have an East Riding of Yorkshire article about the ceremonial county and the unitary authority, and East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) about everything else (historic subdivision, the former administrative county), on a similar basis to the split of Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire (historic). Morwen - Talk 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded.
Thirded :-) It's getting messy. Lozleader 14:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) should not include anything about the 1890-1974 administrative county, however, as that is a different thing to the historic Riding entirely. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest an alternative name for that article if East Riding of Yorkshire (historic) is not suitable? I consider a three-way or four-way split unviable, and frankly there's no point splitting out the article about the "traditional" subdivision if the information about the former administrative county and the Lieutenancy area that existed from 1660s until the 1974 isn't there. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of the East Riding of Yorkshire could cover the former local government arrangements while East Riding of Yorkshire could be about the historic Riding and the 1996- Unitary District of the same name. Either that or East Riding of Yorkshire becomes a disambiguation page pointing to East Riding of Yorkshire (district), County of York, East Riding (administrative county), Yorkshire, East Riding (historic county), etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is that we would split entities where the boundaries changed substantially and there was no administrative continuity. This would improve the encyclopedia as it means unconnected entities that happen to share the same name would no longer be treated in the same article. It would mean splitting Renfrewshire and Aberdeenshire (already done) and things like Flintshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. We only have one article for the West Riding of Yorkshire in its various incarnations, and I consider it an anomaly that we have independent articles about two of the three ridings, but not the third. I'm envisaging an intro something like "The East Riding of Yorkshire is a historic subdivision of the traditional English county of Yorkshire. From 1660 to 1974 it was used as a county for the Lieutenancy, and from 1889 to 1974 it had a county council as an administrative county". But I'm being very cautious here, because I don't want to see this as a step down a slippery slope to having an article about every incarnation of every county. Morwen - Talk 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow. How about we have an East Riding of Yorkshire article along the same lines as the North and West Riding ones, covering the historic Riding itself and the former administrative/lieutenancy counties, and East Riding of Yorkshire (district) to cover the unitary district, with disambiguation links at the top of each article? Although, to be honest, I don't understand the problem with separate articles. I've been thinking about such a split ever since the infoboxes were added to the North and West Riding articles: because the infobox relates specifically to the 1889-1974 administrative county and not the Riding as a whole, which could cause confusion to the casual reader. Such a precedent appears to have been set by the way most towns and cities have two articles, one for the town/city and another for the borough (with a bizarre naming convention for the city boroughs to boot!) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that I think that gets the disambiguation inverted. If East Riding of Yorkshire is not about the 1996 entity, then at the very least it should be a full-blown disambiguation page, and then you are still left with the problem of where to put the other article. The thing is we could get to have really quite crazy numbers of articles if we aren't careful. I'm just suggesting a very limited split that will be made on principles that everyone can agree to: further splitting will be contentious. Part of the reluctance is the edit wars about this in the past : look at the fact that English unitary district of county of Herefordshire is a bluelink for evidence of the craziness of this. Morwen - Talk 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a two-way split: East Riding of Yorkshire about the current UA and History of the East Riding of Yorkshire about the previous administrative/lieutenancy counties, with the historic Riding mentioned in both? (Let's face it, the meat of the content is about the local government arrangements, the existence of the historic Riding is covered in a sentence or so.) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, and parallels existing things where we have History of Buckinghamshire having an infobox, etc. 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How does that look as a start? Morwen - Talk 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Since this is primarily about the unitary district and as such contains the {{Yorkshire and the Humber}}, I think it would be safe to remove the awkwardly placed {{Yorkshire}} template, which would probably be more at home in History of the East Riding of Yorkshire. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it has that template in two capacities (or rather there are two links from that template). Most of the problems with too many things floating around making it look ugly can just be solved with more prose.  :) Morwen - Talk 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random project

[edit]

Might be interesting to find out when the former Haltemprice UD was parished. From the ONS codes for the parishes: this appears to be after Beverley was parished: the parish codes are 

00FB164	Wressle CP
00FB165	Yapham CP
00FB166	Beverley CP
00FB167	Cottingham CP
00FB168	Anlaby with Anlaby Common CP
00FB169	Bridlington CP
00FB170	Kirk Ella CP
00FB171	Willerby CP

Morwen - Talk 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another random thing is : how does the northern border of the registration county compare with the modern district? Looking at a map of poor law unions it looks very close indeed. Morwen - Talk 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we could do with finding out some more about the development of the three resort towns (Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea) and their popularity. Where did people from West Yorkshire go on their holidays? the North Sea coast or to - Whitby and Scarborough seem to be more popular here - did any cross the Pennines? Morwen - Talk 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in Doncaster in the West Riding and we went on holiday mostly to Scaborough and Filey: but did also cross the Pennines for a day trip to Blackpool at least once (I don't remember ever staying there). I believe the nearest coastal town for quick spare of the moment car journeys was Cleethorpes, however. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The eponymous River Hull

[edit]

"The eponymous River Hull drains the area north of Kingston" sounds like gibberish to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.29.53 (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Better would be "The eponymous river Hull drains the area north of the city of Hull." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.29.53 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

This page seems to need more information about education in this area. Is there a university? A population of this size probably should have at least one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.201 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there are no universities in the county. There is the University of Hull in Kingston upon Hull which is part of the ceremonial county but a separate unitary authority. This has some halls of residence in Cottingham which is in the county. Keith D (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

[edit]

Leconfield is a Met Office weather station showing current statistics. Does anyone know if historical climate statistics are available as they would be more representative than High Mowthorpe?--Harkey (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try [1] for historical data from March 2003. Keith D (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll do the sums later and import the final figures into table like the High Mowthorpe one.--Harkey (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I gave in and used High Mowthorpe as Leconfield figures were not compatible without a lot of massaging.--Harkey (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

Should we remove the table as per previous comments on this when doing the Kingston upon Hull article? Keith D (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.The statistics are quite old now, as are the ones in Demography. There are some useful bits and pieces in the source at ref 23.--Harkey (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic East Riding

[edit]

Could someone please find a way to mention that the current administrative/ceremonial East Riding does not cover the same extent as the old Historic East Riding once did - it seems, this article is accepting the notion the 1888-1974 county was revived, when it's merely a revived name for the new county from 1996. Any ideas? An index of metals (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in hand. If you look at History of the East Riding of Yorkshire, you will see that there is some more detail about the history and a couple of explanatory maps. Unfortunately, the editing of the article has been put on hold by the usual editors for a while but will resume soon. Thanks for your comment though.--Harkey (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.87.122 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hull

[edit]

(Came here after noticing the peer review request). Would it be worth mentioning something about Hull in the lead? Particularly as the article covers both the unitary authority and ceremonial county (of which it is a part). I know it will be tricky to word something, without going into the full details, but it's important as the dominant settlement of the area, even if it isn't in the unitary authority. Quantpole (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you are probably right as it has a part to play in the economy, transport and facilities of the area as well as been part of the ceremonial county. The lead needs a look at to see how best to cover things without making it too complicated. Always good to get a new pair of eyes looking at things as you often overlook the obvious when you are working on an article for a period of time. Keith D (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a sentence to indicate this but probably still needs work. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start date for East Riding

[edit]

The lead currently says: "It is named after the historic East Riding of Yorkshire (one of three ridings alongside the North Riding and West Riding), which also constituted a ceremonial and administrative county until 1974." When did the East Riding first become an administrative county in its own right, more than just a thrid of Yorkshire? Or is that question impossible to answer succinctly? almost-instinct 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on East Riding of Yorkshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out - 2 look OK and 1 reverted as Page not found. Keith D (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:East Riding of Yorkshire/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.

Initial points -
  1. References needs more adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Existing references need sorting out to use {{Cite}} templates  Done
  3. Sections need some work to improve clarity and expansion
  4. Attractions list needs organising, may be some intro and split into smaller lists of similar types of attractions
Keith D 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

NEW ELECTION RESULTS

[edit]

We need the 2015 results in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_Council_election,_2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.143.188 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset the results table in this article as the chnged results are not covered by the references. Needs to be updated to 2015 results but cannot find a reference to give figures for a summary table - only individual results. Keith D (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Riding of Yorkshire. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

District Diagrams

[edit]

Given that they are unitary authorities, ought they not to be yellow? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to by this comment? Also why should it be yellow, is there some convention stated somewhere? Keith D (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Riding of Yorkshire. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on East Riding of Yorkshire. 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) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Riding of Yorkshire. 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) 17:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Riding of Yorkshire. 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) 06:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate unitary authority article

[edit]

There should be a seperate unitary authority article as it covers the whole unitary authority of East Riding but not Hull. It's confusing to the readers to cramp in Hull and east riding as one article but then have no seperate unitary authority article for the east riding which Hull is not seperate from. The county and unitary are not the same. One has Hull and other doesn't. I did mention this back on Wikigeography but nobody really engaged with it.

@Crouch, Swale: has reverted and redirected my article. Then what grounds does the ceremonial county cover the unitary authority but not Hull yet this article talks about both Hull and the unitary authority as one?

I sourced it well and took ages putting together the article. So what did I do wrong? To earn a complete redirect and erasion of my article? DragonofBatley (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley: I didn't redirect the article it was done by User:Keith D, I actually expanded it, see the history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry saw your name appear first. @Keith D:, why was the above done? Nobody had issues with me splitting County Durham and Shropshire into seperate articles. So what's the issue surrounding East Riding of Yorkshire? The district covers the unitary authority which doesn't include Hull. It can be done but how would you approach it and Crouch Swale? As the og article covers both the unitary authority and Hull. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion on this and it causes large amounts of duplication. We should avoid duplication as it is just more articles to update if it needs changing. The way it was, it needed several hundred articles changing to cover the split. I you want to do it get consensus first. May be the other splits you mentioned need reverting and discussing. Keith D (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly those latter two as they were discussed and voted to be kept. They covered the new unitary authorities which were formed from previous boroughs and districts into one big Unitary Authority.

It take forever to list each one individually but Shropshire and County Durham can have a pass for the fact one unitary authority was created to cover the previous districts.

In the case of East Riding, it's not clear fully where Hull lies. It lies in the county but has its own unitary authority article. But east riding minus Hull has only a council article with no real insight into the unitary authority.

It might be better to make a unitary authority article for east riding and merge the council into it?

But Durham and Shropshire are based on the former boroughs and districts being merged into one unitary authority for each county.

But I do think East Riding is in good stead to be given a unitary authority article and maybe the council article merged into a unitary authority article...just saying DragonofBatley (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The East Yorkshire articles covers all of the incarnations in a single article, or you would have different articles for different periods of its history, one of those would include Hull when it was part of the East Riding. The council article covers elections and should be separate, probably in all cases. You would also have yet another one for the one to be set up for the devolution deal when they get it sorted (may be the change in leadership in Hull will alter this). Keith D (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The district article is for the unitary district created in 1996 while this article is for the ceremonial county, you removed years ago statements of Kingston upon Hull district but there is a Kingston upon Hull district just like there is a East Riding of Yorkshire district[2]. Articles should probably read "X is a village and civil parish in the East Riding of Yorkshire district, in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, England" and "X is a suburb of Kingston upon Hull, in the Kingston upon Hull district, in the ceremonial county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, England". Articles should generally state the parish/unparished area and district unless (like Northumberland concurrent with the ceremonial county or Hull concurrent with the district). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is just silly and confusing. You can drop the Kingston upon Hull district completely as totally unnecessary and just confuses readers. Similarly for the East Riding of Yorkshire you can forget about mentioning the ceremonial county as it just confuses the issue. Most readers will not be knowledgable about UK geography and just want to know whee the place is. Keep things simple. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it silly? Its standard and expected that we explain what divisions a place is in and that shouldn't matter if one of them has the same name (yet different boundaries) to a ceremonial county or the district has roughly the same boundaries as the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 article about the ceremonial count and 1 about the unitary district wouldn't likely confuse a significant number of people. We normally mention what district and ceremonial county a place is in such as Paignton being in Torbay in Devon. I don't see why this shouldn't also be the case when the district has the same name a ceremonial county. I support restoring but I won't do it without discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine as it is we do not need 2 articles essentially covering the same thing. Just mention the fact about the ceremonial county here and not have a separate article. I am sure that other articles could do with combining in a similar way to reduce redundancy. Keith D (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So @Keith D:. I suppose merge the Hull article back into the East Riding of Yorkshire article? As it is part of the county. No need for a seperate article is there? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hull merger

[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Hull_merger_into_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_or_Hull%2C_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_county_and_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_district%3F DragonofBatley (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

East Riding of Yorkshire

[edit]

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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Citation needed tags remain, while some sections are very out of date (see below for details). Little improvement has been made. Article thus fails 2&3 of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires some work to meet GA criteria again.

I have appended six citations to cover off some of the CN tags and those areas without a cite, mostly historical and geographical. Will research weather data. The joy of all things (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks :). Let me know when you'd like me to do a more indepth review :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Femke ooh, that might be a while. I've not done these before, but I assume there is a time factor? Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as improvements are being made and you give us an update every one/two weeks, the nomination will not be closed. The goal here is article improvement :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Magic, thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new weatherbox for Kingston upon Hull which shows data between 1991 and 2020. The weather station at High Mowthorpe is actually in North Yorkshire (but within spitting distance of the East Riding). However, data for there was harder to come by. The joy of all things (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Femke, the religion data is, as you say quite old. Do you think converting that to a template and collapsing it, so as to preserve it fo those to see, but updating to the 2021 census with a new template which is uncollapsed. Does that make sense? Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - sorry - cannot find a suitable template. I will just have to create a new table. The joy of all things (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New table sounds good. Per WP:NOHIDE, hiding wouldn't have been a good idea. I typically only include historical data if it still gets weight in current sourcing. Otherwise articles get too bloated. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Femke and The joy of all things: how are we getting on? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is time for another review - believe me, I am not that naive as to think we are where we need to be! The religion and climate data have been updated to 2020/2021 from 2001, and additional cites have been imported into areas lacking. I know the transport section needs an update. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some old sources in the history section, but I believe this is still adequate at GA level.
    • The erosion paragraph can use some updating
    • The renewable energy section is highly out of date. It may be better to convert this section to energy in general?
    • The second paragraph of public services is highly out of date too and not written in summary style. I think it can be replaced by 1/3 the text and combined with the next paragraph.
    —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Riding_of_Yorkshire&oldid=1193943994"