![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi Roger (and others)
I'm slightly bothered about County Durham (the article here, not the place!):
All responses read with interest ... Nevilley 19:49 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
I'm a newby to this, so please excuse any early mistakes. Here's my comments:
Thanks for your comments, Nevilley ... Roger
Can you clarify this? Does it mean County Durham was used to distinguish the area of Bishop's temporal power from his ecclesiastical power in the rest of the Diocese of Durham which went to the Scottish borders until the 19th century. -- garryq 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Steinsky, I am confused about what you are trying to achieve here. I agree in principle with the idea of moving the list of towns and villages onto a seperate page (by the way, I have looked in vain for whatever it was you referred me to on the UK notice board). However, what existed before was a list of every place in the county, for which we had an article. With not many articles this was a reasonable stopgap, and my plan was to look at a map and actually come up with a list of every village, article or not, and then create a seperate page and just summarise on the main County Durham page. What you did, as far as I can tell, was simply duplicate the list on a new page, and then call the one on the County Durham page a list of the main towns only, which it wasn't, and call the new list a list of everything. They were both exactly the same. Can you shed any light on all this? — Trilobite (Talk) 18:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think at least some of this section should stay -- it's relevant and interesting that reorganisation was rejected -- but the lengthy information we have now can definitely be cut down. I've reverted the complete removal for now. How much should we keep? I'd say the maps can certainly go, as they're duplicated at Northern England referendums, 2004, but there should certainly be a link to that page from the main article. -- Ngb 23:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit unhappy about "Status: Both ceremonial and administrative, though the latter is smaller". Certainly the Administrative Co has a smaller population, but I wouldn't like to guess whether the bit lost to Tyne and Wear is bigger or smaller in terms of area than the bit gained from the NRY. Anyone got any figures? Phlogistomania 14:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Can we just merge the History of County Durham page with this one? Logoistic 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Could regular editors of this article with the knowledge please be kind enough as to revamp the article somewhat. It is policy and convention to have articles about counties as a singluar entity. That is to say, we should take the position that the counties of England with their various defintions have a fluid and continuous history, with the boundaries changing with each period (as seen at the Lancashire article for example). Furthermore, the lead section with its multiple defintions is in breach of WP:LEAD, and a little unsightly.
Hope someone can take a look at this? Jza84 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Unacceptable. I believe you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you've clearly no intention of listening to my rationale. We have a policy called the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) that insists we do not split county articles - you've done it. We have fundamental policies on verifiablity and you've broken them to illustrate a point. I've requested citation but you haven't provided them. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the wider editting community. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How about a line in the lead saying something along the lines of "County Durham" has also been used to refer to postal districts or wtte. I agree with the resoning that the non-metropolitan county should be given precedence though, since this is the active form of government that is currently known as "County Durham". Logoistic 17:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The article should recognise the fact that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is only seen as a 'natural successor' to the administrative county of Durham by secondary sources and that the LGA 1972 simply split the area up among three seperate entities. I will adjust the text to include this: these are facts, and thus should not at all be contestable. I have included Jza84's references which say that County Durham's boundaries have "changed" - I assume that they also mean that the administrative county boundaries were "changed" (rather than "abolished") to form the non-metropolitan county of Durham. It is misleading to put in the lead that County Durham#s boundaries have "changed" as it errnoneously implies there is a single continuous "County Durham" entity running through history, when in reality the "County Durham" that was the administrative county was abolished and the "County Durham" of the non-metropolitan created. I have included text that shows that some people think that the non-met. county is the direct continuation of "County Durham".
Given the weight of opinion suggesting that the administrative county of Durham should be covered exclusively in the "County Durham" article, mainly because the non-metropolitan county covers most of the same area, I will have to accept that. Logoistic 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this text back as this just isn't what the literature cited is telling us. This is exactly why we came up with WP:PLACES. MRSC • Talk 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Issue concerns the local government changes in 1974 as per the Local Government Act 1972: specifically the relationship between the new non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties and the older administrative counties.
The LGA 1972 states that the administrative counties were "abolished" and new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties "created". Land from the administrative counties was distributed among these new areas. The administrative county of Durham was abolished and distributed among three new entities: the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland, the non-metropolitan county of Durham, and the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. All of these new entities also contained land from administrative counties other than Durham (Yorkshire, North Riding, and Northumberland): for example, the non-metropolitan county of Durham contains nearly 100,000 acres from the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding.
However, the dispute arises because lots of secondary sources view the non-metropolitan county of Durham as the continuation of the administrative county of Durham: i.e. that "County Durham's" boundaries have "changed" - land was "lost" to Cleveland and Tyne and Wear, but "gained" from Yorkshire.
The two sides are this: presenting the 1974 changes as a single entity ("County Durham") being "reconstituted", with land being lost or gained (as supported by secondary sources) (this being presented as fact), versus presenting the 1974 changes as per the LGA 1972 (that one area was "abolished" and distrubited among three newly "created" entities) but acknowledging that some interpret the changes as a single entity changing its boundaries (i.e. stated explicitly as an interpretation rather than as a fact). Logoistic ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading the order that creates the new unitary structure [2]. In it it says:
also
and
Note the terminology: County of County Durham, as opposed to County of Durham which has been used heretofore.
Lozleader ( talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)
For those who dont have Durham on watch, there is currently a proposal at talk:Durham to move this article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The above alert says a discussion could result in this page being moved. The result was No Consensus but it didn't seem to me that the discussion was about "County Durham" at all, but about how the page named "Durham" which describes the place Durham should be titled if Durham became a disambiguation page.
There is general practice that a place (most often a town) in England will have a separate article from the local government district that covers a wider area. (For example, Lewes, Chichester and Horsham in my home patch of Sussex). There is an article Durham, and another Durham (district) about the LG area recently subsumed into the unitary County Durham. This is in accordance with the above principle.
Should there now be an article about the new local authority area distinct from this one? I don't think there is any other case of a unitary council having (a) the same name and (b) not the same area as a ceremonial county, so treating the new C.D. as a district, it should have a separate article per the above principle, but if we regard it as a county-level authority the practice is to have one article covering all the historical boundaries.
I have left a message here. Sussexonian ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is that image in the Infobox really useful? No other County page has a milestone image like that. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the coat of arms on this article actually in the public domain? The license template says the image is ineligible for copyright, but a similar image -
File:N Yorks arms.png is under a fair-use policy. I imagine the images are under the same copyright law. I'm most questionable about the image because it was uploaded by a
User:Craigy144 who has been blocked forever for copyright issues -
[3]
Thanks
--
George2001hi
(Discussion)
12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A person Raised in County Durham is known as a Pit Yakker. Can we edit the article to reflect this? ( Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 23:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC))
I call myself that all the time. I think people use it as a badge of pride now. If i found evidence to support my claim, would you consider editing the article? Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
They are also known as Durhamites Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 19:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.peoplefrom.co.uk/peoplefrom_durham_00216.html Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 19:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Has the new flag of County Durham been officially recognised as representing the modern county with its current boredsr, as well as the area of the historic county's pre-1974 borders? If it hasn't it should go in the history section rather than the infobox as it refers to the historic rather than current entity. Conversely if it has then it should replace the existing flag in the "Counties" section of List of British Flags and List of English flags articles, and the map on the Flag of County Durham should be updated to reflect the current rather than the historic borders. JimmyGuano ( talk) 15:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Further to an earlier section in this talk page, it might be worth having a look at this little snippet from a 2009 Act... [5]... which refers to the county being simply "Durham".
It seems that the 2007 Act referred to "the county of County Durham" by mistake (or was trying to be helpful by not confusing the county with the then-extant city of Durham) - the non-metropolitan county (as established in the 1972 Act) is called "Durham" and its county council was "Durham County Council". (The 2009 Act allows for the unitary council to call itself either The Durham Council or Durham County Council - it has chosen to remain with the latter.) The district that was created in 2007 (to combine with the 1972 county to form a unitary area) however now seems to be "County Durham" thanks to the 2007 Act's slip-up!
In any case, for sure the ceremonial county's name remains simply "Durham" as its entry in the 1997 Act has not been amended. Argovian ( talk) 00:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on County Durham. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on County Durham. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Zacwill keeps repeatedly adding the arms of Durham County Council (indeed violating WP:3RR in doing it) as the arms of the county in the infobox. User:BarretB and I have reverted. The council does not govern the entirety of the ceremonial county. Regardless, the arms are granted to the DCC as a council, not the unitary authority area or the ceremonial county (the latter of which the infobox is for). He claims this is "pedantry", but it's an important distinction -- a county is distinct from a council that uses its name (and especially so in this case, as it doesn't govern all the county). -- Inops ( talk) 21:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
With regards to his comparisons with the flag being for the historic county -- flags of counties in Britain (or England at least) are not granted to a specify body to use. The Flag Institute releases them for public use, not tied to a particular body (nor even a particular county definition: see the Isle of Wight and Isles of Scilly entries on [6] being described as "county flags", despite not being historic counties). -- Inops ( talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This site could help fill in information for North Tees settlements. Whether on this article or each town’s. If not reliable, proper sources can be found via using the information. Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am starting a discussion on sorting parts of the whole region at talk:North East England Chocolateediter ( talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The name of the ceremonial county appears to just be " Durham" while the name of the unitary district is " County Durham". The reason the Lieutenancies Act doesn't use "County Durham" for the local government area appears to be because like Blackburn/ Blackburn with Darwen the new district's name wasn't updated. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I am confused on how there is are parish councils for Bishop Auckland, Durham, Peterlee and Seaham to name a few but they are under this article. Is this like Shropshire where there is no longer districts or boroughs? RailwayJG ( talk) 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the historic county information (such as the flag) should move to County Palatine of Durham, at the moment it is spread between here and the palatine article. The flag was designed for the historic not ceremonial county. The historic county has had multiple changes such as Hexhamshire and Sedberge traded with Northumberland. Redirects could include Durham County (historic authority), County Durham (historic authority), Durham County (historic) and County Durham (historic). Need to disambiguate between historic city of Durham and historic county of Durham.
The ceremonial county 1853-present (area covered by the high sheriff and lord lieutenant) has changed in area multiple times: County Borough of Teesside removal, 1974 reforms and 1996 Cleveland (county) areas added. I think the article should be called County Durham (ceremonial), redirects could include Durham County (ceremonial) and Durham (ceremonial).
I think the County Durham (district) article should be renamed Durham County (authorities). The article can cover "consecutive government areas named after the historic county of Durham" from 1889-present. Each council since 1889 has been called Durham County Council with each taking on a similar coat of arms. The changes in area are whenever a county borough formed, 1974 reforms, Borough of Darlington removed in 1997. The coat of arms belongs to the authority not the ceremonial county. Redirects could include County Durham (district), Durham County (administrative), Durham County (non-metropolitan), Durham County (unitary authority) and County Durham (unitary authority). Need to make sure Durham County district and former Durham City district areas are disabiguated.
The current the North East (Combined Authority) needs an article since it doesn’t any of the three articles or the whole region. Redirects could include Durham County (combined authority) and County Durham (combined authority).
I think the the County Durham, Durham (county) and Durham County should be a disambiguation page called County Durham, England with redirects. Chocolateediter ( talk) 09:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi Roger (and others)
I'm slightly bothered about County Durham (the article here, not the place!):
All responses read with interest ... Nevilley 19:49 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
I'm a newby to this, so please excuse any early mistakes. Here's my comments:
Thanks for your comments, Nevilley ... Roger
Can you clarify this? Does it mean County Durham was used to distinguish the area of Bishop's temporal power from his ecclesiastical power in the rest of the Diocese of Durham which went to the Scottish borders until the 19th century. -- garryq 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Steinsky, I am confused about what you are trying to achieve here. I agree in principle with the idea of moving the list of towns and villages onto a seperate page (by the way, I have looked in vain for whatever it was you referred me to on the UK notice board). However, what existed before was a list of every place in the county, for which we had an article. With not many articles this was a reasonable stopgap, and my plan was to look at a map and actually come up with a list of every village, article or not, and then create a seperate page and just summarise on the main County Durham page. What you did, as far as I can tell, was simply duplicate the list on a new page, and then call the one on the County Durham page a list of the main towns only, which it wasn't, and call the new list a list of everything. They were both exactly the same. Can you shed any light on all this? — Trilobite (Talk) 18:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think at least some of this section should stay -- it's relevant and interesting that reorganisation was rejected -- but the lengthy information we have now can definitely be cut down. I've reverted the complete removal for now. How much should we keep? I'd say the maps can certainly go, as they're duplicated at Northern England referendums, 2004, but there should certainly be a link to that page from the main article. -- Ngb 23:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit unhappy about "Status: Both ceremonial and administrative, though the latter is smaller". Certainly the Administrative Co has a smaller population, but I wouldn't like to guess whether the bit lost to Tyne and Wear is bigger or smaller in terms of area than the bit gained from the NRY. Anyone got any figures? Phlogistomania 14:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Can we just merge the History of County Durham page with this one? Logoistic 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Could regular editors of this article with the knowledge please be kind enough as to revamp the article somewhat. It is policy and convention to have articles about counties as a singluar entity. That is to say, we should take the position that the counties of England with their various defintions have a fluid and continuous history, with the boundaries changing with each period (as seen at the Lancashire article for example). Furthermore, the lead section with its multiple defintions is in breach of WP:LEAD, and a little unsightly.
Hope someone can take a look at this? Jza84 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Unacceptable. I believe you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you've clearly no intention of listening to my rationale. We have a policy called the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) that insists we do not split county articles - you've done it. We have fundamental policies on verifiablity and you've broken them to illustrate a point. I've requested citation but you haven't provided them. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the wider editting community. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How about a line in the lead saying something along the lines of "County Durham" has also been used to refer to postal districts or wtte. I agree with the resoning that the non-metropolitan county should be given precedence though, since this is the active form of government that is currently known as "County Durham". Logoistic 17:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The article should recognise the fact that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is only seen as a 'natural successor' to the administrative county of Durham by secondary sources and that the LGA 1972 simply split the area up among three seperate entities. I will adjust the text to include this: these are facts, and thus should not at all be contestable. I have included Jza84's references which say that County Durham's boundaries have "changed" - I assume that they also mean that the administrative county boundaries were "changed" (rather than "abolished") to form the non-metropolitan county of Durham. It is misleading to put in the lead that County Durham#s boundaries have "changed" as it errnoneously implies there is a single continuous "County Durham" entity running through history, when in reality the "County Durham" that was the administrative county was abolished and the "County Durham" of the non-metropolitan created. I have included text that shows that some people think that the non-met. county is the direct continuation of "County Durham".
Given the weight of opinion suggesting that the administrative county of Durham should be covered exclusively in the "County Durham" article, mainly because the non-metropolitan county covers most of the same area, I will have to accept that. Logoistic 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this text back as this just isn't what the literature cited is telling us. This is exactly why we came up with WP:PLACES. MRSC • Talk 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Issue concerns the local government changes in 1974 as per the Local Government Act 1972: specifically the relationship between the new non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties and the older administrative counties.
The LGA 1972 states that the administrative counties were "abolished" and new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties "created". Land from the administrative counties was distributed among these new areas. The administrative county of Durham was abolished and distributed among three new entities: the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland, the non-metropolitan county of Durham, and the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. All of these new entities also contained land from administrative counties other than Durham (Yorkshire, North Riding, and Northumberland): for example, the non-metropolitan county of Durham contains nearly 100,000 acres from the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding.
However, the dispute arises because lots of secondary sources view the non-metropolitan county of Durham as the continuation of the administrative county of Durham: i.e. that "County Durham's" boundaries have "changed" - land was "lost" to Cleveland and Tyne and Wear, but "gained" from Yorkshire.
The two sides are this: presenting the 1974 changes as a single entity ("County Durham") being "reconstituted", with land being lost or gained (as supported by secondary sources) (this being presented as fact), versus presenting the 1974 changes as per the LGA 1972 (that one area was "abolished" and distrubited among three newly "created" entities) but acknowledging that some interpret the changes as a single entity changing its boundaries (i.e. stated explicitly as an interpretation rather than as a fact). Logoistic ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading the order that creates the new unitary structure [2]. In it it says:
also
and
Note the terminology: County of County Durham, as opposed to County of Durham which has been used heretofore.
Lozleader ( talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)
For those who dont have Durham on watch, there is currently a proposal at talk:Durham to move this article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The above alert says a discussion could result in this page being moved. The result was No Consensus but it didn't seem to me that the discussion was about "County Durham" at all, but about how the page named "Durham" which describes the place Durham should be titled if Durham became a disambiguation page.
There is general practice that a place (most often a town) in England will have a separate article from the local government district that covers a wider area. (For example, Lewes, Chichester and Horsham in my home patch of Sussex). There is an article Durham, and another Durham (district) about the LG area recently subsumed into the unitary County Durham. This is in accordance with the above principle.
Should there now be an article about the new local authority area distinct from this one? I don't think there is any other case of a unitary council having (a) the same name and (b) not the same area as a ceremonial county, so treating the new C.D. as a district, it should have a separate article per the above principle, but if we regard it as a county-level authority the practice is to have one article covering all the historical boundaries.
I have left a message here. Sussexonian ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is that image in the Infobox really useful? No other County page has a milestone image like that. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the coat of arms on this article actually in the public domain? The license template says the image is ineligible for copyright, but a similar image -
File:N Yorks arms.png is under a fair-use policy. I imagine the images are under the same copyright law. I'm most questionable about the image because it was uploaded by a
User:Craigy144 who has been blocked forever for copyright issues -
[3]
Thanks
--
George2001hi
(Discussion)
12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A person Raised in County Durham is known as a Pit Yakker. Can we edit the article to reflect this? ( Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 23:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC))
I call myself that all the time. I think people use it as a badge of pride now. If i found evidence to support my claim, would you consider editing the article? Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
They are also known as Durhamites Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 19:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.peoplefrom.co.uk/peoplefrom_durham_00216.html Wyliecoyote1990 ( talk) 19:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Has the new flag of County Durham been officially recognised as representing the modern county with its current boredsr, as well as the area of the historic county's pre-1974 borders? If it hasn't it should go in the history section rather than the infobox as it refers to the historic rather than current entity. Conversely if it has then it should replace the existing flag in the "Counties" section of List of British Flags and List of English flags articles, and the map on the Flag of County Durham should be updated to reflect the current rather than the historic borders. JimmyGuano ( talk) 15:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Further to an earlier section in this talk page, it might be worth having a look at this little snippet from a 2009 Act... [5]... which refers to the county being simply "Durham".
It seems that the 2007 Act referred to "the county of County Durham" by mistake (or was trying to be helpful by not confusing the county with the then-extant city of Durham) - the non-metropolitan county (as established in the 1972 Act) is called "Durham" and its county council was "Durham County Council". (The 2009 Act allows for the unitary council to call itself either The Durham Council or Durham County Council - it has chosen to remain with the latter.) The district that was created in 2007 (to combine with the 1972 county to form a unitary area) however now seems to be "County Durham" thanks to the 2007 Act's slip-up!
In any case, for sure the ceremonial county's name remains simply "Durham" as its entry in the 1997 Act has not been amended. Argovian ( talk) 00:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on County Durham. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on County Durham. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Zacwill keeps repeatedly adding the arms of Durham County Council (indeed violating WP:3RR in doing it) as the arms of the county in the infobox. User:BarretB and I have reverted. The council does not govern the entirety of the ceremonial county. Regardless, the arms are granted to the DCC as a council, not the unitary authority area or the ceremonial county (the latter of which the infobox is for). He claims this is "pedantry", but it's an important distinction -- a county is distinct from a council that uses its name (and especially so in this case, as it doesn't govern all the county). -- Inops ( talk) 21:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
With regards to his comparisons with the flag being for the historic county -- flags of counties in Britain (or England at least) are not granted to a specify body to use. The Flag Institute releases them for public use, not tied to a particular body (nor even a particular county definition: see the Isle of Wight and Isles of Scilly entries on [6] being described as "county flags", despite not being historic counties). -- Inops ( talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This site could help fill in information for North Tees settlements. Whether on this article or each town’s. If not reliable, proper sources can be found via using the information. Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am starting a discussion on sorting parts of the whole region at talk:North East England Chocolateediter ( talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The name of the ceremonial county appears to just be " Durham" while the name of the unitary district is " County Durham". The reason the Lieutenancies Act doesn't use "County Durham" for the local government area appears to be because like Blackburn/ Blackburn with Darwen the new district's name wasn't updated. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I am confused on how there is are parish councils for Bishop Auckland, Durham, Peterlee and Seaham to name a few but they are under this article. Is this like Shropshire where there is no longer districts or boroughs? RailwayJG ( talk) 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the historic county information (such as the flag) should move to County Palatine of Durham, at the moment it is spread between here and the palatine article. The flag was designed for the historic not ceremonial county. The historic county has had multiple changes such as Hexhamshire and Sedberge traded with Northumberland. Redirects could include Durham County (historic authority), County Durham (historic authority), Durham County (historic) and County Durham (historic). Need to disambiguate between historic city of Durham and historic county of Durham.
The ceremonial county 1853-present (area covered by the high sheriff and lord lieutenant) has changed in area multiple times: County Borough of Teesside removal, 1974 reforms and 1996 Cleveland (county) areas added. I think the article should be called County Durham (ceremonial), redirects could include Durham County (ceremonial) and Durham (ceremonial).
I think the County Durham (district) article should be renamed Durham County (authorities). The article can cover "consecutive government areas named after the historic county of Durham" from 1889-present. Each council since 1889 has been called Durham County Council with each taking on a similar coat of arms. The changes in area are whenever a county borough formed, 1974 reforms, Borough of Darlington removed in 1997. The coat of arms belongs to the authority not the ceremonial county. Redirects could include County Durham (district), Durham County (administrative), Durham County (non-metropolitan), Durham County (unitary authority) and County Durham (unitary authority). Need to make sure Durham County district and former Durham City district areas are disabiguated.
The current the North East (Combined Authority) needs an article since it doesn’t any of the three articles or the whole region. Redirects could include Durham County (combined authority) and County Durham (combined authority).
I think the the County Durham, Durham (county) and Durham County should be a disambiguation page called County Durham, England with redirects. Chocolateediter ( talk) 09:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)