Talk:County Durham

Bishop Auckland

Is this section not a bit over-detailed for a county article. Surely most of this should be in the relvant BA article instead, And a section on tourism should surely at least mention the major tourist destination in the county! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

:It already does, but we are talking about Bishop Auckland, where I have been sitting in a chemo chair while reading this. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Checked the BA article, which contains coverage of alll the stuff that I replaced into this article, and have now removed. I will however note that BA is hardly the major tourist destination in County Durham. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox images

An editor has taken it on himself to remove the multiple image in the infobox without explanation, then removed it again after reinstatement apparently because he doesn't like it. Perhaps this should be discussed? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remove your accusation and I might consider discussion. Claiming something false under Wikipedia:Passive aggression DragonofBatley (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So I've just been unfairly accused of something, the editor hasn't responded and I'm expected to be okay with being unfairly accused by them? How does that work? Making false claims and not backing them up, ludicrous this is DragonofBatley (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've only just logged back in so was not in a position to respond until now. To quote from your edit summary: "Doesn't add anything to the lead and like the other articles of Yorkshire, it isn't well formatted and doesn't show really anything of notability." I'm not quite sure what Yorkshire has to do with it, possibly a typo? The edit summary does make it appear you don't like it. I do see, looking at previous edit summaries, that you have a history of dispute with the editor who added the images. Perhaps the two of you should have brought it to the talk page before. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

And I'm keeping it friendly but not happy to be red warned for removing a false claim against me DragonofBatley (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Who has red-warned you? Not me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No I was quoting what another editor said on the Yorkshire page and that was they aren't well formatted. The photos for county Durham are being compared to Yorkshire because Stockton crossed two borders and is in the lead photo but has a local government district in North Yorkshire and County Durham so that's the part. Which Yorkshire is relevant to the discussion as with Middlesbrough and Redcar. Stockton and Hartlepool are Teesside. My point is, collages have no real relevance to a county article. Unlike district articles or single articles like Durham Stockton and Crook which use collages. The county article should really only include the main populous or county town settlement. In county Durham case it's Durham, like Newcastle and Sunderland are Tyne and Wears main centres.

I was red warned by another editor that wasn't aimed at yourself, Murgatroyd49. I just felt insulted by a claim which wasn't true. I have no disputes with the other editor in question, we just sometimes butt heads over certain photos but normally we are okay. They add collages and I question the absences of important landmarks or changes to lead summaries like with North Shields and Hebburn for example. But apart from that, collages are really best placed on town and city articles then county articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also on a seperate note, I apologise @Murgatroyd49:, for causing resentment. I just felt it was an uncalled for accusation towards me. You explained better on here and I'm sorry for plastering my annoyances with your comment over two pages. It might not change anything but I apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, we all get like that sometimes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge County Palatine of Durham into County Durham; independently notable; readers best served by keeping them separate; improve rather than merge. Klbrain (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging most of County Palatine of Durham into County Durham, and expanding History of County Durham from a redirect into a full article to serve as a main page for the county's history. While both articles contain good content, the UK geography guidelines on counties do not endorse separate articles for historic counties, instead favouring a single article which covers a county's entire development. We should bring these two articles into conformity with the guidelines, which I believe will reduce repetition between the pages and produce a more comprehensive article on County Durham. Given the large amount of history content a separate article is justifiable. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

id agree but of course not on the district side as that of course doesn't cover all of CD (Stockton Darlington Hartlepool) just the original district prior to 2009 reform. But on county palatine I agree DragonofBatley (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I've wondered myself why this article exists. It looks like it has a longer alternative name but otherwise its common name was the same and it looks like it is similar to the ceremonial county with though oddly it appeared to cover detatched parts, now in Northumberland like Farne Islands. The unitary article seems sufficient to deal with the current administrative area (and some of the pre 2009 area) and the County Durham article is sufficient to deal with the ceremonial and historical county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I saw the article existed, tried to make something out of it and now I’d be happy to merge it with County Durham

• • but I really think a lot of content from both articles should be split into the new articles of Culture of County Durham, History of County Durham and most crucially for me Governance of County Durham. Culture, especially sport, is historic county heavy and would otherwise stick out in an article that sticks to ceremonial and should mention Sunderland A.F.C. . Governance can sort out the detached, an attached wapentake, wards, the palatinate, administrative county, non-metropolitan county and other logistical nightmares of putting a millennium of governance into an Wikipedia article. I can think of the main headers; ancient (pre-&early- conquest), the height of the palatinate (wards, ancient boroughs), Victorian era, Post 1974 (the divide) and now (ceremonial counties and combined authorities). History can focus on the chronological tales of monks, kingdoms, Scottish raids and the prince bishop’s power (at its peak and at its out right loss). The County Durham article would be then free to be a summarised version of all of this.
  • I’d keep the district as population wise the district covers 60%ish of the ceremonial county and under a third of the historic. It helps the smaller places get a mention and keeps the line of county and district less blurred to the average reader.

Chocolateediter (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose complete merger of page; support rewrite The county palatine was a political entity with its own army, legal system, taxes and coinage, which appears to be now abolished. It was not merely a geographical area. The counties palatine have been repeatedly described as "miniature kingdoms": [1] [2]. I would expect the county palatine to have its own article for the same reason as, for example, the Kingdom of Sussex has its own article. Wikiproject guidelines are local consensus. As the topic of the article is primarily about law, politics and history, I don't think the geography wikiproject is the main wikiproject for this. A county palatine is not the same as an ordinary county. I agree that the article needs to be rewritten and that the sections on culture, sport, economy and demography might probably be moved out of this article. James500 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that counties palatine inherently warrant their own articles, as it's easy enough to incorporate their distinctive elements into a regular county article. If we look at the other two major palatinates, at Cheshire this part of the county history is incorporated into the main article, while Lancashire covers it in History of Lancashire. There is a Duchy of Lancaster article, but the scope of that is wider than the palatine within Lancashire itself.

  Having said that, the differences between your proposal and mine seem minimal; if we remove everything but history from 'County Palatine of Durham' then does it not just become an article on a specific part of Durham's history? At that point we may as well make it a full history article, no? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  The county palatine is independently notable because it satisfies GNG in its own right. There is no chance of adequately covering the county palatine in a single article about a geographical area, or even in a single article about the history of that geographical area. Lapsley's introductory book alone is 380 pages long: [3]. The topic of the county palatine is not going to fit in this article or an article on the history of Durham.

  Complete merger is not desirable because there is not sufficient equivalence between the county palatine and the present county. The county palatine appears to have ceased to exist because everything that made it a county palatine (ie the palatine system of government) has been systemically abolished. Complete merger would be like trying to shoe-horn Kingdom of England (abolished in 1707) into History of England. It would make it impossible to write a stable article on what is a purely historical topic, because we would be constantly having to add new history that has just happened yesterday, and which has nothing to do, in either case, with the former palatinate or kingdom, respectively. The history of the county palatine ended a long time ago, but the history of the geographical area continues, and the longer it continues, the less it has to do with the county palatine.

  The History of Lancashire article does not adequately cover the county palatine of Lancaster. In fact, it says almost nothing about the county palatine. James500 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  You might have misunderstood the proposal, which isn't a complete merger but a partial merger of 'County Palatine of Durham' into 'County Durham' and fleshing out 'History of Durham' into a full article to cover the entire history of the county. There's no reason why the latter article can't adequately cover the palatinate — we don't (and shouldn't) need to write the equivalent of 380 pages on it, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am under the impression that you are proposing to blank and redirect (WP:BLAR) the page County Palatine of Durham, after merging some or all of its content elsewhere, because that is what Template:Merge to generally means. Merging the county palatine into either article would bury the county palatine under a large and ever growing amount of distracting irrelevant recentism that has nothing to do with the county palatine. County Palatine of Durham is the WP:COMMONNAME of the county palatine, it is the term our readers will search for, and our readers would be suprised and confused if they were redirected to the post-palatine history of a geographical area. To cover the county palatine adequately, we will need to write a lot more than is in that book, since it is merely an introduction to a much larger body of literature, we will need multiple articles to do it (eg the bishop's council appears notable and should have a separate article), we will need some kind of overview article to act as an introduction to those articles, and that overview article should be located at County Palatine of Durham. I have no objection to the expansion of History of County Durham to include, in particular, post-palatine history and possibly material not relevant to the palatine form of government, but it should exist in addition to County Palatine of Durham. James500 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the proposal is to blank and redirect 'County Palatine of Durham', splitting its content between 'County Durham' and 'History of County Durham'. I think we've made it clear where we disagree, and I respect your positition and don't want to inadvertently WP:BLUDGEON, so unless you're interested in continuing I'm happy to leave things here. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Revert the page to this revision immediately before the article was stuffed with massive quantities of material of questionable relevance (some of which is certainly irrelevant and inaccurate, such as the 2013 flag) cut and pasted from other articles in what looks like a botched split of those articles. The article can then be properly expanded with more relevant material. Put the text that was added to County Palatine of Durham back in the articles that it came from, without prejudice to spliting that text to an article other than County Palatine of Durham. James500 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Done. I reverted the botched split and restored the material that originally came from this article. I copied the text from the page history of this article. I could not copy from the county palatine article because there was no URL, hyperlink or list of authors in the original split (see WP:CWW). I did the same at North East England. James500 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

    James, I appreciate you being bold and making improvements to the articles we're discussing, but it's polite to let the merger discussion run its course before removing the tags. Four days isn't typically long enough for that to happen, and it gives the impression you're acting unilaterally.

    I'm going to publicise this over at WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject England, to encourage a wider range of editors to give their input. If County Palatine of Durham is considered strong enough to stand on its own — and that may well be the outcome — then it won't be merged.

    As a side note, I can see that you've done a lot of work on 'County Palatine of Durham' and its related articles. It would help if you could explain your plan for them, because it seems you have a long-term vision and I'd like to understand it. It's certainly not my intention to come in and erase your hard work. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

    • For the avoidance of doubt only:

      The site guideline WP:TOOBIG says an article should probably be split if it is above 60kB. County Durham is still 81kB even after a split. A merger of County Palatine of Durham to History of County Durham will put that article above 60kB.

      The site guideline WP:GNG says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. County Palatine of Durham now includes a large number of entire books, entire book chapters, and entire periodical articles that contain such coverage of the county palatine (as a palatinate, and not merely as a place). I can produce more if you want.

      I was under the impression that there was WP:SNOW chance of merger unless we WP:IAR both of those guidelines. James500 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

      Using Prosesize, the readable prose size of County Durham is 34 kB (5498 words), County Palatine of Durham is 9092 B (1504 words), and History of County Durham is 21 kB (3423 words). The rules of thumb at WP:TOOBIG only suggest splitting on grounds of length above 50 kB / 8000 words, but even then it needs to be justified.

      You're welcome to argue that the County Palatine is notable enough for its own article. My preference would still be to treat it as part of the history of County Durham as a whole, but we really need third-party editors to help the discussion at this point.

      Using WP:SNOW to close the discussion wasn't the best idea, particularly as an involved editor with an interest in keeping 'County Palatine of Durham' as a standalone article. SNOW is for processes which have foregone conclusions, and you can see from the range of responses that that isn't the case here. Trust the process, even I think there's a reasonable chance the article will be kept.

      I'd like to ask again what your vision is for the various County Palatine articles, because it would help me understand your point of view. It might even persuade me that the article should be kept, who knows? A.D.Hope (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

      For the avoidance of doubt only: The county palatine satisfies WP:GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. GNG says that one book-length source is always significant coverage. In this case we already have, in the article, several book-length sources and the equivalent of several more. None of the arguments for merger above dispute that the county palatine satisfies GNG, as far as I can see.

      WP:CONSENSUS "is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (my emphasis). None of the arguments for merger above are based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, as far as I can see. (The geography WikiProject page is classified as an essay by WP:CONLEVEL). James500 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

      WP:GNG says that notability 'is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.' In this case both the County Palatine and the History of County Durham are notable, but as the topics are so closely related we can choose to merge them or treat them separately.

      Given WP:GNG doesn't resolve whether a merger is appropriate or not, could you please share your vision for the set of County Palatine artices? At the moment I view the Palatine as simply an aspect of the county's history, but you clearly think it's more than that. Why does it deserve to be a standalone article? A.D.Hope (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

      For the avoidance of doubt only: The topics are not related. In particular, the county palatine is not related to the history of Durham before Cuthbert or (outside the last two courts) after 1836. It is not related to much of what happened in between. If, for example, a fire breaks out in a barn in Barnard Castle in 1729, that fire is not related to the Bishop's regalian rights, and they don't belong in the same article. A tiger is a cat, but that does not make them related topics. James500 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

      The topics are clearly related, I feel. At it stands the 'County Palatine of Durham' article is essentially the history of County Durham during the history of the palatine, which would be more logially covered by the 'History of County Durham' article. The latter article can incorporate events like the building of Durham Cathedral and the Battle of Neville's Cross in a continuous historic narrative, rather than excluding them because they happened to take place when the palatinate existed.

      If 'County Palatine of Durham' does stay then it should focus exclusively on the county palatine as an administrative entity, including its functions and devlopment. Articles such as Courts of the County Palatine of Durham can be merged into it, giving the main article a specific focus and a stronger case for existing. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

      For the avoidance of doubt only: The article "County Palatine of Durham" is about the palatine system of government of Durham, not the geographical area. (The sole purpose of having a county palatine is to have a palatine system of government). I do not know what you think the article includes which is not about the palatine system of government.

      The cathedral is correctly included because it is relevant to the Bishop's palatine government. For example, and amongst many other things, Lapsley says that the building of the cathedral is evidence that the palatinate was not unable to pay royal taxes. (And Liddy says that freedom from royal taxes was the most important freedom of the palatinate etc). In any event, it was a fortified military asset of the palatinate, and a major public building that does not belong to one of the Bishop's private subjects.

      The Battle of Neville's Cross was not added by me, but the Battle is relevant, for example, and amongst other reasons, as evidence of the palatinate's responsibility for defending the border, eg [4]. (Some historians say that the purpose of the palatine system of government was to defend the border). I have not had a chance to check the existing paragraph on the Battle, but it is only a tiny fraction of the article, that can always be changed.

      [You are going off topic now. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the specific sentences or specific paragraphs of any article other than County Durham.]

      In any event, the fact that the cathedral and battle are briefly mentioned in the palatine article does not preclude them from being discussed in the article "History of County Durham". I am not sure what you mean by a  "continuous historic narrative", but a chronology of events in the county would be useless for explaining the workings of the palatine system of government.

      The courts article satisfies GNG and should not be merged either. There are entire books about those courts. The "County Palatine of Durham" article should only include a summary of the other article, in the usual "summary style".

      I would like to leave this discussion now. James500 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

      When I opened this merge request the article was about the geographical area, the result of a series of edits in 2021. Since then you have since made over 250 edits, orignally to revert the article to its pre-2021 state, which have brought the article to its current form. We are no longer talking about the article which resulted in the opening of the merge request.

      The current version of the article is more focussed on the administration of the palatinate and doesn't overlap significantly with County Durham, which is good, but it has major issues including patchy sourcing, an apparent over-reliance on Lapsley, and excessive detail. I can accept that the current article is distinctive enough to satisfy GNG (unlike the article as it existed when I opened the move request), but these issues really do need to be fixed.

      I'm quite happy to work on improving the article, so you may well see me making edits in the future. As a final note, I'll repeat what I said above about not wanting to erase your hard work. I can see you've put a lot of work into these articles and I do respect that. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

      If you agree that the article should not be merged, then please close this merger discussion as "no merger". The content of the other article may be discussed on the talk page of that article. James500 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

      I can't close as I'm an involved editor and the outcome is disputed, but I've requested a close so it should happen soon. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Error due to official_name

The infobox currently shows "Density [convert: needs a number]" (with an ugly red error if previewing an edit of the article). That error occurs because recent edits changed official_name = County Durham to official_name = Durham in the infobox. {{Infobox English county}} does some tricky stuff to get population and area and density values from a table built in to {{English cerem counties}}. The population = 1,972,789 entry in the infobox is ignored. Is there a reason that official_name should be changed? If so, {{English cerem counties}} needs to be updated to accept "Durham". Unfortunately, that template has not been updated for some years. Does anyone know how to handle this? Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The official name of the county in legislation is 'Durham', but since it's commonly known as 'County Durham' I'd leave things as they were prior to the change. I've already swapped the infobox so that 'County Durham' is back in the 'official name' slot and 'Durham' is given as an alternative. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has gone through a couple of iterations lately (not least because of me), so I thought it would be useful to open up a discussion. To kick things off, is there consensus for keeping the current structure:

• Lead paragraph with type of county, borders, largest town and admin HQ
• Para on demography and administration
• Para on geography
• Para on history

Personally I don't think that the lead needs to get into the evolution of the county boundaries, which is often the temptation where a historic and ceremonial county share similar borders.

(Pinging @Chocolateediter, @DragonofBatley, @PamD, @Rupples) A.D.Hope (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope - great job rewriting the lead, big improvement. All looks good to me, with the caveat I don't know enough about early history of the county to determine exactly what are its significant historical events. Glad to see you retained mention of the Stockton railway and mining. Agree, evolution of county boundaries can be confusing and is better placed elsewhere. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it's always tricky writing a county lead but the above format seems to work in most cases. As far as I know Durham's early history is basically Roman occupation, Northumbria, St Cuthbert's wanderings, and then the Normans arriving and building the cathedral. There's a lot more besides, of course, but that's for the history article. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)