Talk:Durham, England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Naming convention discussion summarised and refactored to Talk:Durham (disambiguation)

Untitled comments

I'm reverting Mav's change to the disamb block for this page. It's no big deal and I am hardly going to start an edit war over this, but, for the record, here is what I said to another user in response to a question about this very issue:

... Because I felt it needed a specific disambiguation type thing BEFORE the article started. The most common confusion, and I swear this is true having spent yonks (perhaps even gurt yonks) going through Durham-related articles, is between the English city and county, and if there was a risk this would cause confusion I was hoping to catch readers before they had to get into the article text. [...]

In other words I suppose I am claiming that dismabiguating the two English Durhams is a special case somewhat separate from the issue of all the other Durhams in NC and Queensland etc, and was trying to make provision for dealing with that in a helpful way.

Now, as I say, this isn't something over which I am going to lose sleep, but I thought this explanation in Talk might help to make it clear why I thought this minor change is worthwhile, even if at first sight it appears to be overdoing it. Happy Christmas or other seasonal, religious, etc festivity of your choice! Nevilley 12:13 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

It is suboptimal and redundant to have two links to Durham County so close to each other in the article (not to mention that Durham County is also linked form Durham (disambiguation)). If the term you are disambiguating from is very closely related to the term you have chosen an article to be on, then the most logical thing to do is use the first paragraph in the article itself to do the disambiguation. That is the format used in virus and for the French Departments which are named for rivers (see Loiret). The whole point of having disambiguation blocks that link to (disambiguation) pages is to keep it all on one unobtrusive line (lowest common denominator is a screen resolution of 800 pixels wide and standard font sizes). The current disambiguation block wraps to a second line. This isn't good. --mav

Life is too short for this argument, so I have removed it. Nevilley 00:28 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

btw you mean County Durham, not Durham County. In telling you this I have just saved your life from being flailed to death with a black pudding if you ever come over here! :) Nevilley 01:10 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Opps! Mea culpa. :) --mav

Pronunciation

I note recent edits to the pronunciation debating local vs RP pronunciation. I'm not very good with the IPA but as far as I can see it seems to be claiming the local pronunciation is "duh-rum" and the RP pronunciation is "derr-um". To be honest I would contest this. I believe it is 'correctly' and all-but-exclusively pronounced "duh". The only time I have ever actually heard it pronounced with an open "derr" is by American tourists saying "Derr-Ham", who are simply incorrect, a la "Edinberg". Whilst I can conceivably imagine an extremely posh English person saying "Derr-um", I would suggest this would be outright acrolect, not RP. (For example, and FWIW, my own accent is RP, and I said "duh-rum" long before I moved here). A small and ultimately trivial point though :) Stevekeiretsu 16:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is saying it's pronounced derr-um. Of course it's always difficult to discuss pronunciations without symbols (i.e. using the pro-nun-see-ay-shuns method), but I'll have a go. As I understand it, the ʌ is the sound in "run" or "bud" or "enough" or "cup", as pronounced by most people in the southern half of England, and not extremely posh ones. I would tend to represent this sound as "uh" if trying to spell it out, with the caveat that it's definitely a short vowel. Many more northerly pronunciations tend to merge the vowels in words like "good" and "cup", which are definitely distinct when I say them, and the ʊ in the local pronunciation bit is something like the vowel in "good" as spoken by the same southerners I used in the example above. I'm fairly sure the vowel I hear in many local pronunciations of Durham is somewhat more close than my southern version (and my accent couldn't really be described as acrolect or posh), which would tend to support this, but then I could be getting my terminology all confused. I think perhaps we need an expert to cast their eye over it and see what they think. We all know how these things are pronounced, it's just representing it in IPA that can pose a problem. Would you say your pronunciation of Durham uses the exact same vowel as the local pronunciation? Have a listen to this (ʊ) and this (ʌ). These are the vowels the article is currently claiming, local and RP respectively (but shorter than those sound samples). — Trilobite (Talk) 17:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No, my pronunciation isn't identical to a local pronunciation. I'd agree there is a difference, just by (total newcomer) reading of the charts in the linked IPA article, it seemed like the difference wasn't quite captured quite right. Judging by what you're saying above, I was just misreading the IPA charts, which isn't at all surprising! I would agree a Southerners pronunciation would equate to "cup" and local one more in the direction of a southern "good", so it looks like the error is mine :) Stevekeiretsu

I've lived in Durham City all my life, and I hate to drag up old arguments, but I think the "local" pronunciation is somewhat adrift from that at the top of the article. I firstly think the "r" is an Alveolar approximant (ɺ) which is common throughout County Durham, not quite an RP "r", but obvious in words like "terror". Secondly, the vowel sound is very much different from the one currently used in the article. My personal opinion is that it is almost always realised as open-mid central unrounded vowel (ɜ).

Haha, I like the distinction between "local" and "RP" pronounciation. Durham City itself (the city and not the district council area) has a very high proportion of residents with RP accents (the majority even?). Thus, I think the "local"/"RP" is a non-starter. Personally, I can't see much difference in pronounciation between the "local" (like myself) and the "RP" version. Logica 02:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to mention that the symbol (ɺ) used right now is with an alveolar lateral flap... not quite the "r" (which is closer to an alveolar approximant, represented with ɹ) that most English speakers are used to hearing. That sound is more like the r/l of Japanese. So, unless the local pronunciation sounds a bit like "dull-um" then I think that the symbol ought to change. I am, however, in no way any kind of knowledgeable person on the actual pronuncation; I only know a bit about IPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.135.206 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain how the second phonetic symbol in this: /dʏrəm/ is meant to be pronounced - the one that looks like a Y - I can't find it on any IPA charts. It seems to me that the pronunciation listed as "RP" is the same as the actual "local" pronunciation. Further to which, I have heard the word "Durham" spoken by people with both "local" and southern/"RP" accents, and there isn't really any difference. I would like to suggest removing the Local/RP pronunciation difference from the top of the article and just putting /dʌræm/ since this is how everybody seems to pronounce the word. However if someone can explain how /dʏrəm/ is pronouned I might change my mind on this. --Tangent747 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:IPA - ʏ is the near-close near-front rounded vowel pronounced as in "book". Possibly ʊ̜ would be similar. DWaterson (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, after a long time staring at IPA charts and saying "put" and "Duhram" to myself I think that /'dʊrəm/ might be a more accurate rendition of the pronunciation. But since people even within one region, and within "RP" (though RP speakers would claim otherwise) pronounce things slightly differently, it is really impossible to say what is correct for such a subtle difference as that between /'dʏrəm/ and /'dʌrəm/ and /'dʊrəm/.--Tangent747 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Living locally for many years, but with no linguistic training.) Looking at IPA chart for English dialects I would suggest 'lexical set' "strut" as the general pronunciation of the first vowel sound. (So "run them to Durham" would rhyme at least its first vowel.) But the local accent can veer towards lexical set "foot". (So "put them in Durham" would rhyme, although the "put" must be imagined with a distinct generally Northern accent, not as an aristocrat's golfing "putter" ("patter"!). Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent changes are accurate. People from Wearside and eastern County Durham pronounce Durham with the same first syllable as in the word "Derry" (to rhyme with "berry"). This is a bit of a quirk. People from Tyneside and Yorkshire would indeed pronounce it as /dʊrəm/. But for locals to Durham the first syllable is like a short version of the one in RP "heard", "were", "bird", "further". Other words that get the same treatment from Wearsiders/eastern County Durham folk are "bury" (as in dig a hole -- pronounced identically to "berry"), borough, curd, curry, current, hurry, Surrey, slurry, thorough, worry, and so on. I would say this is one of the most distinctive aspects of Wearside/east Durham county pronunciation that sets it apart from Tyneside pronunciation. It only occurs when preceding an r. "Cut"/"put"/"duck" etc. of course are all with /ʊ/. Urantian in UK (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this pronunciation really quirky? For example "hurt", "blur", "fur" are all spelled with 'u' yet make the 'ɜ' sound. 'ur' in all positions, rhotic or not should be pronouced as 'ɜ'. 2.220.196.159 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

People from Durham

What are people from Durham called? (ie Manchester = Mancunians) This should be added to the article.

I don't believe there is an accepted word for people from Durham. You could try Dunelmensians, but it's a bit silly. --Gareth Hughes 18:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I have lived here for 22 years, there is no specific term for people from Durham in common usage. The only term applied widely i believe is mackem, which generally means someone from Sunderland but I have found people from Durham are often called such by people from Newcastle and elsewhere (perhaps because of its siting on the river wear). When visiting another part of the country I tend to be called a geordie or mackem. Gazzapedia

Names for people from Durham do seem to vary, as it's not a word that lends itself easily to an adjective or noun form. However, the most usual and formal word is "Dunelmian", for example in that alumni of Durham School are known as Old Dunelmians. I have also heard "Durhamite" used informally in a modern context. However, I have never heard "Mackem" for a resident of Durham; that's strictly Sunderland only. DWaterson 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The students tend to call the residents of Durham "Durhamites" as mentioned above. Obviously, quite a colloquialism, but one I am rather fond of I must say! It should be noted that this is not used in a derogatory way, quite the opposite, and is also sometimes used by the students to describe themselves. Somnia alondra 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somnia alondra (talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Ex student here. Yes - students use Durhamite to refer to themselves. I'd say that anyone who lives in Durham can be a Durhamite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.195 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Urban layout

Looking at the map the urban layout is quite odd. Most towns bear at least some relation to a circle in terms of size, but Durham is really, I dunno, stringy and clumby - is this because the Wear flood plain? This needs sourcing and putting in. Morwen - Talk 07:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the Wear flood plain as such, it's the shape of the steeply-sided valley the river Wear has cut over time. The city is based around a wide bow in the river, which forms a peninsula. The peninsula itself, on which the Cathedral and Castle stand, is on much higher land than the river, and is joined to the rest of the city only to the north (by the Market Place), or by bridge. Other than that, there is no flood plain really; indeed, in addition to the peninsula, Durham is a very hilly city: as List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills attests, Durham is surrounded by hills which also restrict the street layout. Aside from the mediaval street pattern in the centre of the city, the more modern outlying estates have more typical street arrangements. I think the article already describes this fairly well though; much more expansion might make it overly wordy. DWaterson 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bailey/Peninsula

Anyone who has an interest in contributing to Durham related articles may like to look at the discussion going on at Talk:The Bailey Robdurbar 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

I see there is now The Peninsula, Durham, which is described as the historic city center. For what it's worth, I have seen many references in articles to this city center, that are not linked to this article. A small project for someone there. --Una Smith (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Famous Residents

Now I may be unobservant or just not know my history well but I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth ever having been a resident of Durham, yet he's got an entry in Durham's list of Famous Residents. An error, methinks? Snowflake Sans Crainte 19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why are Paul Collingwood and Steve Harmison listed as Famous Residents? As far as I can see Collingwood's from a different place within County Durham, while Harmison's from Northumberland. Under that assumption could we put Shakespeare as a famous resident of Warwick? KingStrato 11:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Collingwood grew up in Shotley Bridge, some 13 miles away and now lives in nearby Medomsley. He has never lived in the City of Durham --Michaeltyne 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's Christopher Metcalfe? Suggest removal for NN. Letstalk 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have done. There was no assertion of notability and google doesn't shed any light on the matter. DWaterson 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Durham Prison

The prison. It's not exactly a minor thing in Durham, though goodness knows most of us residents don't exactly think about it very often. It seems a shame that it's not only not mentioned on this page, but - unlike many HMPs - it doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. Having said which I'm loath to mention it because I don't actually know anything about it except where it is. So this is by way of a prod to people who might have more clue but might not have thought to mention it ... --JennyRad 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I don't much about it myself either though --Robdurbar 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does: Durham (HM Prison). I shall insert a relevant passage. DWaterson 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Have added a section about the prison and the history of judicial execution, which Durham was famous for in the C18th and C19th. --217.44.200.236 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Durham Tees Valley Airport

"Durham has an airport, in name, the Durham Tees Valley Airport"

I didn't think this referred to the City, but to the County. I can't find any evidence that would distinguish whether it is referring to the County or the City - though obviously many people feel it refers to the City. Their website doesn't say anything about this either. If there is no evidence that it refers to Durham City, I think it is a bit much to put this in this article. Logica 02:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Newcastle Airport and Durham Tees Valley Airport lie approximately the same distance away from Durham - i.e. about 25 miles (actually 24 for DTV but I'm not sure of the exact figure for Newcastle). I'll add this instead of what was originally there. Logica 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to include the appropriate info on the closest air links in the transport section; it never really occured to me when I wrote that sentence that DTV is named for the county nor that Newcastle is equally close! Good work Stevekeiretsu 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Page name

I've just reverted an attempt to move this page to Durham, UK:

• 01:22, 1 April 2007 Feedyourkoalanow (moved Durham to Durham, UK: Disambiguation: There is a city named Durham with a much larger population.)

This seems a rather extensive change to make without any discussion, especially since having the page here seems to have been stable since the Beginning Of Time (well, 2002). Any thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've moved the images about and cut a few out; there were too many, making the page cluttered. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambig page

Why doesn't "Durham" go automatically to a disamb page? I was looking on the page in the talk section but there wasn't a clear answer. I couldn't really follow the discussion either. I think there should be a disambig page since there are so many Durhams. Durham North Carolina should appear at the top as the most populous Durham. Durham NC was what I was looking for when I typed in Durham (incidientally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Durham should disambiguate. Durham, NC, USA has 5 times the population of the town in the UK, so directing to the british town automatically is far less than optimal Brianski (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Durham (in County Durham) dates back roughly to 2000 BC, has fantastic historical features such as a castle and a cathedral and gave its name to many of the other Durhams around the world. While Durham North Carolina has a larger population, it only dates back to the mid-19th century. A mere 'new-comer' compared to Durham (County Durham). Therefore, Durham (County Durham) has earned its place at the top.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. This isn't about right to the name, it's about practicality and usefulness for the readers. The only two comments I would make against this are: isn't Durham, North Carolina is often rendered as such, rather than just 'Durham' - so this would lend itself to a disambiguated title; the other point is that as Durham, UK has been at this article for so long, all links coming in are those refering specifically to this Durham. If we altered the set up, then there'd be a lot of links going to a disambiguation page, which is discouaged in Wikipedia's style guide. I'm fairly neutral on this proposal - actually as I type and think further about it, I come out more against it. I'd have a disambig page if I were starting the encyclopedia anew but we're not and this article has been here for 4/5 years without causing too many problems. But if we're discussing this lets make sure we focus on practicality and usability, not on who has the 'right' to the name. Pretty Green (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes people even say "Raleigh-Durham" for Durham, North Carolina... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.197.50 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says "Raleigh-Durham" when they mean Durham specifically. They might say "Raleigh-Durham" if they mean a larger area, but people actually from that region will always say "The Triangle" instead. Regardless, I think the word "Durham" to most English speakers is most associated with the city in North Carolina. The longer history of the English city notwithstanding, the fact is Durham, NC is five times as populous with about a quarter of a million residents. Simply being its namesake is not a good argument in itself: Should "Baltimore" redirect to Baltimore, County Cork rather than the city of 2 million in Maryland?

Personally, I think "Durham" should point directly to the North Carolinian city, but there are also reasonable arguments for the English city. Still, there are so many different Durhams, in addition to these two, I find it highly unlikely that most people looking for Durham and directed to this page are actually looking for this particular Durham. I suggest directing "Durham" to the disambiguation page. Strikehold (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Myosotis Scorpioides is quite correct. This is the original Durham and the one from which all the others have derived their name. The Baltimore comparison doesn't hold water as the Baltimore in Ireland isn't at all well known even in the UK. Added to this point is the fact that Durham is a World Heritage Site and home of the finest piece of Norman church architecture in the world. Ericoides (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Durham, in the state of North Carolina, in the United States of America, on the North American Continent was actually named for a physician, not the town in County Durham. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Syracuse is a disambiguation page instead of the original Syracuse. I think this should be revisited because Durham in England may be the original Durham, however not the most well-known or most referred-to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.101.242 (talk • contribs)

How do you work out it's the most well known? I did a search on bing.com (I'd have done it on Google.com but for some reason it always redirected me to Google.co.uk, which prejudiced the results to the UK Durham). On bing (a US site), for Durham UK I got 8,900,000 results.[1] For Durham USA I got 7,390,000 results.[2] I suspect if you asked people in Germany, France, Scandinavia, Iran, Australia etc they would have heard of Durham UK before the USA one (it's just been there much, much longer (3000 years), and is world renowned for its architecture; there is simply no reason why people in Europe would have heard of Durham, NC, unless they were historians of tobacco or had some sort of link to Duke). "World renowned" means precisely what it says on the tin. Durham, NC is 156 years old and doesn't seem to be famous for anything in particular, except the two specialist things I mentioned (and even then...). Ericoides (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(To Ericoides) That's because no one uses the term "Durham USA", and Americans don't really use the term "USA" much at all. For "Durham"-and-"NC", there are 14.8 million Google hits, while for "Durham"-and-"UK" search yields 7.96 million. Also, it doesn't matter what city is more historic or the namesake for which. What matters is that the link points to the most appropriate page for our readers. This isn't a discussion about which city is "better", and your derisive comments, although I'm sure they were tongue-in-cheek, were not really appropriate (he redacted the comment). This is an English-language encyclopedia, so what the majority of English speakers are looking for is supremely relevant (I'm not discounting continental Europeans or any others, and the English language web search favors Durham, NC).

As an aside, I also don't find the opinion of people in the UK really relevant to the status of a town in Ireland (original Baltimore). Syracuse, cited by the IP above, is a better example than I provided. There's no doubt that most people in North America would be looking for the New York city or university rather than the Sicilian city in that case. I see no evidence that shows that most people searching for simply "Durham" are actually looking for the English city. Strikehold (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Strikehold. I see that I entered the wrong search terms. You may well be right. Apologies for my tongue-in-cheek and wholly inappropriate comments. Ericoides (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[The following comments are taken from Talk:Durham, North Carolina as the relevant discussion took place there]

I agree. You've got to ask the allied question, what was I thinking when I entered the terms "Durham" and "UK"? No one would ever use the term "Durham UK". They just say "Durham". I'm starting to think that if people do actually say "Durham, NC", then it might be a piece of kindness to let them have an article entitled "Durham, NC"; it might avoid all the sorts of confusion to which you rightly have brought my attention. "Durham" might be reserved for the place that is actually called "Durham". Incidentally, whilst we are on the topic of towns and counties, my search for Lincoln and Lincolnshire returned 678,000 entries; imagine my surprise when I got 7,540,000 for Lincoln and UK! An ad hoc and wholly provisional guess is that counties don't mean as much here in Blighty as states do for you in the U.S., which on the one hand might explain why you are so touchingly attached to the "Durham, NC" thing, and on the other, why you founded the country in the first place all those years ago. Warm regards, Ericoides (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I thought the same thing the other day, and am now ambivalent on the matter. It occurred to me that someone looking for the American city might easily search for either "Durham" or "Durham, NC" or "Durham, North Carolina" as their first guess, but someone looking for the English city probably wouldn't think of searching for anything other than simply "Durham". For that reason, I don't think it's probably worth it to make people follow an extra link to get where they are going. Strikehold (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really up to speed on the protocols, precedents and rules for disambiguating, doubtless an enormous subject but one into which I don't really care to dip my feet. In this particular instance, with two such compelling and worthy claimants to the Durham page, it might be worth saying, 1. Durham UK got there first on Wiki and 2. ruling that a town with only one name (Durham; no one says Durham, County Durham) should have precedence over a town with an at-least-sometimes-used-and-not-completely ridiculous secondary name, Durham, NC. At the top of the Durham page we might help the casual reader with something along these lines:

For the U.S. city, see Durham, North Carolina

For all other uses, see Durham (disambiguation)

This way, people searching for Durham, NC, and alighting on the Durham UK page would only be one simple (as opposed to previously, one simple and one less-than-simple) click away from the page for which they are searching. A happy compromise? Ericoides (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) That's certainly fair, and probably the most satisfactory course. Like I said, I now realize it probably isn't best practice to make readers looking for the English Durham go to the North Carolinian Durham first. And having a hatnote at Durham going directly to Durham, North Carolina would save a step for readers looking for the American city. Strikehold (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I've added that to the Durham page. I like the way how in this city standoff, Durham, NC, has gained its own not-inconsiderable revenge by being the first thing that is mentioned on the Durham UK page. But they are twin towns, and twins can be like this. Ericoides (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the best solution. See Cambridge, where there is presumably more interest in both cities and it seems to have worked well there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve-This is what happens when you live in a country that's about the size of Michigan for most of your life and don't get outside your country (Durham, USA, LMAO!). Anyway, the points of making this a disambiguation page are the following.

1. Durham is a very common name for many common things, including the larger (Nearly 300 thousand person) city in North Carolina, the breed of wheat, and a breed of ox.

2: I'll meet your Caimbridge, UK and Caimbridge, MA and bring you Boston, Mass and Boston, UK. I'll also meet your Raleigh (Sir Walter) with the city (Nearly 400 thousand). For Raleigh, there's a disambiguation. Methinks Somebody's a bit Anglocentric. And to give point for the page to redirect to the North Carolina city, I give you Memphis, TN and Memphis, Egypt.

3:, when you search for Durham on Google, you get the larger, North Carolina city vs the tiny city in the UK

4:Most native English speakers are North American (Sorry, Asian Indian English is a patois, not a true dialect of the English language) and Durham to them is Durham, UK.

If I seem rude, well, if you have a limited world view and you're basing it in a country the size of Michigan, you deserve to be mocked. At least when us Americans do it, (And I use the term "American" and not "US People" because Jefferson coined the denononym for people in the USA before anybody claimed the term) we're doing it based on the fact that we're the 4th largest country in the world by landmass, third by population, and first by economy. We also span 6 time zones and two hemispheres. You're doing it in a country that's barely the size of my state. You may thank me for my blunt insight sooner than later. Oh, and Disambig for this page, leaning to Durham, NC moving to Durham per Memphis.

06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdRedRain (talk • contribs)

WP:NPA please. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Methinks [[Chris Neville-Smith has a bit of a superiority complex. Grow up. Xtremerandomness (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

City status

City status in the United Kingdom was reformed in 1974 by way of the Local Government Act 1972. Durham (proper) is not a city, but the wider City of Durham is. The clue is in the name of the district (of course). This is the same as Rochdale no longer being a borough, but itstead the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale holding borough status. I realise this causes confusion, and I'm not insenstitve to people feeling downgraded, but it is the reality of the situation.

The source given here is a red herring - the seal is dated 1 April 1974. That's the date the LGA72 came into effect and created the new arrangement - so it actually backs up what I'm saying. All districts had to apply for honorific borough and city status and these always apply to statutory district boundaries. That people refer to Durham as a city does not give it official city status in just the same way people call London a city, when infact it is the City of London that holds this distinction.

This all said, I understand the City of Durham is to be abolished this year. It may be worthwhile investigating if city status will be bestowed back to Durham (proper) by way of civil parishing or charter trustees??? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I had wondered about this recently. I was at a recent event in which the current Mayor of Durham was described as the last mayor of the city 'as we know it', suggesting that some sort of transference of city status is being planned, but I've no idea exactly what that entails. The Wikipedia of article of the City of Durham states that the city status will remain, but this is not referenced and I've no idea in whom/what it will be invested. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this document (PDF) seems to suggest that Durham 'proper' will gain the city status through charter trustees. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for disucssing this on the talk page rather than going for an edit war. However, your analogy of Rochdale isn't a good one. Settlements are sometimes called cities, towns or villages, but they are never called boroughs, so it's silly to suggest that the town of Rochdale ever started or stopped being a borough. I have to say all this does rather sound like your own personal interpretation of what counts as a city rather than what the widely accepted definition is. If you have reliable secondary sources that confirm what you are saying, by all means present them, but, as it stands, your argument, however valid, is original research.

I don't have much time to deal with this at the moment, but I'll have a better look for sources later. Feel free to find secondary sources in the meantime. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, the local government status of Durham City is a minor issue when it comes to deciding how to describe the settlement. Durham has a cathedral. When you drive into the city you a met by a sign proclaiming "Welcome to the City of Durham" or words to that effect. The sign does not say "Welcome to the settlement at the heart of the City of Durham local government district". Repeatedly in this article Durham is referred to as a city. If it looks like a city and quacks like a city then it is a city (see Duck test and WP:DUCK). I acknowledge that somewhere deep in the silliness that is local government administration in Britain today it is possible that the City of Durham does not qualify as such - from the local government point-of-view, that is. However, we need to take other views into consideration, and I suggest that the local government view is secondary to the views expressed elsewhere that Durham was, is and will always be, a city. By all means include a sentence or two in the Governance section describing the technicalities of Durham's local government status which, incidentally few people will be interested in, but let us not commence this article will dismal, poorly structured, and downright stupid statements of the type that we've had for the last few months. The current lead sentence is so abysmal that I'm going to revert it to the position as of yesterday, which was the consensus until User:Jza84 changed it (without discussion) here in December last year. Blacklans (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I find Jza84's argument rather unconvincing, being fairly familiar with the provisions of the 1972 Act. It seems to me a false distinction to argue that a settlement (in this case Durham) is not entitled to be called a city because the status-holder is the City of Durham local government district. I've made a similar point here, but I consider it is still proper that the settlement has the benefit of the status held by the district within which it stands. Personally I find the whole concept of conferring a charter on "a place" pretty dubious altogether, but if we were to follow Jza84's argument through and agree that all charters currently held by bodies corporate (including London boroughs, metropolitan or non-metropolitan districts, civil parishes, and charter trustees) rather than "the settlement" (whatever that nebulous concept may actually mean), then (per List of cities in the United Kingdom) the only cities in the country are Brighton and Hove, Preston, Wolverhampton, Inverness, Stirling, Newport, and Newry. I cannot agree with this conclusion, and therefore if we apply the usual definition, which is accepted by the article City status in the United Kingdom, that a local government district can be the city status-holder for a settlement, then Durham must be a city itself. DWaterson (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Durham proper does not have city status. It was abolished. Harsh but true. What is happening here is like saying Rochdale is a borough within a metropolitan borough - a falsification. I'm going to remove the claim again - the reference is a red herring. --Jza84 |  Talk  04:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. here's a quote explaining things. That places like Manchester and City of Salford are not cities is not real world practice:

Why, as Mancehster had already been incorporated as a borough in 1838 and had received the title of City in 1853, did this [charter of incorporation] ceremony take place? By the Local Government Act of 1972, which effected nationally an almost complete reorganisation of the structure of local government, Manchester was due to lose not only its title of City but also its status as a borough. As however, the Act was not due to become fully operative until 1 April 1974, on which day the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County became a reality, the opportunity was given under a special section of the Act for the Manchester City Council to petition the Queen, as indeed other Councils similarly place were entitled to do.

— Frangopulo, (1977), Tradition in Action pp. 134-135

A "City" in the UK is a title conferred upon districts, not a metropolis or metropolitan area. I do understand why people feel aggrieved at this, but it is the reality of the situation, as verified above twice over now. --Jza84 |  Talk  05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more examples for verification (didn't take long!) - see [3], [4], and [5]. WP:V trumps bad practice here. --Jza84 |  Talk  05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Had a look at them, and I don't agree that they back up your claim. All it shows is that a city called X would lose its status if the local authority city of X ceased to be called that. Sorry, but this is still you own interpretation of references that, so far, no one else has agreed with.

I'm reverting this for now, because I don't believe that is a verified claim, and this is certainly an edit against consensus. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just per the reference to the 1974 Letters Patent. The term "confirmed" was, I believe, something I introduced into the footnotes for List of cities in the United Kingdom. I was trying to use a sort of shorthand to avoid the article getting bogged down in the intricacies of local government reorganisation and/or exercise of the royal prerogative. Sloppy work on my part that may have muddied the waters!

Had a look at Beckett's account of the negotiations re city status and the 1974 reorganisation. The Home Office identified 43 boroughs and 1 urban district (Ely) outside Greater London that enjoyed city status. Of these they felt 28 districts were so close to the existing city that a transfer of the status was straightforward, and 4 were likely to form parish councils to which the status could be granted. The terms used are "re-granted" and "re-conferred". This left 8 cases "where the successor authority was not expected to be a parish council, and the place itself would constitute only a proportion of the whole district": namely Canterbury, Durham, Lancaster, Lichfield, Rochester, St Albans, Salisbury and Winchester. These were problematic, and were part of the reason for the introduction of charter trustees. In the end the shadow councils of six of these petitioned for borough charters followed by letters patent.

Lozleader (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about?

Spelling error - "there home", instead of "their home", relating to sports grounds on the page.

Is this a reasonable compromise:

Durham (/ˈdʌrəm/ in RP, locally IPA: [ˈdʏrəm]) is a city in North East England. A city by ancient presciptive right by virtue of the presence of Durham Cathedral, the status was extended to the wider City of Durham local government district, of which it is the centre, in 1974. It is the county town of County Durham.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozleader (talk • contribs)

Sounds pretty good to me. (ps I added an 'unsigned comment' to indicate who proposed this) --Pretty Green (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is excellent - it covers every angle. I strongly suggest this format, or something very similar, should also be used at Lancaster, Bradford, Leeds and Carlisle, and anywhere else as required. Blacklans (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a long-winded way of addressing the issue (especially in the lead paragraph), but if it's necessary to avert an edit war I'll go with it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is generally good, if a bit long-winded. I wonder if it might be less messy (for the lead paragraph) to call a spade a spade (or rather a city a city...), but then add a footnote (rather than just a reference) clarifying the exact legal sense of the term rather than having it written out longhand at the beginning? DWaterson (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like:

Durham (/ˈdʌrəm/ in RP, locally IPA: [ˈdʏrəm]) is a small city^[1] in North East England. It is the main settlement of the City of Durham local government district and is the county town of County Durham.

1. Durham is a city by ancient presciptive right by virtue of the presence of Durham Cathedral. The status was extended to the wider City of Durham local government district, of which it is the centre, in 1974. DWaterson (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No more comments received, so how about I make the change, here and elsewhere? Blacklans (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be OK, except that from 1 April the local government district will no longer exist! The city status will cover the same area however as a "charter trustees area" (see section below). Which makes the footnote even more complicated...Lozleader (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Charter trustees

Confiramation that charter trustees for the City of durham will be formed on 1 April in a council press release today.[6] Lozleader (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So is that the local government district or some parished/unparished area of Durham? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the trustees will consist of the councillors elected for the unparished area. Per the legislation, charter trustees cease to exist/have jurisdiction in an area which is parished. All will become clear whenever they get round to publishing the Charter Trustees Regulations 2009. They need to get on with it, only three and a bit weeks to go.... Lozleader (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I may be wrong... These seem to be a report dated 5 February.. [7] apparently the charter trustees will be the 22 councillors elected for the 11 electoral divisions comprising the current City of Durham (the non-metropolitan district, that is). That said it doesn't say whether the trustees' area will consist of the entire district or just the unparished bit. Looking at the 1996 regulations that established charter trustees [8] thay say things like:

On the establishment date, there shall be established...

• for the area comprising so much of the Minister and St Mary's wards of the new district of the East Riding of Yorkshire as is unparished a body corporate to be known as "the Charter Trustees of the Town of Beverley";
• for the area comprising so much of the existing borough of Cleethorpes as is unparished, a body corporate to be known as "the Charter Trustees of the Town of Cleethorpes";

I've e-mailed DCLG to see if they have a copy of the draft CT regulations 2009. Unitil then it's all guess work!Lozleader (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current City of Durham district will remain the designated area of the City. The only practical implication is that from April 2009, the Mayor of Durham will be elected from the Councillors in the former district of the City of Durham area.

I think you're right: the advice issued to the various councils seems to be that they can create "charter trustees as a representative body for the whole former district area or for a relevant part of it" by order.[9]. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 seems to have given the Secretary of State the power to constitute charter trustees for a dissolved borough or city area, whether they are parished or not. I hadn't realised, we will have to alter Charter Trustees accordingly. Lozleader (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Charter Trustees Area

Well the Charter Trustees Regulations 2009 were finally published on 10 March, but didn't actually list the charter trustees or their areas! This instead is listed in the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009 which is available (in draft form) here: [10]

• The Charter Trustees for the City of Durham:
  • The area comprising the County Durham electoral divisions of Belmont, Brandon, Coxhoe, Deerness Valley, Durham South, Elvet, Framwellgate Moor, Gilesgate, Neville’s Cross, Newton Hall and Sherburn

I have checked the order establishing the electoral divisions: [11] and the area is identical to the existing City of Durham local government district. So presumably this will be the legal definition of the City of Durham from 1 April. Lozleader (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Durham → Durham, County Durham — Clearly no primary use, if there is one, it is Durham, North Carolina. Dab per form in Category:People from County Durham. Note there is a pending merge proposal from City of Durham which may be another option for the article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If the move is approved, then Durham (disambiguation) should be moved to Durham unless there is support for Durham, North Carolina being the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a lot more to primary use than whichever settlement has the bigger population, and Durham (England)'s historical notability is vast. I do not support the merge proposal for City of Durham, because it is common practice to keep local authorities and the towns within them separate. The furthest I would go, begrudgingly, would be something like Newcastle. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So you could support moving this page to Durham, County Durham, albeit reluctantly, and moving the disambiguation page here? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If I was supporting it, I would have written "Support". I'm not keen at all on making Wikipedia more US-centric. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support — thinly disguise conflicts over the relative importance of geographic locations are WP:LAME and WP:POINTy, and therefore only serve the harm the goal of improving the content.
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Note: Durham (United Kingdom) may be a better disambiguator to use for now, since there seems to be a somewhat irrational reaction to using "Durham, County Durham"
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support moving to Durham, County Durham and moving the dab page to Durham. Durham, North Carolina gets about as many page hits as this article, even though it's at a disambiguated title and this one is not.^[12][13] I'd also like to point out that City of Durham would be a bad way to disambiguate, since Durham, North Carolina is a city as well. Jafeluv (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this move. Durham is never referred to as Durham, County Durham. If needing to disinguish between Durham and Co. Durham then people refer to Durham City. Postal addresses don't use Durham, Co. Durham (unlike, for instance, Consett, Co. Durham). It just doesn't happen. I can see no reason to change the naming that we've already got, this has been discussed at length in the disambiguation section above hasn't it?--Teach46 (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  You're not really addressing the underlying question here, unfortunately. This isn't about the "correct" name of one place or another, it's about how to best handle a name collision that is occuring surrounding use of the word "Durham". Essentially, by opposing this movereq, you're stating that "the Durham located in England is the Durham, so the Durham located in North Carolina or anywhere else are clearly secondary". Based on your statement, it doesn't seem that is really your intent, but that is the result which can be interpreted.
  — V = I * R (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  This implies that this move request is a reopening of the disambiguation discussion. In which case, please could we move it into that section?--Teach46 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  A possible compromise would be to move Durham to Durham City since this is a common terminology used in the north-east to distinguish the city and the county (and there's no reason why Durham, County Durham couldn't also be created as a redirect). Yes, Durham NC is a city too, but, as far as I know, there is no need to commonly refer that Durham that was. (Full disclosure: Durham, is, of course, the best Durham in the world.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  As Pretty Green explains below, City of Durham is a separate entity from the Durham that currently is the topic of Durham. Just FYI, on both articles' talk pages are discussions about merging the two, and reasons not to merge them. --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support with Durham (disambiguation) moved to Durham. It just seems to make more sense, it shouldn't be a question of UK v USA. City of Durham is inappropriate for this article as it was an administrative division. Pretty Green (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support with Durham (disambiguation) moved to Durham. I don't see this as favouring one Durham over another, merely being even-handed. I do agree with Teach46 that one never hears or uses 'Durham, Co. Durham' in the UK but then the average wikipedia reader is probably somewhere in China (Asia). Occuli (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  No one has to use the page name as linking text, so readers may see Durham regardless of the page name. The disambiguated page name benefits editors, helping them to make correct links from the start. Also, there are scripts and editing tools that tell the editor right away when a link has been made to a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the dismabiguation debate, above there seem to be very commonplace names for the US Durham, along the lines of Durham NC or Durham, North Carolina, whereas Durham, County Durham is a clumsy invention coined to solve a non-problem. I see no evidence that anything is broken and question why we are trying to fix it - and also why we are trying to fix it in a debate separated from the disambiguation debate, above. Finally, from a historical perspective, there is clearly a primary Durham; I'm frankly appalled that we think this place is only owed the same sort of naming status that we give Durham, Missouri. Truly, the barbarians are at the gate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly what facts do you have the the US Durham is not commonly called 'Durham'? As I stated in the nomination, there is no primary use established for any of these, so this article needs to be moved. Age of a settlement is not in and of itself a criteria for primary use. The disambiguation guideline says if there is a discussion then the dab page should probably be at the main name space. So since there is clearly no facts to support a primary use, why should this article remain here? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Durham is never referred to as Durham, County Durham - if anything it's Durham City, working on a similar principal to the Irish "county-city" naming style. The English Durham has huge historical importance as a city, and is, after all the originator of the term. How will a disambiguation do anything but create a nuissance? Bob talk 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It will only be a nuisance to those who get directed to the wrong article when they link. Also the disambiguation team does a very good job of fixing links to dab pages. A task that can not be done when there is an article where the dab page should be. I have no objection to using Durham City if that is a better choice. But again, you are opposed, but are not providing any support that this is the primary use. I could have proposed the US city as the primary use since I believe that case could be made. However I chose the neutral direct to say that there was no primary use. So I'll ask again, what is the case per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE that this is the primary use? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, Durham (disambiguation) moved to Durham, and Durham moved to Durham, County Durham. Good working examples of this style include Salford, Carlisle and Lancaster. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, though that on Carlisle, for example, it's an automatic reaction to go for "City of Carlisle", the government district, even though the reader probably wants to read about Carlisle, Cumbria rather than about the governmental district. It will be worse for Durham, which is both the name of the city (dating back to AD995!), county and government district, and never in its history called "Durham, County Durham" - a Google search reveals no usage of that phrase whatsoever. Bob talk 20:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

--That's a bit of a red herring of a counter-case: "County Durham" is a disambiguator, not an extension to its name! Salford is called Salford, but for clarity to the reader, and ease of navigation on our encyclopedia, we append the ceremonial county per WP:PLACE, resulting in Salford, Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I found "Durham, County Durham" in web page titles. Below are some of them. --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Businesses in Durham, County Durham - Local Business Directory ...[14]
• Durham, County Durham, England - Hutchinson encyclopedia article ...[15]
• All Chef jobs Durham, County Durham[16]
• ModelMayhem.com - Jade Turnbull - Model - Durham, County Durham ...[17]
• Durham, County Durham, England definition of Durham, County Durham ...[18]
• Durham Cathedral, Unesco World Heritage Site, Durham, County Durham...[19]

• Strong Oppose Firstly, I agree with the contention that the greatest notability isn't solely in terms of population. In some regards the other Durhams are secondary as they derive their name from the one in the UK. Secondly, none of the proposed alternatives free the article from ambiguity and at the same time create more problems with regards to how the city vs the county vs the local government district are referred to between locals and non-locals.

Certainly, I have NEVER heard anyone EVER refer to "Durham, County Durham". This is an invention of Wikipedia. Where the county is discussed it is invariably shortened to Co Durham by locals. Non-locals don't tend to know the convention that Durham (County) is the only county on the mainland UK where the official name contains the word "County" (this one even confuses Royal Mail who apparently have a habit of mistakingly routing post through Northern Ireland). City of Durham refers to the recently defunct local government area which is probably noteworthy of an article in its own right. It certainly covers a larger area than Durham itself. The articles for the Salford Borough and the place have recently been separated so merging the Durham articles seems strange. Although, Durham City may be used by locals to distinguish the county and the city, it too suffers from ambiguity with the defunct local government district and Durham, NC. I'm slightly confused by User:Ohms law saying the relative importance of articles gets in the way of editing and then going on to suggest that we create more unnecessary work by moving the article. Pressing the move button is the easy bit - the hard bit is the collateral damage the former causes. As for helping Asian readers, whose first language is no doubt not English, surely we should favour simplicity and common use to aid their reading. Durham, County Durham is a mouthful that no one outside this site uses. Probably the common case for Durham in the UK is "Durham". However, "Durham North Carolina" is a term that people tend to use, infact I would venture to say Durham, North Carolina and Durham, NC are probably the common case. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about people saying "Durham North Carolina", but again, your whole post here misses the mark on the need for this movereq and the problem that is being solved. Just because you or I may personally feel that the name of one locale or another is primary, that's no reason to force our views on Wikipedia, and by extension everyone who uses it. Also, there may have been some agreement not to do something before, but that wasn't this debate, and more importantly consensus can change.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is directly relevant. Consensus is required about two things if this article is to be moved. 1. A consensus to move Durham from this spot. 2. A consensus of where to move it. The alternative is that an article gets moved from pillar to post while debates rage on where to put it. Whether one, both, or neither is achieved is the process we are in now. However, in my opinion point 2 definitely hasn't been achieved. "Durham, County Durham" smacks of the first name thought up in order to get Durham off this spot at all costs. It doesn't garner any use in the real world never mind widespread use. It is marginally less worse than the appalling Durham, Durham or Durham, Durham, Durham (Pink Panther???) which have previously been suggested when someone in the US decided Durham, NC is more important. It also creates more problems than it solves and doesn't solve the problem of ambiguity. As far as I can tell, Durham, NC is also in Durham County. On the basis of that arguments put forward here, shouldn't Durham, County Durham and Durham, Durham County also lead to disambiguation pages?

However, Durham, England, Durham, Great Britain and Durham, UK also violate the guidelines on naming of UK geographic articles which would prefer Durham, County Durham where there is a name clash. The problem with these guidelines is that that they ignore the (probably) unique situation where the county name is the same as the settlement. That hasn't been a problem until now, as the probable one exception has been at Durham. However, in light of this there ought to be debate as to whether Durham should be an exception. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that they all derive from the place in England appears flawed. Reading the NC article, it appears that the place was named after Bartlett S. Durham and not another place. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support moving the dab page to the ambiguous base name, ie Durham (disambiguation) to Durham. In much of the English-speaking world, "Durham" does connote Durham, North Carolina, but there are many other places named Durham. It might satisfy some of the opposers, though, if the article now at Durham were moved to Durham, England. --Una Smith (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham (disambiguation) gets about 1000 page views per month.[20][21] That is a huge number, for a page with "(disambiguation)" in its page name. Yet the page has only 5 incoming links: Durham, Regional Municipality of Durham, New Durham, Durham, Ontario, and Durham Township. To me, so many page views, despite so few incoming links, tells me that the ambiguous incoming link, namely Durham, itself has many incoming links needing disambiguation. So I fully support this request to move the dab page to Durham. Then, the incoming links can be properly disambiguated per WP:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham has 822 incoming links from other articles. Going by the page names alone, quite a few do not intend to link to an article about Durham, England. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite regularly have to edit pages using Manchester to refer to Manchester, NH should we move Manchester as well on that basis? By the time we have finished moving all the name clashes around there might even be time for a spot of developing articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick scan found 9 articles. 6 NC, 1 Connecticut, 1 New Hampshire and 1 about cows. This is hardly a significant number of articles linking to the wrong place Pit-yacker (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Where's your evidence that "In much of the English-speaking world, "Durham" does connote Durham, North Carolina"? It's difficult to draw comparisons via page traffic because Durham will of course get most traffic, however County Durham gets ~10,000 views a month while Durham, North Carolina, gets ~15,000. Sure, the article on the American city gets more views, but not by enough to assert that it's a primary topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some evidence comes from Google web search results: 2,920,000 for Durham England vs 17,300,000 for Durham "North Carolina". However, I prefer more reliable sources, hence Google books search results: 19,100 on Durham England vs 172,600 on Durham "North Carolina". I do not assert Durham, North Carolina is the primary topic; rather, I find evidence that Durham, England is not the primary topic. In addition to these two cities, there are all those other Durhams. Put the dab page at the ambiguous base name, fix the incoming links, and there will be far fewer links to the wrong article. --Una Smith (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What should it be called then? Bob talk 21:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of current usage in Wikipedia, I favor either Durham, England or Durham, County Durham. However, there are several Wikipedia articles connected with this Durham and their talk pages illustrate how easily some of them are confused. So, looking at the dab page, I think a good choice would be Durham (county town)? That would clearly distinguish the article the county town from City of Durham and County Durham. When I disambiguated incoming links to Weymouth, I found very many of them were "close" to correct: Weymouth Beach instead of Weymouth Beach, Weymouth railway station instead of Weymouth railway station. Incoming links to Durham may similarly be of the form "City of Durham" or "Durham School". --Una Smith (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1. The original place should obviously be primary. 2. The Town-Comma-Locale phrasing is an American convention and thus risks violating the national varieties of English rule. Nick (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Durham, England more prominent than Weymouth, England? --Una Smith (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Una. I'll set about moving Weymouth and its disambig page straight away! Nick (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In aticipation of the ENGVAR argument, I already offered Durham (United Kingdom), above.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When a place name in County Durham is qualified in a Wikipedia page name, it usually is qualified with ", County Durham". See Category:Towns in County Durham and Category:County Durham geography stubs. That suggests the name for this article would be Durham, County Durham. Another option is to look at the six existing redirects to Durham, and see which one is most often used. The redirect with the most incoming links is Durham, England, with 19.[22] --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, to me. There must be a compromise solution here that will appease most.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I don't know if this would be relevant to this conversation or not. Even though Durham as present is probably the original Durham... it seems Britain-centric to me. I am from Ontario... if you talk to people in Southwestern Ontario and say Durham, you mean Durham, Ontario... if you say Durham in the Greater Toronto Area or East, you mean Regional Municipality of Durham. There are also Durhams in Eastern Canada as well that are of note. Just my 2 cents... hope it helps. DMighton (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Tagishsimon. Just seems like more attempts by American Wikipedians to forget that the rest of the world exists. Jeni ^(talk) 12:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. Why is it that when Americans present strong cases for equal footing under the policies and guidelines, we 'forget that the rest of the world exists'? But when other editors attempt to minimize Americans it is totally acceptable? This is not about who knows more about geography. It is about what is the primary topic. Where is it written that the oldest settlement is by default the primary topic? Where is it written that if some other settlements may, or may not be, named after another settlement the first is the primary topic? I have yet to see one oppose that makes a case that their position is supported under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If fact the reasons for most of the oppose votes are based on the fact that it is called only Durham. Well, that statement applies to every Durham on the dab page so that reason for opposition is in fact the total endorsement for the move as proposed move. As to the issue of US vs UK bias. As I have pointed out in the past, these move discussions are by their location totally biased in favor of the British city names since the discussion is on their talk page and most editors who follow that page will see the notice and since they have a vested interest will likely oppose the move even if it should be made based on the guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You can argue for WP:AGF, or you can imply that people arguing against the proposal are biased because of their vested interests, but you cannot do both. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • There is no conflict. Some of the comments here violate WP:AGF. My comment about the bias is for all WP:RM discussions in general not limited to this one nomination. This built in bias is a problem for most renames, especially where there is a significant discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • "... since they have a vested interest will likely oppose the move ..." is not assuming good faith in my books. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support with Durham (disambiguation) moved to Durham, for all the reasons stated above -- traffic to the dab page with few incoming links, the number of other Durhams and in particular the size and importance of the Durham in North Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncjon (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Durham england produces a bit over twice the number of results that Durham North Carolina does on google books.©Geni 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Geni, which Google are you using? The UK one? Google.com web search results: 2,920,000 for Durham England vs 17,300,000 for Durham "North Carolina" (6x in favor of the American). Google.com books search results: 19,100 on Durham England vs 172,600 on Durham "North Carolina" (9x in favor of the American). --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  google books not google websearch. More serious coverage.©Geni 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Google Books search for Durham "North Carolina": 172,600[23]; search for Durham England: 19,100.[24] --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Zee reason that second total is so much higer is that it contains rather a lot of books that don't mention Durham at all.©Geni 11:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Google.com is the American-centric version, though. Anyway, this argument is flawed, because in academic books about the city of "Durham England", it's probably just referred to as Durham (because it's the original one, with no need for "disambiguation" - it's highly unlikely that a European history book would have to say "Durham England"). Bob talk 07:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  That hits at the essence of the problem here. Most other places simply don't need to diambiguate the word Durham, since whoever is using it is usually using it within a context where it's meaning is easily understood. Since Wikipedia is not centrist to American, British, Canadian, or eny other nationality however, that usual context is completely missing. Therefore, we have a problem to settle, and the means to settle it is to avoid any possible national bias by disambiguating all of the geographic uses of "Durham".
  — V = I * R (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ω has it exactly right. When disambiguation matters, then and only then is "Durham" disambiguated. In conversation I have often found it necessary to disambiguate which Durham, but never did the British county town come into it. Durham, NC and Durham, NH frequently do need to be disambiguated in conversation, largely because both are American university towns. Thus, even if Durham, North Carolina were the primary topic by some statistical argument, I would not want that article to occupy the ambiguous page name Durham. It is a PITA to disambiguate incoming links to an article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support with Durham (disambiguation) moved to Durham. Initially I thought Durham, England would have been the better location for existing article as nobody ever says "Durham, County Durham". But then I realised it is just a designation for Wikipedia disambiguation. It works OK for Westminster, London which nobody ever says and of course we have things like William Horne (Liberal politician). I doubt if he signed his letters like that! I certainly wouldn't make Durham, North Carolina the primary meaning, as I had never heard of the place prior to this debate. I was aware of the Toronto/Ontario one though.Lozleader (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Westminster, London" redirects to "Westminster" ;-) Shimgray | talk | 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The word "Durham" is used routinely within the UK to refer to the city in County Durham; it is in common usage throughout the nation. In America, as I undersand things, it is common to describe the placename by appending the state, as in "I am from Durham, North Carolina". An English person would never say, "I am from Durham, County Durham" - it sounds absurd. We simply do not use county names in that way.

This can be seen by perusing news articles - without any selection criteria other than looking for recent news with the word Durham, using CNN and BBC;

Articles about Durham in the USA

• "suing the school and the city of Durham, North Carolina,"
• "in the university town of Durham, New Hampshire, "
• "officials in Durham, New Hampshire, said "
• "and Durham, North Carolina's Veterans "
• "news release from the Durham, North Carolina, police."

Articles about Durham in the UK

• "England have recalled Durham fast bowler Steve Harmison"
• "Rain washes out second day of Durham Test"
• "part of Durham Police's Operation Nimrod"
• "Durham has the best cathedral"

I have not 'hand-selected' these examples, but in every single case I see that the body of recent news uses the state when discussing the USA Durham, but does not use any 'county' qualifier when referencing the UK Durham.

The MOS Naming conventions (geographic_names) says this;

• "Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under [[placename]]."
• "The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention")."

For these reasons, this move is not appropriate.  Chzz  ►  18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you left out the key qualifier. That guideline actually says:

Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename. Where disambiguation is needed, a different system exists in each of the home nations.

--Una Smith (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy in this logic is assuming an American journalism convention of listing the states for most cities -- particularly those in which there could be some ambiguity because of multiple places with the same name -- is how people speak and/or identify places in nearly ever other context. No one says: "I'm from Durham, North Carolina" or "I'm from Durham, New Hampshire." People say: I'm from Durham" and context fills in the rest. Ncjon (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Chzz. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'd support keeping Durham the city in NE England as the primary page, but if that's deemed impractical it should be primary disambiguation. I'm really not sure directing to Durham, NC is appropriate, per Chzz's comments on standard usage of that form. Shimgray | talk | 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support this is yet another example of UK-bias in naming of articles to favour UK sites, whether they are prominent or not. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it's a "bias" towards assuming that the original place should be the primary subject, cf. Ithaca. That many secondary towns are named after places in the UK is incidental. For what it's worth, I grew up far from any town named Durham but I think of the town in England first just because it's the original. Nick (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: It seems that fundamental problem is that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy is wholly inadequate for this situation. Durham UK has the claim to this for being the original Durham and, arguably, the most historically notable, whilst Durham NC has the claim by virtue of being the most populous, and a quick tally for the supports and opposes on this page (including the Where To list below) suggests that we're never going to reach a consensus here. Since there are plenty of other towns and cities in this situation, we really ought to have some sort of policy covering all cases. Anyone fancy opening a centralised discussion? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent suggestion. There are so many other examples that this would be well worth doing. Nick (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to?

Re the question of where to move the article currently at Durham, many page names have been proposed. Which is preferred? I propose we poll the question. Simply sign after whichever page names you like. Add any additional page names you like. --Una Smith (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's add in the option to choose the status quo too--Teach46 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding the status quo ignores the basic question of what of the alternatives is the best option. Clearly it is well established that Durham is ambiguous. That is fact. Even in England it is ambiguous. So plain Durham is not a viable option. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, plain Durham certainly IS a viable option - as someone said before in this discussion, where is there any indication that this is broken, why are we trying to fix it? Also, I refer you to the disambiguation discussion above that seemed to reach an amicable conclusion three months or so ago. This discussion has not been re-opened, we have merely jumped straight to a move request, a rather irritating aprroach really. Also, please look at the votes below where leaving as is seems to be the lead approach.--Teach46 (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England, the proper name of the article about Durham City would be Durham, County Durham or, if that is deemed inappropriate, Durham, City. However, that is very similar to Durham City, and besides I haven't noticed any instances of this format. Durham City currently is a dab page but given its contents and having come across so many articles using "Durham City" (shudder), I think it would be reasonable to move the article to Durham City (with suitable hatnotes) and the dab page to Durham City (disambiguation). At the very least, let's change those links to a pipe, like this: Durham City. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham (status quo; does not disambiguate)

1. Teach46 (talk)
2. Bob talk 18:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Nick (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Jeni ^(talk) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Historically, the primary use; all other uses of the name "Durham" come from this. Gwinva (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Chzz  ►  09:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Xanthoxyl (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham, County Durham

1. Una Smith (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Lozleader (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Ncjon (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
5. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham, England

1. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Ncjon (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham (United Kingdom)

1. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Ncjon (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham (county town)

1. Una Smith (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Ncjon (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham City

Question

As far as I can see, consensus as to what should be done with this page hasn't yet been reached. As such, are edits such as this useful? It's quite possible they'll only need to be changed in a few days so is needlessly creating more work. I've asked Una Smith (talk · contribs) to hold off on the edits, but haven't received an explanation. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of pre-judging the outcome of this discussion. It is also disruptive as it is almost guaranteed any article will need changing again Pit-yacker (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking again I am furious at changes such as this. Where Bishop Auckland's link to Durham has been redirect to the DAB page Durham City. If she refuses to stop this activity is it possible to have administrator intervention to stop here editting? I consider such activity highly disruptive and is undoing the good work them many editors have spent many hours doing to demonstrate a point Pit-yacker (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

L(name corrected by Chzz)una's stopped for now, but if it restarts it might be worth taking it to ANI as it would mean that pleas to stop have been ignored. I could not act myself as I could be perceived to be involved. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of this page, she has started again. Edits such as this in my opinion are disruptive. The area under discussion is part of Durham. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They are tangential edits, made as I examine the questions posed here. It is unwise to edit Wikipedia while furious. Searching for instances of "Durham, England", I find many instances of "Durham, England" and I am simply changing them to "Durham, England" as the reference to England is for the reader's information; such references generally do not merit a link to England. That's what the redirect Durham, England is for. It is okay to use redirects. Really. And it is smart to use them especially when there is any question re a page name needing to be disambiguated. As is the case here. I have also corrected numerous links to Durham that intended Durham, North Carolina and County Durham. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I see Pit-yacker and Nev1 have been following me around, reverting my edits. Now, I consider their reverting my hours of work to be highly disruptive. --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started templating Una Smith as their unconstructive edits are now essentially vandalism, if she continues she will be reported like any other vandal. Jeni ^(talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, I think it is unwise to characterise this edit as vandalism, as you have done. --Una Smith (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When a user fails to listen to anyone telling them that their edits are unconstructive, yet still continues, that becomes vandalism. Pure and simple. Jeni ^(talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the edits, what is the difference between an edit war and vandalism? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)C

You are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For the record, I think articles should be linking to both Durham and England. Pit-yacker (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support moving the dab page to "Durham" to disambiguate. Yes, of course the UK Durham is the "original"; that goes without saying (I lived there for years and love it dearly). So what? Yes, I knew there were other Durhams, although I probably couldn't have found them on the map, but I'm happy to accept that other people think of them as the Durham. No, "Durham, County Durham" (or "Co. Durham") is never used, and would probably sound weird, although on a dab page it would be easy enough to understand, I suppose. The UK Durham would not be belittled in some way by becoming "Durham, England" or even "Durham, UK". There is an obvious ambiguity here, so why not stop all the nationalistic jockeying and use the Durham page to resolve said ambiguity as soon as possible? Karenjc 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a part of the proposal and the extended discussion supports that per the guidelines. The problem appears to be where to move the current article at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus to move any pages from this discussion. At best this is "no consensus". Jeni ^(talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that question appears to be "keep it where it is". How can you suggest in any way that there's consensus to move it somewhere when twice as many people support keeping it where it is as the next most popular alternative? Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In understand the sentiment that was being expressed in the message box and alternative archive method, but there are a couple of problems with doing that. First, this discussion isn't really that contentious. Second, and most importantly, the movereq template needs to actually be removed in order to prevent the page from being categorized and therefore continuing to be listed at WP:RM. Finally, the {{RM top}} and bottom templates are specifically designed to archive move discussions. Their slightly distinctive, so most people know to look for them, and it can help down the road.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

refimprove on Notable People section

I've added a refimprove on the Notable People section since there are hardly any references to support these. I'm not sure that the Chorister School website, accurate though it may be, is valid to support these in any case.--Teach46 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to this notion of improvement I would like to ask why Rowan Atkinson has been credited with an affiliation to Newcastle when he was in fact born in Consett, County Durham?

Not any more as I've fixed it after checking the source on Rowan Atkinson. Don't feel you have to mention it here if you spot an error like that, just go ahead and fix it, quicker and less work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rifle shooting

I've been working on the sport section.

Does anyone know if the St Giles Yarner Rifle Club still exists? I know they did two years ago when I shot on their range but web links to them, and to DU's rifle club that uses the same range, are dead.--Teach46 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheraton Park merge?

Likelife has suggested that Sheraton Park should be merged into this page. No discussion has been left (despite the merge banner saying we should discuss!).

I am against this move, we don't have a list of housing estates in Durham, why on earth should Sheraton Park be added. Oppose.--Teach46 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To repeat what I said on the other page in a prod2, I don't think there's anything worth merging. If anyone wants to write something about all of the recent housing developments in Durham (which is quite a thorny subject in Durham so I'd argue would be notable), I'd say that Shearton Park would be sufficiently notable to warrant a mention (i.e. what it's called and where it is), but little more. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Hi,

I tried to start a religion section with basic detail of the Christian churches in the centre of the city as an opener. I expected others, and intended myself, to improve the section. Religion is a key to Durham's existance, historically and, one could argue, today. To this end, I think that it is a relevant section. Feline Hymnic has removed this. OK, I see why, it was not my best work but then it was only intended as a start. I was tempted to simply restore but that way edit wars lie... so, I thought, let's bung it on here for discussion. Do we need the section? If so, couldn't we improve it rather than delete it? --Teach46 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was perhaps too hasty with the delete. And let me express also appreciation for the huge amount of work that 'Teach46' has done in recent months on Durham articles: it has been a great benefit. To 'religion': Adding such a section would indeed be very useful. But I hope it could be more than simply a partial list of churches. Again, apologies for my negative deletion; I wish I were in a position to make a more positive contribution. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the 'thanks'! I do agree with your points - at the moment work is pressing so I can't spend as much time as I'd like to on the section and we do need more than a list of churches. I'll take a look when I've more time and try again.--Teach46 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps the wording of the section removed may have appeared a little "Durham was founded as a Christian city - and look! It still is!" in tone, but a religion section would definitely be a good addition if it was well sourced. A prose description of the different Christian churches plus other faith groups might be better than simply a list - the 2001 census may be able to give an indication of the overall "religion" of the city. Rob (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's great that you made a start, and yes we should aim to improve rather than delete. However we must maintain WP:NPOV and your addition did come over as a bit Christian-centric. As Rob said, the best thing would be to add in a bit about other religions. I will see what I can find over the next day or so and post it up here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

True population figure from 2001 census is only 48% of what it should be.

The Population of Durham is very wrong, 42,939 is shown which is more than 50% too low. The current figure quotes the 2001 census figure and is WRONG. On the UK 2001 census website it is shown as 87,709. Please see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/20UE.asp

I am inexperienced in editting Wikipedia so I would be grateful if somebody else could correct this. Thank you.

Smiler03 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The 87,709 you reference was the population of the now extinct City of Durham local government district, which included Brandon & Byshottles and a swathe of rural parishes. The different population figures are given in the "General geography" section, which needs referencing. Lozleader (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a ref for 42,939 for Durham Urban area [25] Lozleader (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And 29,026 for the unparished area (at p.54) [26]Lozleader (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK: I have added the refs for the 3 population figures. Not sure why the urban area was chosen in preference to the unparished area for the infobox, I suppose this would be most people's understanding of the extent of "Durham"? Lozleader (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the urban area myself. The Durham parishes include a lot of suburbs that would still be considered part of the Durham conurbanation. What convention are we using for populations in infoboxes? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference problem

The A.J. AMATOSI references do not exist. Can someone please rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.184.73 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not exist as in they can't be accessed online, or do not exist as in they are faked? I've just been googling around and i suspect the latter may be true... Lozleader (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a look through the page history and the amatosi references were all added in October 2008 by User:Aj.amatosi [27]. Can't find any sign of their existence so I'm going to take them out now.Lozleader (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Dun Cow and city origins

It is stated that " the city was founded in A.D. 995 by divine intervention", and one of the sources cited for the details of the legend is Bede: "Saint Bede recounts that during this fast, Saint Cuthbert appeared to the monk Eadmer with instructions that the coffin should be taken to Dun Holm.[4]". Although Bede was indeed the hagiographer of Saint Cuthbert, he cannot possibly be used as evidence for the founding of the city in 995, since he himself died in 735 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede).

If someone could clear this confusion up it'd help the article be more accurate. Was the city actually founded earlier,in the 7th century? Cuthbert after all died in 687. Was the body being transported from somewhere else in 995? In which case Bede cannot be cited in support of the legend. Or are two stories conflated in this section, one the story of Cuthbert's body from Bede's hagiography, belonging to the 7th century, one the story of the Dun Cow, belonging to the end of the 10th?

99.146.29.213 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Philip Grant

Changes to See Also section

I'm not convinced the recent changes to the See Also section make this article better. The new links to the Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs really apply to County Durham as a whole and not specifically Durham City. And whilst I'm aware that WP:SEEALSO discourages links that are already in the body of the text, that's not a hard a fast rule, and it doesn't make much sense that St. Nichlolas's church should be included in this list when the Cathedral and University (two huge parts of city of this size) aren't.

Thoughts?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag position

Why is the flag in "Governance" section? Isn't the normal practice to have them in the infobox? 82.141.94.98 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Map

I want to note that the map of Durham that is currently being used is essentially useless. It does not show any detail and it does not provide its context in England or the British Isles. If it showed one or both it would much more useful. While it does have a miniscule inset map, even that is too tiny to be useful. I am under the impression that maps were provided to enable visualization of a place or its place within a place. This map currently does not achieve either end... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Durham, North Carolina

Why does "Durham" lead you to this article, when the population of Durham, North Carolina is over five times larger? 76.219.170.8 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See here for a long previous discussion on this, as well as previous comments on this page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fake link. Which means there was no discussion. --Loginnigol 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been archived: see Talk:Durham/Archive 1#Requested move.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Move

This should be moved to Durham, England due to the fact that Durham, North Carolina is bigger. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. This has already been discussed at length. See the talk archives. Fraggle81 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Which one of the talk archives? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC) / 13:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Durham/Archive 1#Requested move has the discussion about a move, which ended with no consensus. There was prior discussion in that archive, and apparently also at Talk:Durham, North Carolina.

Further, WP:USPLACE recommends the "comma convention" (city, comma, state) for the Bull City because it is not on the AP Stylebook's list of cities that don't require specification of the state. That's what got us to the current situation: the US city should take a comma in its title, and the UK city is the primary topic that can be rendered without. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Durham, Saxon etymology, not Norse.

The Articles states that Durham, derives from the Saxon Dun for hill fort, and the Norse Holme, for home or Village. Actually Ham has the same meaning(Home, or group of homes, a small "hamlet", or small village.It's also used to refer to a single house. It is the source, for modern English home. ), but is Anglo Saxon. Ham(Pronounced Hahm, not like ham, the luncheon meat. Anglo Saxon Short a is pronounced like the short modern o, as in cot or knot. Almost the same as Anglo saxon Long a, which is like modern short a, as in father. Both an "ah" sound, with only subtle variation.) is the Anglo Saxon word for this. Thus Durham is of complete Anglo Saxon origin. Ham is also the word for this, in the Older Danish (Of the Legendary figure Beowulf's time, Pre English Saxon settlement.), from which both Anglo Saxon, and Old Norse derive . 108.50.166.7 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC) R.K.Dotter

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Durham (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Following the close of this move discussion, it seems likely that new moves are warranted for Category:Durham and some of its subcategories. Dekimasuよ! 17:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Durham, England. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310002116/http://www.durhamcityrfc.co.uk:80/shopcontent.asp@type=aboutus to http://www.durhamcityrfc.co.uk/shopcontent.asp@type=aboutus

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Durham, England. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224150457/http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk:80/Pid/511 to http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129040355/http://www.thechoristerschool.com:80/life-after-choristers/ to http://www.thechoristerschool.com/life-after-choristers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315210022/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/MIDDcamsellG.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MIDDcamsellG.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705035302/http://www.ferrersandivanhoelodge.org.uk/newjmf/BIBLIOGRAPHY.htm to http://www.ferrersandivanhoelodge.org.uk/newjmf/BIBLIOGRAPHY.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304155626/http://www.divine-art.com:80/CD/rev25059.htm to http://www.divine-art.com/CD/rev25059.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728091019/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf

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) 19:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Durham, England. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705140124/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QVtqCjVC?url=http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf

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) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

St Cuthbert's Mist

As far as I can tell Durham didn't see much action in WWII besides this. I think it's worth including, but it's harder than I anticipated to make a recount of the events sound authoritative and not like hearsay. Thoughts on the current paragraph? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written a little on the miracles of St Cuthbert, but dating from several centuries earlier and more often about sites in Northumberland. There is no need to give exactly the same reference for every sentence of the paragraph on the 20th century story. One citation is enough. I think a shorter summary of three or four sentences would suffice, instead of such a long paragraph trying to "prove" the story. The early miracles were recorded by Reginald of Durham, who was a follower of Godric of Finchale, who lived in a hovel on the Wear. I do not think that the wartime story deserves more space than the legend of the Dun Cow. There is also a late 11th century legend of "St Cuthbert's Mist" at Northallerton connected with William the Conqueror in "St Cuthbert and the Normans: The Church of Durham, 1071-1153", page 74. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

All fair points, it needed a fresh pair of eyes. I've shortened it considerably, using the Dun Cow section as a guide, and think it's generally better that way. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your changes are improvements. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Durham, England. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410091902/http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/01_introduction.htm to http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/01_introduction.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/1e00e88b8d2d840f8025757f005a4378/2c4ede1dcec12a048025763d001e9803?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/1e00e88b8d2d840f8025757f005a4378/ff3c555fc3b0e7e48025763d001ea082?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/1e00e88b8d2d840f8025757f005a4378/c288718dfa815ac98025763d001ea0ae?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/1e00e88b8d2d840f8025757f005a4378/cb4bb4dd95b2d6cf8025763d001ea4a0?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/1e00e88b8d2d840f8025757f005a4378/ddffca4ac3f602278025763d001eb788?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/6dd7b5dc2feef3588025758300591732/594606df070bfcb88025763d001ea01c?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/6dd7b5dc2feef3588025758300591732/78bed95e3d608e658025763d001ea05c?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/6dd7b5dc2feef3588025758300591732/76cb9c40e273a02e8025763d001eb732?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/6dd7b5dc2feef3588025758300591732/93408054c5c413b18025763d001ea0d5?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nd.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/directory.nsf/6dd7b5dc2feef3588025758300591732/88033bfa55876c6d8025763d001eb909?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706103046/http://durhamarchery.weebly.com/ to http://durhamarchery.weebly.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828012607/http://durhamcity.play-cricket.com/home/home.asp to http://durhamcity.play-cricket.com/home/home.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.durhamcityrfc.co.uk/shopcontent.asp%40type%3Daboutus
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thechoristerschool.com/life-after-choristers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021173809/http://www.thechoristerschool.com/alumni/rollcall.php to http://www.thechoristerschool.com/alumni/rollcall.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MIDDcamsellG.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.divine-art.com/CD/rev25059.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605102217/http://www.wasps.co.uk/PlayerDisplaySS.ink?skip=0&season=&squadno=7081&seasonl=1995%2F1996&Playertype=P&section=Home to http://www.wasps.co.uk/PlayerDisplaySS.ink?skip=0&season=&squadno=7081&seasonl=1995%2F1996&Playertype=P&section=Home

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) 05:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)