This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Durham is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Durham at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.
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)
The A.J. AMATOSI references do not exist. Can someone please rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (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. 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)
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.". 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?
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.
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)
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)