Talk:County Durham

message: Is this section not a bit over-detailed for a county article. Surely most of this should be in the relvant BA article instead, And a section on tourism should surely at least mention the major tourist destination in the county! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It already does, but we are talking about Bishop Auckland, where I have been sitting in a chemo chair while reading this. -Roxy  the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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

message: An editor has taken it on himself to remove the multiple image in the infobox without explanation, then removed it again after reinstatement apparently because he doesn't like it. Perhaps this should be discussed? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove your accusation and I might consider discussion. Claiming something false under Wikipedia:Passive aggression DragonofBatley (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

text: No I was quoting what another editor said on the Yorkshire page and that was they aren't well formatted. The photos for county Durham are being compared to Yorkshire because Stockton crossed two borders and is in the lead photo but has a local government district in North Yorkshire and County Durham so that's the part. Which Yorkshire is relevant to the discussion as with Middlesbrough and Redcar. Stockton and Hartlepool are Teesside. My point is, collages have no real relevance to a county article. Unlike district articles or single articles like Durham Stockton and Crook which use collages. The county article should really only include the main populous or county town settlement. In county Durham case it's Durham, like Newcastle and Sunderland are Tyne and Wears main centres. 
I was red warned by another editor that wasn't aimed at yourself, Murgatroyd49. I just felt insulted by a claim which wasn't true. I have no disputes with the other editor in question, we just sometimes butt heads over certain photos but normally we are okay. They add collages and I question the absences of important landmarks or changes to lead summaries like with North Shields and Hebburn for example. But apart from that, collages are really best placed on town and city articles then county articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also on a seperate note, I apologise , for causing resentment. I just felt it was an uncalled for accusation towards me. You explained better on here and I'm sorry for plastering my annoyances with your comment over two pages. It might not change anything but I apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies accepted, we all get like that sometimes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox images 

message: The infobox currently shows "Density [convert: needs a number]" (with an ugly red error if previewing an edit of the article). That error occurs because recent edits changed official_name = County Durham to official_name = Durham in the infobox.  does some tricky stuff to get population and area and density values from a table built in to . The population = 1,972,789 entry in the infobox is ignored. Is there a reason that official_name should be changed? If so,  needs to be updated to accept "Durham". Unfortunately, that template has not been updated for some years. Does anyone know how to handle this? Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name of the county in legislation is 'Durham', but since it's commonly known as 'County Durham' I'd leave things as they were prior to the change. I've already swapped the infobox so that 'County Durham' is back in the 'official name' slot and 'Durham' is given as an alternative. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error due to official_name 

message: The lead has gone through a couple of iterations lately (not least because of me), so I thought it would be useful to open up a discussion. To kick things off, is there consensus for keeping the current structure:
* Lead paragraph with type of county, borders, largest town and admin HQ
* Para on demography and administration
* Para on geography
* Para on history
Personally I don't think that the lead needs to get into the evolution of the county boundaries, which is often the temptation where a historic and ceremonial county share similar borders. 
(Pinging @Chocolateediter, @DragonofBatley, @PamD, @Rupples) A.D.Hope (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @A.D.Hope - great job rewriting the lead, big improvement. All looks good to me, with the caveat I don't know enough about early history of the county to determine exactly what are its significant historical events. Glad to see you retained mention of the Stockton railway and mining. Agree, evolution of county boundaries can be confusing and is better placed elsewhere. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it's always tricky writing a county lead but the above format seems to work in most cases. As far as I know Durham's early history is basically Roman occupation, Northumbria, St Cuthbert's wanderings, and then the Normans arriving and building the cathedral. There's a lot more besides, of course, but that's for the history article. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead