Talk:City of Durham (district)

message: I created this article with the intention that it represents the City of Durham electoral district, with the communities contained therein as subdivisions of the article.  If any one feels that these communities merit a whole article on their own, then please include only a summary here with the tagline 
see main article Durham 
(for example).  Thanks. DMB 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this article

message: Pity Me is missing on this page, I do not know where to add it. 84.30.175.153 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pity Me]]

message: I oppose any merger of this article with Durham. A rename perhaps, but the district, former or otherwise, needs an article. --Jza84 |  Talk   17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, having proposed it, I support the merger. I should also add that this article now refers only to the City of Durham as defined an given point in time, i.e. from 1974 to 2009. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just aware of this - there are plenty of articles on local authorities across the UK which aren't merged to their town, so I'd oppose this. Pretty Green (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose Just because the district doesn't exist any more does not mean it is no longer notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Then it should be renamed City of Durham (former metropolitan district). The City of Durham is synonymous with Durham, the "city in the North East of England" and should redirect there. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Sorry Chrisieboy, but you're wrong on this one. The City of Durham does still exist, as the title has been continued by Charter Trustees being appointed for the former local government area.  It is not the same as the unparished area which equates to the former Municipal Borough of Durham.  As I understand, there is a continuing debate over whether the former unparished area should become a civil parish.  It is unclear what would happen to the Charter Trustees if that were to happen.  Normally, the creation of a civil parish would mean that the Charter Trustees are abolished and their charter would pass to the parish; however, as the charter is held for an area covering numerous parishes, different rules will probably apply. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No merger 

message: For those who don't have Durham on watch, there is currently a debate at talk:Durham about moving the Durham article. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durham 

message: There's a problem with unilateral page moves, and its that what might make sense to one person does not necessarily read best for others.
'Durham (district)' is bad for the following three reasons:
# The name of the entity was 'City of Durham' not 'Durham'
# 'District' is an ambiguous word
# There have been multiple 'districts' which could be referred to as 'Durham': County Durham, Regional Municipality of Durham, Durham (electoral district), Durham (provincial electoral district), City of Durham (UK Parliament constituency) and Durham and Framwelgate
This move really ought to have gone through procedurally in order to iron these issues out. I suggest one of the following remedies:
* Move back to City of Durham with an appropriate hat-link at the top. Though I can see why we might not want to do this - the disambig page possibly works best for 'Durham City' and related terms given the variety of bodies which have held Durham's city status over history
* Move this to City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) or City of Durham (district). The former is the most clear, but it does use technical vocab which might put some off. The latter is better than the new set-up because it gives the article its correct name and avoids confusion with the County district, historical D & F and the American jurisdictions, even if it keeps the word 'district'.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, personally I prefer City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) with City of Durham (district) as a redirect if people don't want to fill in the technical term. Pretty Green (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Durham (district)]] is a bad name for this article

message: I recall a referendum a few years back (late 2006?), asking the residents of Durham whether they wanted a change to a unitary council - with the result coming back that they wanted things kept as they were (separate councils). Despite this, the changes went ahead a few years later in 2009. Now, I could be misremembering this - it was a few years ago - but if not then this opposition to the change should presumably be mentioned in the Abolition section of this article. Does anyone else remember the referendum? --82.70.156.254 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would need reliable sources not "memories" Lozleader (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: June 2007 it would appear:
VOTERS in County Durham gave an overwhelming vote of confidence to its district councils when they voted three to one against doing away with them. Out of 156,922 electors who voted in a referendum this month to either "retain and improve" the county's current two tier system of local government, or abolish the districts and establish a single unitary authority for the whole of County Durham, 76.4% - or 119,439 voters - said No to a single unitary council. ...Of the 392,674 electorate in County Durham, 39.9% returned referendum ballot papers. ....County council leader Albert Nugent described the "unofficial referendum" as "not worth the paper it's written on." But leaders of the seven districts, Chester-le-Street, Derwentside, Durham City, Easington, Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley, disagree... "The poll has produced a result that is nothing more than a red herring, and while it has landed the council tax payers of County Durham with a bill of almost a third of a million pounds, it has not taken the debate about local government reorganisation a single step further forward." Lozleader (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Durham District. 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/20100227220959/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2009/uksi_20090837_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090837_en_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Durham District. 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/20111005175732/http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/comment/leader/3829317.Parish_debate_is_all_about_party_politics/ to http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/comment/leader/3829317.Parish_debate_is_all_about_party_politics/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309174518/http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/3601/15 to http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/3601/15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Durham District. 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/20061216092907/http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books to http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Durham City Council has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Durham City Council]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]