1251:. Culture, especially sport, is historic county heavy and would otherwise stick out in an article that sticks to ceremonial and should mention Sunderland A.F.C. . Governance can sort out the detached, an attached wapentake, wards, the palatinate, administrative county, non-metropolitan county and other logistical nightmares of putting a millennium of governance into an Knowledge article. I can think of the main headers; ancient (pre-&early- conquest), the height of the palatinate (wards, ancient boroughs), Victorian era, Post 1974 (the divide) and now (ceremonial counties and combined authorities). History can focus on the chronological tales of monks, kingdoms, Scottish raids and the prince bishop’s power (at its peak and at its out right loss). The County Durham article would be then free to be a summarised version of all of this.
31:
395:
95:
1026:
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.
791:
311:
290:
416:
505:
703:
216:
321:
22:
206:
185:
85:
64:
1509:
426:
2049:- 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.
1419:
that book, since it is merely an introduction to a much larger body of literature, we will need multiple articles to do it (eg the bishop's council appears notable and should have a separate article), we will need some kind of overview article to act as an introduction to those articles, and that overview article should be located at
1824:, which is good, but it has major issues including patchy sourcing, an apparent over-reliance on Lapsley, and excessive detail. I can accept that the current article is distinctive enough to satisfy GNG (unlike the article as it existed when I opened the move request), but these issues really do need to be fixed.
1516:. I reverted the botched split and restored the material that originally came from this article. I copied the text from the page history of this article. I could not copy from the county palatine article because there was no URL, hyperlink or list of authors in the original split (see WP:CWW). I did the same at
2063:
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
1390:
merger of 'County
Palatine of Durham' into 'County Durham' and fleshing out 'History of Durham' into a full article to cover the entire history of the county. There's no reason why the latter article can't adequately cover the palatinate — we don't (and shouldn't) need to write the equivalent of 380
1368:
article on what is a purely historical topic, because we would be constantly having to add new history that has just happened yesterday, and which has nothing to do, in either case, with the former palatinate or kingdom, respectively. The history of the county palatine ended a long time ago, but the
1294:
has its own article. Wikiproject guidelines are local consensus. As the topic of the article is primarily about law, politics and history, I don't think the geography wikiproject is the main wikiproject for this. A county palatine is not the same as an ordinary county. I agree that the article needs
1025:
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
1783:
In any event, the fact that the cathedral and battle are briefly mentioned in the palatine article does not preclude them from being discussed in the article "History of County Durham". I am not sure what you mean by a "continuous historic narrative", but a chronology of events in the county would
1737:
The topics are clearly related, I feel. At it stands the 'County
Palatine of Durham' article is essentially the history of County Durham during the history of the palatine, which would be more logially covered by the 'History of County Durham' article. The latter article can incorporate events like
1714:
For the avoidance of doubt only: The topics are not related. In particular, the county palatine is not related to the history of Durham before
Cuthbert or (outside the last two courts) after 1836. It is not related to much of what happened in between. If, for example, a fire breaks out in a barn in
1635:
Using WP:SNOW to close the discussion wasn't the best idea, particularly as an involved editor with an interest in keeping 'County
Palatine of Durham' as a standalone article. SNOW is for processes which have foregone conclusions, and you can see from the range of responses that that isn't the case
978:
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
1695:
WP:GNG says that notability 'is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.' In this case both the County
Palatine and the History of County Durham are
1545:
As a side note, I can see that you've done a lot of work on 'County
Palatine of Durham' and its related articles. It would help if you could explain your plan for them, because it seems you have a long-term vision and I'd like to understand it. It's certainly not my intention to come in and erase
1418:
is the WP:COMMONNAME of the county palatine, it is the term our readers will search for, and our readers would be suprised and confused if they were redirected to the post-palatine history of a geographical area. To cover the county palatine adequately, we will need to write a lot more than is in
1030:
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
1480:
immediately before the article was stuffed with massive quantities of material of questionable relevance (some of which is certainly irrelevant and inaccurate, such as the 2013 flag) cut and pasted from other articles in what looks like a botched split of those articles. The article can then be
1158:
on counties do not endorse separate articles for historic counties, instead favouring a single article which covers a county's entire development. We should bring these two articles into conformity with the guidelines, which I believe will reduce repetition between the pages and produce a more
1699:
Given WP:GNG doesn't resolve whether a merger is appropriate or not, could you please share your vision for the set of County Palatine artices? At the moment I view the Palatine as simply an aspect of the county's history, but you clearly think it's more than that. Why does it deserve to be a
1329:
Having said that, the differences between your proposal and mine seem minimal; if we remove everything but history from 'County Palatine of Durham' then does it not just become an article on a specific part of Durham's history? At that point we may as well make it a full history article, no?
1355:
Complete merger is not desirable because there is not sufficient equivalence between the county palatine and the present county. The county palatine appears to have ceased to exist because everything that made it a county palatine (ie the palatine system of government) has been systemically
1344:
The county palatine is independently notable because it satisfies GNG in its own right. There is no chance of adequately covering the county palatine in a single article about a geographical area, or even in a single article about the history of that geographical area. Lapsley's
1534:
James, I appreciate you being bold and making improvements to the articles we're discussing, but it's polite to let the merger discussion run its course before removing the tags. Four days isn't typically long enough for that to happen, and it gives the impression you're acting
1197:
I've wandered myself why this article exists. It looks like it has a longer alternative name but otherwise its common name was the same and it looks like it is similar to the ceremonial county with though oddly it appeared to cover detatched parts, now in Northumberland like
979:
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.
1827:
I'm quite happy to work on improving the article, so you may well see me making edits in the future. As a final note, I'll repeat what I said above about not wanting to erase your hard work. I can see you've put a lot of work into these articles and I do respect that.
1771:
to pay royal taxes. (And Liddy says that freedom from royal taxes was the most important freedom of the palatinate etc). In any event, it was a fortified military asset of the palatinate, and a major public building that does not belong to one of the Bishop's private
1445:
Yes, the proposal is to blank and redirect 'County Palatine of Durham', splitting its content between 'County Durham' and 'History of County Durham'. I think we've made it clear where we disagree, and I respect your positition and don't want to inadvertently
1631:
You're welcome to argue that the County Palatine is notable enough for its own article. My preference would still be to treat it as part of the history of County Durham as a whole, but we really need third-party editors to help the discussion at this
1778:. (Some historians say that the purpose of the palatine system of government was to defend the border). I have not had a chance to check the existing paragraph on the Battle, but it is only a tiny fraction of the article, that can always be changed.
1284:
The county palatine was a political entity with its own army, legal system, taxes and coinage, which appears to be now abolished. It was not merely a geographical area. The counties palatine have been repeatedly described as "miniature kingdoms":
1973:'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.
1056:, 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.
1666:
significant coverage. In this case we already have, in the article, several book-length sources and the equivalent of several more. None of the arguments for merger above dispute that the county palatine satisfies GNG, as far as I can
1766:
The cathedral is correctly included because it is relevant to the Bishop's palatine government. For example, and amongst many other things, Lapsley says that the building of the cathedral is evidence that the palatinate was not
863:
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!
524:
962:
So I've just been unfairly accused of something, the editor hasn't responded and I'm expected to be okay with being unfairly accused by them? How does that work? Making false claims and not backing them up, ludicrous this is
1787:
The courts article satisfies GNG and should not be merged either. There are entire books about those courts. The "County Palatine of Durham" article should only include a summary of the other article, in the usual "summary
1594:
now includes a large number of entire books, entire book chapters, and entire periodical articles that contain such coverage of the county palatine (as a palatinate, and not merely as a place). I can produce more if you
1413:
generally means. Merging the county palatine into either article would bury the county palatine under a large and ever growing amount of distracting irrelevant recentism that has nothing to do with the county palatine.
1309:
I'm not sure that counties palatine inherently warrant their own articles, as it's easy enough to incorporate their distinctive elements into a regular county article. If we look at the other two major palatinates, at
1258:
as population wise the district covers 60%ish of the ceremonial county and under a third of the historic. It helps the smaller places get a mention and keeps the line of county and district less blurred to the average
1993:
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:
928:
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?
1031:
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.
1639:
I'd like to ask again what your vision is for the various County Palatine articles, because it would help me understand your point of view. It might even persuade me that the article should be kept, who knows?
901:
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.
1775:
The Battle of Neville's Cross was not added by me, but the Battle is relevant, for example, and amongst other reasons, as evidence of the palatinate's responsibility for defending the border, eg
1738:
the building of Durham Cathedral and the Battle of Neville's Cross in a continuous historic narrative, rather than excluding them because they happened to take place when the palatinate existed.
1178:
but of course not on the district side as that of course doesn't cover all of CD (Stockton Darlington Hartlepool) just the original district prior to 2009 reform. But on county palatine I agree
1842:
If you agree that the article should not be merged, then please close this merger discussion as "no merger". The content of the other article may be discussed on the talk page of that article.
2011:
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.
1624:, the readable prose size of County Durham is 34 kB (5498 words), County Palatine of Durham is 9092 B (1504 words), and History of County Durham is 21 kB (3423 words). The rules of thumb at
1677:" (my emphasis). None of the arguments for merger above are based on any Knowledge policy or guideline, as far as I can see. (The geography WikiProject page is classified as an essay by
1763:
purpose of having a county palatine is to have a palatine system of government). I do not know what you think the article includes which is not about the palatine system of government.
1741:
If 'County Palatine of Durham' does stay then it should focus exclusively on the county palatine as an administrative entity, including its functions and devlopment. Articles such as
639:
272:
35:
803:
597:
2114:
1759:
For the avoidance of doubt only: The article "County Palatine of Durham" is about the palatine system of government of Durham, not the geographical area. (The
167:
1427:
to include, in particular, post-palatine history and possibly material not relevant to the palatine form of government, but it should exist in addition to
583:
2139:
1372:
The History of Lancashire article does not adequately cover the county palatine of Lancaster. In fact, it says almost nothing about the county palatine.
262:
482:
653:
2149:
1908:
The infobox currently shows "Density " (with an ugly red error if previewing an edit of the article). That error occurs because recent edits changed
1538:
I'm going to publicise this over at WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject England, to encourage a wider range of editors to give their input. If
367:
377:
2129:
2104:
1954:
needs to be updated to accept "Durham". Unfortunately, that template has not been updated for some years. Does anyone know how to handle this?
590:
554:
528:
157:
611:
569:
238:
2134:
2119:
1286:
917:
1288:
125:
2164:
472:
2174:
2144:
2099:
717:
1154:
from a redirect into a full article to serve as a main page for the county's history. While both articles contain good content, the
1820:
The current version of the article is more focussed on the administration of the palatinate and doesn't overlap significantly with
229:
190:
2169:
2109:
1809:, the result of a series of edits in 2021. Since then you have since made over 250 edits, orignally to revert the article to its
1742:
2124:
1715:
Barnard Castle in 1729, that fire is not related to the Bishop's regalian rights, and they don't belong in the same article. A
576:
550:
1295:
to be rewritten and that the sections on culture, sport, economy and demography might probably be moved out of this article.
129:
1202:. The unitary article seems sufficient to deal with the current administrative area (and some of the pre 2009 area) and the
879::It already does, but we are talking about Bishop Auckland, where I have been sitting in a chemo chair while reading this. -
1590:
says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
448:
1899:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1856:
I can't close as I'm an involved editor and the outcome is disputed, but I've requested a close so it should happen soon.
1776:
1065:
2159:
604:
1369:
history of the geographical area continues, and the longer it continues, the less it has to do with the county palatine.
1079:
1018:
988:
956:
2154:
343:
121:
108:
69:
1155:
1274:
1159:
comprehensive article on County Durham. Given the large amount of history content a separate article is justifiable.
775:
Perhaps a seperate entry for Durham County Council, as it is now the largest local authority in this part of England?
625:
1187:
894:
873:
1221:
2094:
1963:
1948:
1930:
1920:
772:
A nice sentence in the opening paragraph about heritage of mining, political struggles and something contemporary
766:
439:
400:
1229:
I saw the article existed, tried to make something out of it and now I’d be happy to merge it with County Durham
544:
1982:
1865:
1851:
1837:
1800:
1754:
1732:
1709:
1690:
1649:
1615:
1555:
1529:
1501:
1459:
1440:
1400:
1381:
1352:. The topic of the county palatine is not going to fit in this article or an article on the history of Durham.
1339:
1304:
2077:
2058:
1903:
1628:
only suggest splitting on grounds of length above 50 kB / 8000 words, but even then it needs to be justified.
1542:
is considered strong enough to stand on its own — and that may well be the outcome — then it won't be merged.
334:
295:
1476:
1040:
1003:
972:
945:
815:
810:
646:
535:
517:
44:
1350:
1487:
back in the articles that it came from, without prejudice to spliting that text to an article other than
938:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1696:
notable, but as the topics are so closely related we can choose to merge them or treat them separately.
618:
1290:. I would expect the county palatine to have its own article for the same reason as, for example, the
1168:
1591:
1576:
1539:
1488:
1484:
1428:
1420:
1415:
1406:
1314:
this part of the county history is incorporated into the main article, while Lancashire covers it in
1270:
1143:
1132:
1116:
723:
221:
2065:
1580:
1424:
1183:
1151:
1061:
1036:
999:
968:
952:
729:
667:
1745:
can be merged into it, giving the main article a specific focus and a stronger case for existing.
1123:; independently notable; readers best served by keeping them separate; improve rather than merge.
447:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
342:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
237:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1215:
994:
And I'm keeping it friendly but not happy to be red warned for removing a false claim against me
858:
1817:. We are no longer talking about the article which resulted in the opening of the merge request.
1075:
1014:
984:
934:
912:
889:
869:
1926:
does some tricky stuff to get population and area and density values from a table built in to
944:
Please remove your accusation and I might consider discussion. Claiming something false under
1315:
735:
113:
100:
50:
1239:
I really think a lot of content from both articles should be split into the new articles of
2039:
2015:
1636:
here. Trust the process, even I think there's a reasonable chance the article will be kept.
1266:
707:
632:
1405:
I am under the impression that you are proposing to blank and redirect (WP:BLAR) the page
765:
Reduce settlements section to a summary of the main towns and cities; the list belongs at
8:
2019:
1670:
1621:
1179:
1057:
1032:
995:
964:
948:
21:
1673:"is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue,
2073:
2035:
1978:
1959:
1861:
1847:
1833:
1796:
1750:
1728:
1705:
1686:
1678:
1645:
1611:
1551:
1525:
1517:
1497:
1455:
1447:
1436:
1396:
1377:
1361:
1357:
1335:
1323:
1300:
1208:
1164:
1089:
234:
133:
749:
Anything further to add to Etymology section: something for origin of "Durham" perhaps
2054:
1410:
1291:
1128:
1071:
1051:
1010:
980:
930:
923:
903:
880:
865:
562:
1625:
1568:
1326:
article, but the scope of that is wider than the palatine within Lancashire itself.
848:
431:
755:
The history section needs specific inline referencing, the "1911" tag isn't enough
120:
on Knowledge. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can
1599:
1386:
You might have misunderstood the proposal, which isn't a complete merger but a
660:
549:. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see:
326:
117:
827:
752:
The Education section is completely without references and is too journalistic
525:
Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places
2088:
2069:
2046:
2031:
1974:
1955:
1857:
1843:
1829:
1821:
1792:
1746:
1724:
1701:
1682:
1655:
1641:
1607:
1603:
1587:
1572:
1547:
1521:
1493:
1451:
1432:
1392:
1373:
1331:
1296:
1203:
1199:
1160:
1147:
1120:
790:
758:
Physical geography section: including geology, landscape, ecology and climate
711:
415:
394:
1784:
be useless for explaining the workings of the palatine system of government.
1450:, so unless you're interested in continuing I'm happy to leave things here.
2050:
2027:
1409:, after merging some or all of its content elsewhere, because that is what
1124:
1206:
article is sufficient to deal with the ceremonial and historical county.
831:
504:
116:
dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the
833:
1998:
Lead paragraph with type of county, borders, largest town and admin HQ
310:
289:
2023:
444:
1311:
829:
215:
1988:
1720:
339:
1654:
For the avoidance of doubt only: The county palatine satisfies
1571:
says an article should probably be split if it is above 60kB.
834:
1716:
1356:
abolished. Complete merger would be like trying to shoe-horn
761:
Tourism (the county council have something to say about this)
205:
184:
1658:
easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. GNG says that
84:
63:
1940:
entry in the infobox is ignored. Is there a reason that
1104:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1070:
Apologies accepted, we all get like that sometimes.
784:
640:
Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
443:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
421:
338:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
316:
233:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
211:
90:
2086:
1969:The official name of the county in legislation
1481:properly expanded with more relevant material.
1282:Oppose complete merger of page; support rewrite
1723:, but that does not make them related topics.
1675:as viewed through the lens of Knowledge policy
1575:is still 81kB even after a split. A merger of
598:Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
2115:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Geography
1805:When I opened this merge request the article
1107:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
842:This page has archives. Sections older than
1791:I would like to leave this discussion now.
2140:Top-importance North East England articles
1598:I was under the impression that there was
1423:. I have no objection to the expansion of
512:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
1364:. It would make it impossible to write a
654:Knowledge requested photographs of places
2150:High-importance England-related articles
247:Knowledge:WikiProject North East England
1743:Courts of the County Palatine of Durham
584:Geographic related deletion discussions
250:Template:WikiProject North East England
106:This article falls within the scope of
19:
2087:
852:when more than 5 sections are present.
2130:High-importance UK geography articles
2105:Knowledge vital articles in Geography
2001:Para on demography and administration
1048:Also on a seperate note, I apologise
555:Unknown-importance geography articles
1813:, which have brought the article to
1098:The following discussion is closed.
693:
612:Geography articles needing infoboxes
570:Geography articles needing attention
541:Tag related article talk pages with
437:This article is within the scope of
332:This article is within the scope of
227:This article is within the scope of
15:
2135:B-Class North East England articles
2120:B-Class vital articles in Geography
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
142:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
14:
2186:
2165:Low-importance geography articles
1583:will put that article above 60kB.
846:may be automatically archived by
494:WikiProject Geography To-do list:
145:Template:WikiProject UK geography
2175:Knowledge pages with to-do lists
2145:B-Class England-related articles
2100:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1895:The discussion above is closed.
1564:For the avoidance of doubt only:
1507:
1009:Who has red-warned you? Not me.
789:
701:
529:Missing articles about Locations
503:
424:
414:
393:
319:
309:
288:
214:
204:
183:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
1807:was about the geographical area
1483:Put the text that was added to
767:List of places in County Durham
477:This article has been rated as
457:Knowledge:WikiProject Geography
372:This article has been rated as
267:This article has been rated as
162:This article has been rated as
2170:WikiProject Geography articles
2110:B-Class level-5 vital articles
1349:book alone is 380 pages long:
460:Template:WikiProject Geography
230:WikiProject North East England
134:how to write about settlements
1:
2125:B-Class UK geography articles
1910:official_name = County Durham
551:Unassessed geography articles
451:and see a list of open tasks.
352:Knowledge:WikiProject England
346:and see a list of open tasks.
241:and see a list of open tasks.
946:Knowledge:Passive aggression
918:16:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
895:16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
874:13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
355:Template:WikiProject England
7:
2064:course, but that's for the
1602:chance of merger unless we
1249:Governance of County Durham
1080:21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1066:21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1041:21:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1019:20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1004:19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
989:20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
973:19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
957:19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
939:18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
253:North East England articles
122:join us at the project page
10:
2191:
2160:B-Class geography articles
1944:should be changed? If so,
1904:Error due to official_name
1606:both of those guidelines.
1247:and most crucially for me
1142:I propose merging most of
483:project's importance scale
378:project's importance scale
273:project's importance scale
168:project's importance scale
2155:WikiProject England pages
2078:00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2059:23:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
2040:22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1983:22:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1964:01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1592:County Palatine of Durham
1577:County Palatine of Durham
1540:County Palatine of Durham
1489:County Palatine of Durham
1485:County Palatine of Durham
1429:County Palatine of Durham
1421:County Palatine of Durham
1416:County Palatine of Durham
1407:County Palatine of Durham
1360:(abolished in 1707) into
1144:County Palatine of Durham
1117:County Palatine of Durham
489:
476:
409:
371:
304:
266:
222:North East England portal
199:
161:
78:
57:
1897:Please do not modify it.
1866:00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
1852:23:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1838:11:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1801:08:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1755:14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
1733:00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
1710:08:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
1691:17:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
1650:09:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
1616:04:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
1581:History of County Durham
1556:11:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
1530:20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
1502:19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
1460:19:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
1441:15:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
1425:History of County Durham
1401:23:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1391:pages on it, after all.
1382:21:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1340:17:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1305:08:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1275:03:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1245:History of County Durham
1241:Culture of County Durham
1222:20:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
1188:15:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
1169:14:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
1152:History of County Durham
1133:10:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
1101:Please do not modify it.
626:Knowledge requested maps
591:Geographical coordinates
358:England-related articles
109:WikiProject UK geography
1156:UK geography guidelines
2095:B-Class vital articles
1949:English cerem counties
1938:population = 1,972,789
1931:English cerem counties
1921:Infobox English county
1914:official_name = Durham
1662:book-length source is
1316:History of Lancashire
545:WikiProject Geography
440:WikiProject Geography
148:UK geography articles
101:United Kingdom portal
36:level-5 vital article
1700:standalone article?
1586:The site guideline
1567:The site guideline
1475:Revert the page to
335:WikiProject England
1518:North East England
1362:History of England
1358:Kingdom of England
1324:Duchy of Lancaster
741:Updated 2009-07-24
463:geography articles
244:North East England
235:North East England
191:North East England
132:and guidelines on
45:content assessment
2004:Para on geography
1411:Template:Merge to
1292:Kingdom of Sussex
1256:keep the district
909:
908:the sceptical dog
886:
885:the sceptical dog
856:
855:
821:
820:
783:
782:
692:
691:
688:
687:
684:
683:
680:
679:
676:
675:
388:
387:
384:
383:
283:
282:
279:
278:
178:
177:
174:
173:
2182:
1953:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1929:
1925:
1919:
1916:in the infobox.
1915:
1911:
1815:its current form
1546:your hard work.
1515:
1511:
1510:
1218:
1211:
1150:, and expanding
1103:
1055:
907:
884:
851:
835:
807:
806:
793:
785:
742:
705:
704:
694:
577:Deletion sorting
548:
518:Article requests
507:
500:
499:
491:
490:
465:
464:
461:
458:
455:
434:
432:Geography portal
429:
428:
427:
418:
411:
410:
405:
397:
390:
389:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
329:
324:
323:
322:
313:
306:
305:
300:
292:
285:
284:
255:
254:
251:
248:
245:
224:
219:
218:
208:
201:
200:
195:
187:
180:
179:
150:
149:
146:
143:
140:
124:where there are
103:
98:
97:
96:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
2190:
2189:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2085:
2084:
2066:history article
2016:Chocolateediter
2007:Para on history
1991:
1951:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1923:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1508:
1506:
1267:Chocolateediter
1216:
1209:
1140:
1099:
1092:
1090:Merger proposal
1049:
926:
861:
859:Bishop Auckland
847:
836:
830:
798:
779:
778:
716:
702:
672:
668:Geography stubs
542:
462:
459:
456:
453:
452:
430:
425:
423:
403:
374:High-importance
357:
354:
351:
348:
347:
325:
320:
318:
299:High‑importance
298:
252:
249:
246:
243:
242:
220:
213:
193:
164:High-importance
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
99:
94:
92:
73:High‑importance
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
2188:
2178:
2177:
2172:
2167:
2162:
2157:
2152:
2147:
2142:
2137:
2132:
2127:
2122:
2117:
2112:
2107:
2102:
2097:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2020:DragonofBatley
2009:
2008:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1990:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1905:
1902:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1825:
1818:
1811:pre-2021 state
1789:
1785:
1781:
1779:
1773:
1764:
1739:
1697:
1668:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1596:
1584:
1565:
1559:
1558:
1543:
1536:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1370:
1353:
1327:
1278:
1277:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1252:
1231:
1230:
1191:
1190:
1180:DragonofBatley
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1094:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1058:DragonofBatley
1033:DragonofBatley
1028:
1027:
1022:
1021:
996:DragonofBatley
992:
991:
965:DragonofBatley
960:
959:
949:DragonofBatley
925:
924:Infobox images
922:
921:
920:
860:
857:
854:
853:
841:
838:
837:
832:
828:
826:
823:
822:
819:
818:
813:
800:
799:
794:
788:
781:
780:
777:
776:
773:
770:
762:
759:
756:
753:
750:
744:
699:
697:
690:
689:
686:
685:
682:
681:
678:
677:
674:
673:
671:
670:
656:
642:
628:
614:
600:
586:
572:
558:
531:
511:
509:
508:
496:
495:
487:
486:
479:Low-importance
475:
469:
468:
466:
449:the discussion
436:
435:
419:
407:
406:
404:Low‑importance
398:
386:
385:
382:
381:
370:
364:
363:
361:
344:the discussion
331:
330:
327:England portal
314:
302:
301:
293:
281:
280:
277:
276:
269:Top-importance
265:
259:
258:
256:
239:the discussion
226:
225:
209:
197:
196:
194:Top‑importance
188:
176:
175:
172:
171:
160:
154:
153:
151:
118:United Kingdom
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2187:
2176:
2173:
2171:
2168:
2166:
2163:
2161:
2158:
2156:
2153:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2143:
2141:
2138:
2136:
2133:
2131:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2093:
2092:
2090:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2006:
2003:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1950:
1942:official_name
1932:
1922:
1898:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1823:
1822:County Durham
1819:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1774:
1770:
1765:
1762:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:County Durham
1570:
1566:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1535:unilaterally.
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1514:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1486:
1479:
1478:
1477:this revision
1473:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1417:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1213:
1212:
1210:Crouch, Swale
1205:
1204:County Durham
1201:
1200:Farne Islands
1196:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:County Durham
1145:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:County Durham
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
919:
916:
915:
911:
906:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
892:
888:
883:
876:
875:
871:
867:
850:
845:
840:
839:
825:
824:
817:
814:
812:
809:
808:
805:
802:
801:
797:
792:
787:
786:
774:
771:
769:
768:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
747:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
715:
713:
712:County Durham
709:
698:
696:
695:
669:
665:
663:
662:
657:
655:
651:
649:
648:
643:
641:
637:
635:
634:
629:
627:
623:
621:
620:
615:
613:
609:
607:
606:
601:
599:
595:
593:
592:
587:
585:
581:
579:
578:
573:
571:
567:
565:
564:
559:
556:
552:
546:
540:
538:
537:
532:
530:
526:
522:
520:
519:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
501:
498:
497:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
474:
471:
470:
467:
450:
446:
442:
441:
433:
422:
420:
417:
413:
412:
408:
402:
399:
396:
392:
391:
379:
375:
369:
366:
365:
362:
345:
341:
337:
336:
328:
317:
315:
312:
308:
307:
303:
297:
294:
291:
287:
286:
274:
270:
264:
261:
260:
257:
240:
236:
232:
231:
223:
217:
212:
210:
207:
203:
202:
198:
192:
189:
186:
182:
181:
169:
165:
159:
156:
155:
152:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2013:
2010:
1992:
1970:
1907:
1896:
1768:
1760:
1674:
1671:WP:CONSENSUS
1663:
1659:
1512:
1482:
1474:
1387:
1365:
1347:introductory
1346:
1319:
1281:
1255:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1226:
1207:
1194:
1175:
1141:
1112:
1106:
1100:
1097:
1072:Murgatroyd49
1052:Murgatroyd49
1029:
1011:Murgatroyd49
993:
981:Murgatroyd49
961:
931:Murgatroyd49
927:
913:
904:
890:
881:
878:
877:
866:Murgatroyd49
862:
843:
795:
764:
745:
738:
732:
726:
720:
706:
700:
659:
658:
645:
644:
631:
630:
617:
616:
603:
602:
589:
588:
575:
574:
561:
560:
534:
533:
516:
515:
478:
438:
373:
333:
268:
228:
163:
139:UK geography
107:
70:UK geography
51:WikiProjects
34:
1679:WP:CONLEVEL
1448:WP:BLUDGEON
849:ClueBot III
130:to do lists
2089:Categories
2014:(Pinging @
708:To-do list
633:Notability
582:Listed at
114:user-group
1772:subjects.
1626:WP:TOOBIG
1622:Prosesize
1569:WP:TOOBIG
816:Archive 2
811:Archive 1
454:Geography
445:geography
401:Geography
126:resources
39:is rated
2070:A.D.Hope
2047:A.D.Hope
2032:A.D.Hope
1975:A.D.Hope
1956:Johnuniq
1858:A.D.Hope
1844:James500
1830:A.D.Hope
1793:James500
1747:A.D.Hope
1725:James500
1702:A.D.Hope
1683:James500
1642:A.D.Hope
1608:James500
1548:A.D.Hope
1522:James500
1494:James500
1452:A.D.Hope
1433:James500
1393:A.D.Hope
1374:James500
1332:A.D.Hope
1318:. There
1312:Cheshire
1297:James500
1161:A.D.Hope
796:Archives
2051:Rupples
2028:Rupples
1788:style".
1600:WP:SNOW
1388:partial
1259:reader.
1227:Support
1195:Support
1125:Klbrain
844:90 days
736:refresh
724:history
605:Infobox
563:Cleanup
481:on the
376:on the
349:England
340:England
296:England
271:on the
166:on the
41:B-class
1936:. The
1769:unable
1664:always
1656:WP:GNG
1632:point.
1620:Using
1604:WP:IAR
1588:WP:GNG
1366:stable
1115:merge
536:Assess
47:scale.
1719:is a
1717:tiger
1595:want.
1176:agree
1146:into
1119:into
804:Index
730:watch
661:Stubs
647:Photo
28:This
2074:talk
2055:talk
2036:talk
2024:PamD
1989:Lead
1979:talk
1960:talk
1862:talk
1848:talk
1834:talk
1797:talk
1761:sole
1751:talk
1729:talk
1706:talk
1687:talk
1667:see.
1646:talk
1612:talk
1552:talk
1526:talk
1513:Done
1498:talk
1456:talk
1437:talk
1397:talk
1378:talk
1336:talk
1301:talk
1271:talk
1254:I’d
1217:talk
1184:talk
1165:talk
1129:talk
1076:talk
1062:talk
1037:talk
1015:talk
1000:talk
985:talk
969:talk
953:talk
935:talk
914:wooF
905:Roxy
891:wooF
882:Roxy
870:talk
718:edit
710:for
666:See
652:See
638:See
624:See
610:See
596:See
568:See
553:and
527:and
523:See
368:High
158:High
112:, a
2026:, @
2022:, @
2018:, @
1912:to
1721:cat
1681:).
1660:one
1579:to
1237:but
1220:)
1174:id
1113:not
1111:To
619:Map
473:Low
263:Top
2091::
2076:)
2068:.
2057:)
2038:)
2030:)
1981:)
1971:is
1962:)
1952:}}
1946:{{
1934:}}
1928:{{
1924:}}
1918:{{
1864:)
1850:)
1836:)
1799:)
1753:)
1731:)
1708:)
1689:)
1648:)
1614:)
1554:)
1528:)
1520:.
1500:)
1458:)
1439:)
1431:.
1399:)
1380:)
1338:)
1322:a
1320:is
1303:)
1273:)
1243:,
1186:)
1167:)
1131:)
1078:)
1064:)
1039:)
1017:)
1002:)
987:)
971:)
955:)
937:)
872:)
547:}}
543:{{
128:,
2072:(
2053:(
2045:@
2034:(
1977:(
1958:(
1860:(
1846:(
1832:(
1795:(
1749:(
1727:(
1704:(
1685:(
1644:(
1610:(
1550:(
1524:(
1496:(
1491:.
1454:(
1435:(
1395:(
1376:(
1334:(
1299:(
1269:(
1214:(
1182:(
1163:(
1127:(
1074:(
1060:(
1054::
1050:@
1035:(
1013:(
998:(
983:(
967:(
951:(
933:(
910:.
902:-
887:.
868:(
739:·
733:·
727:·
721:·
714::
664::
650::
636::
622::
608::
594::
580::
566::
557:.
539::
521::
485:.
380:.
275:.
170:.
136:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
