Contents

Template talk:Durham

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
England This template 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles

"Questionable" edits

[edit]

@The Banner has reverted my recent edits to this template, stating that they are "questionable". My justification for the changes, which was primarily to bring consistency with other county templates, is as follows:

• To qualify for inclusion in the "Major settlements" section, the convention is that settlements must be cities or towns (of any size), or villages with a population of 10,000 or larger. See Template talk:County#Inclusion criteria for Major settlements section.
  • Accordingly, Coxhoe (village, pop 7k) and Easington (village, pop 2k) don't qualify and should be removed.
  • I'm not sure why I removed Stanhope. It's small but since it's a town it should be listed. I'll put it back in.
• As stated in the heading of the "Major settlements" section, cities are to be marked in italics, not bold text. Bolding doesn't work because when the template is transcluded into a town's article, the town's name will appear bold even though it's not a city. See Template talk:County#Bold text for settlements.
• Renaming the title of the template from "Ceremonial county of County Durham" to "Ceremonial county of Durham". The official title of the county is simply Durham, although it's often referred to as County Durham to distinguish it from the city. I felt that since the heading already includes the word "county", the meaning is clear and the word doesn't need to be repeated.

Bazonka (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you invented some standards without community support? Beside that: adding links to disambiguation pages is certainly not an improvement. The Banner talk 10:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did develop the inclusion criteria because previously there was chaos and inconsistency. However, I have been entirely open about this, and I've raised it in numerous places. No-one has disagreed with this approach, which is a kind of tacit support. By all means, contribute to the discussion at Template talk:County, although note that this template is intended for use on English counties only.

I hadn't realised that the title change had introduced a link to a disambiguation page. I agree that this is bad, and I'll revert to "County Durham" unless I can find a way to get the template to link to the county's article with the shorter name.

Bazonka (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner for interest, the discussion about inclusion criteria started at Template_talk:Cheshire#What is a "Major settlement"? before I moved it over to Template talk:County. Bazonka (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]