Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of arms[edit]

Does anyone have a copy of Yarm's coat of arms that they can put on the page? If not I can get it from the town council, but it'll be easier if someone has it already. - Andrewduffell 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To User:

The North Yorkshire border I was referring to was not the administrative one (I know that Yarm is north of that) but the traditional one. Local government in Britain is subjected to such frequent and arbitrary reorganisation that it's generally better to use traditional borders. It should be stressed that the traditional counties were never abolished, they just don't correspond to local authority boundaries any more in some places. You say that Yarm is north of the North Yorkshire border, but you don't say what county it is in. It's either in County Durham or Yorkshire (remember we are talking traditional counties here — everywhere is in a county even if it's been taken out of its control and is administered by a unitary authority). I've always thought the border ran along the Tees right to the North Sea, hence places like Redcar, and Yarm, are in Yorkshire.

Also I wonder about your use of the word "alumni": as far as I am aware it is used with places of learning, not towns. I have never come across your meaning, and my dictionary doesn't include it.

I stand corrected on Teesside, I'm not quite sure what made me think Yarm wasn't in Cleveland. I hope you can clarify some of these matters. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see the term Alumni in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Its use here is incorrect. Also, Yarm IS is the North Riding of Yorkshire (historic county) whether you (anonymous user) like it or not. You should not revert accurate information. Arcturus 11:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for conformation of what I had originally thought. I have reverted back to the North Riding. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link to[edit]

I think it's reasonable to have this link. It's a useful community facility and it does get used quite a bit. There's an equivalent one on the Ingleby Barwick page and someone has just put one on Thornaby. I haven't checked Billingham. I'll restore it in due course unless there are major objections. Arcturus 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These so called Yarm sites appear all the time, and are totally unused by 99% of the community. To link to it as a "Community Site" I disagree because it fails to meet that critera. However it could be linked to differently. The main reason it was removed was that, but also that it was added by an anon. user, and they were adding lots of links to pages which looked a bit like spamming Andrewduffell 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yorkshire (North Riding)[edit]

I don't see what the problem with this is. The bit in parentheses is just clarifying which riding the town is in, but the main entry still points to Yorkshire. Your edits pointed it to North Yorkshire which is clearly wrong. Owain (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. For places in Yorkshire it makes obvious sense to clarify which Riding they are in. At the moment some places just link to Yorkshire, others to the individual Riding. It would be a good idea to standardise with the formulation used here. Lancsalot 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I can disregard the "agreement" from your sockpuppet here. The section asks for the "Historical county". This is 'Yorkshire'. If you want to include the sub-division of Yorkshire then you should negotiate another field in the template, because North Riding is NOT part of the Historical county. - Andrew Duffell 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop this nonsense about sockpuppets. Note that you have violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and any further reverts will be reported. Lancsalot 13:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From looking at your contributions it is not nonsense. There has NO consensus been met on this at all, so request that you stop your vandalism of the page, and stop threatening to go "running to the teacher". If we take into account that you are Owain are the same person then you have also broken the three revert rule. Get over it, and enjoy wikipedia instead of vandalising it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewduffell (talkcontribs)

This is a really petty argument between you both about small issue. I think the best way to deal with this is to create an extra field in the template for sub-divisions. (DiegoGarcia 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It only really applies to Yorkshire and possibly a few other counties with historic subdivisions - such as Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Sussex, &c. This is a very uncontroversial edit and not worth the edit warrring and accusations of sockpuppetry that Andrew Duffell has instigated. Owain (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since North Yorkshire covers parts of all three ridings it's important information that shouldn't be excluded. By all means add an optional category to the template for it: in the meantime it should appear in parentheses. Yorkshire Phoenix 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stockton-Darlington railway meeting[edit]

I don't know where the meeting was held, but it was at one of the pubs in yarm. Does anyone want to fill this in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnduffell (talkcontribs) 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Both the George & Dragon and the Black Bull pubs in Yarm have a sign saying that the inital meeting was held there.They even show the same date ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnewshound (talkcontribs) 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There currently exists what appears to be a typo that states that the town has a major who has ceremonial grazing rights. One assumes that it should be a mayor but can someone verify and alter if necessary? --SmartShark (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've corrected the name of the Catholic church in Yarm to Ss Mary & Romuald - see Diocese of Middlesbrough web site .Could You restore link to the entry for St Mary & St Romuald but with its correct name, Ss Mary & Romuald.Thanks Ibnewshound (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have renamed the church article to remove the ampersand, so the link works now. Keith D (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History citation[edit]

The following quotation from the History section includes both a citation and a demand for a citation: 'under the Local Government Act 1972 it became part of the district of Stockton-on-Tees in the new non-metropolitan county of Cleveland.[citation needed]'. Should the demand not be removed? (RJPe (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Yarm Bridge dates[edit]

How can Walter Skirlaw build Yarm bridge in 1270 as bishop of Durham when he was bishop of Durham from 1388 until his death in 1406? The bishop of Durham in 1270 was Robert Stitchill. Stuffed cat (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look into this when I get a chance. There is a plaque on the bridge that may shed some light. I suspect the dates may have been written down incorrectly. Andrew Duffell (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked the plaque today, and it says 1400, so I've updated the article. Thanks for pointing this out Sc. :) Andrew Duffell (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noticed that my edit regarding the referendum has been reverted despite being reliably sourced, relevant and proportionate Could I ask why? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't a referendum. It was a no binding "parish poll" - basically an opinion poll. Andrew (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Yarm/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

  1. References need addresing as per tags
  2. Gallary images would be best moved into article as there is only 2
  3. Copy-edit for WP:MOS
Keith D 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last edited at 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I consider this article now meets the C-class standard. Hope you all agree, thanks. (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yarm. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yarm in Stockton-on-Tees[edit]

An editor is insistent on stating in the first sentence that Yarm is part of Stockton-on-Tees. This is true for local government purposes and is mentioned later in the lead. However, I suggest that towns should, first and foremost, be referenced to their county, and where possible, to their historic county as well. Do we have consensus on this with regard to Yarm? I invite the IP editor, and others interested in this issue, to comment here. Hopefully this could enable us to cease the edit warring. Arcturus (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A thorny issue. Whilst Yarm and Thornaby (Ingleby Barwick etc) are in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, they are, geographically, in the historic county of North Yorkshire. Having just written an article on the Church of St Peter ad Vincula, Thornaby-on-Tees, I do find it odd that the category for its listed building status is Grade II* listed buildings in County Durham, and not in North Yorkshire (or even something else). This is something that needs sorting, one way or the other. I am willing to stick my neck out here and state that it should say something along the lines of XXXX is in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, but within the boundaries of the historic County of the North Riding of Yorkshire. This would need to be expanded in the local government section, as the Borough stretches across the traditional boundary of the River Tees. The joy of all things (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst I agree that Yarm is located in North Yorkshire ceremonially, I think today the ceremonial county isn't the best way to identify where these places are. These areas (Thornaby/Yarm) have been 'independent' of North Yorkshire since 1974 when Cleveland was introduced as a county of its own right. Since then, and even after Cleveland was abolished, these places aren't really classed as Yorkshire in a wider context - I don't think media/local people would ever say 'Thornaby, North Yorkshire' it would be 'Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees'. Same for Yarm etc. Even North Yorkshire County Council doesn't feel the need to point out that Yarm/Redcar/Middlesbrough aren't under their control (See second tab of this page Whereas that page does point out that York isn't under it's control - York is associated as part of North Yorkshire, the former areas of Cleveland just aren't. I'm not even suggesting removing North Yorkshire completely - 'PLACE is in BOROUGH, COUNTY, England' is the best compromise in my opinion; makes reference to the area it's more commonly associated with and still keep to the wiki format of keeping the ceremonial county. Realistically I think the Tees Valley should also be referenced on these pages - in the media right now these areas are known by that as geographical frame of reference. "Yarm is a small town in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire, England. The town is on the south bank of the River Tees and is historically part of the North Riding of Yorkshire. Today Yarm forms part of the Tees Valley City Region." Also there is other wiki's who use this format - (which is in the same borough being discussed!) and (mentioned borough then county) and,_Tyne_and_Wear (mentions local government district then county) Pinkapples19 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that borough of Stockton on Tees spans ceremonial counties and we define entities by county thus having the borough before county does not really fit and is not really valid. Thus keeping the county in place and moving the borough later in the lead avoids the problem of the split between counties. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that various IPs appear to be socking on this to change various articles in Hartlepool, Stockton etc to this format and presumably are all the same person. Keith D (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the BBC and town council are to be believed, 89% of Yarm's residents want to leave Stockton borough and join Hambleton in the administrative county of North Yorkshire. To me this confirms that the towns primary affiliation is to North Yorkshire.[1] Tammbecktalk 12:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But isn't the ceremonial county split irrelevant? I understand what's been said but Billingham is part of the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham. Yarm is part of the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire. I understand the tricky nature of a unitary authority spilling into two ceremonial counties. In both cases you're always referring to the town being in County Durham or North Yorkshire not the whole borough. There's many incidents of streets and villages spanning council boundaries; see Some people will live in Fence Houses, Houghton-Le-Spring, Tyne and Wear and others in Fence Houses, Houghton-Le-Spring, County Durham. Houghton is very much Tyne and Wear but the post town spills into County Durham; that doesn't infer that Houghton is all within County Durham. So I don't think the county boundary is an issue here? For the record, people I know from south and north of the Tees would say they're in the county of Cleveland; not Durham or North Yorks - lots still use Cleveland on addresses etc. So the ceremonial counties used here are probably confusing more than anything. More commonly people just say Teesside or the individual borough - the borough being the most appropriate locator in this cases. Pinkapples19 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also just seen latest addition - this is hitting the nail on the head. People wanting to say their part of 'North Yorkshire' rather than 'Stockton' as the former sounds better to some, same with the southern area and the use of 'County Durham'! There's very unlikely to be any change in boundaries lined up anytime soon, and even if there was that can be changed as and when. Also that article is from 2014; there's now a Tees Valley mayor etc. And that sounds like a biased view point entirely with a skewed turn out, not to mention anyone younger than 50 has little connection to North Yorks! Pinkapples19 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way we've got it at the moment identifies Yarm as being primarily part of the borough of Stockton on Tees; "what is Yarm? It's part of Stockton". This is only true from the point-of-view of local government administration. Perhaps we could go with something along the lines of "Yarm is a small town on the south bank of the River Tees, two miles south of Stockton-on-Tees. Historically within the North Riding of Yorkshire, the town is in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, and for local government purposes, is part of the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees". There's perhaps a bit of repetition here, but any thoughts on this construct? Arcturus (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support something like that. It covers all the bases. Tammbecktalk 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You suggest that Yarm is part of Stockton true only on local government level but you could also suggest it's North Yorks only ceremonial, what else connects Yarm to North Yorkshire? The rest of North Yorks are a different region of England; 'Yorkshire and Humber', whereas Yarm is part of 'North East England'. Yarm's local services; police/fire are Cleveland, not North Yorkshire, it's parliamentary seat is "Stockton South", postcode is TS15, phone number is 01642. Now I know these aren't definitive examples on the their own, but all point towards this area being considered as being 'Teesside/Stockton/Tees Valley'. I'd go for the construct suggested as a compromise although I think saying simply for 'local government purposes' a little downplaying the more recent/present day links to Cleveland/Teesside. My preferred option would be similar to Eaglescliffe is currently - "Yarm is a small town in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees in North East England, situated on the south bank of the River Tees. Historically within the North Riding of Yorkshire, the town is part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes and also forms part of the Tees Valley city region." Pinkapples19 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, if we tweak Arcturus's compromise with the input from Pinkapples19 and a bit from myself, I propose:

Yarm is a small town on the south bank of the River Tees in North East England. Historically within the North Riding of Yorkshire, the town is part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes. Yarm is in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, about two miles south of Stockton, in the Tees Valley city region.
  • Support my own proposed wording above. Tammbecktalk 15:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. That should cover everything. My only reservation is the reference to Tees Valley city region. The City region (United Kingdom) article is up for deletion at the moment, and I don't think there's a reference to "city region" in the government paper that set up the entity. Certainly there's no mention of it here [2]. Perhaps we could use "Tees Valley authority" or "Tees Valley local government area" or similar? Arcturus (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the link to Tees Valley Combined Authority. Thanks for the input. Tammbecktalk 19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Thanks. I didn't know that article existed. Arcturus (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I kind of sparked a discussion here didn’t I. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]