Talk:Barton, Cumbria

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Barton, Cumbria was copied or moved into Barton and Pooley Bridge with this edit on 20:02, 5 January 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

CCHT External link

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take several years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split to create separate Barton and Pooley Bridge?

The parish Barton and Pooley Bridge, which was renamed from "Barton" in 2019, is much bigger than the hamlet and includes Pooley Bridge but is at present a red link. It has a parish council, and should perhaps have its own article. Much of the article on Barton is actually about the parish, although the hamlet, with its grade I listed church, could still stand alone with an article. (Ah, I see the church has its own article: St Michael's Church, Barton). So either:

We rename this article to the current parish
or We redirect the current parish to this article
or (The Split) We create a separate article for the current parish and divide the content of this article between the article on the hamlet and the article on the parish.

My inclination is to do a split, but I thought it best to consult rather than go right ahead.

Any thoughts? This parish is one of those listed in User:Crouch,_Swale/Missing_parishes. PamD 15:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the parish has undoubtedly changed its name, with unchanged boundaries, I have moved Listed buildings in Barton, Cumbria to Listed buildings in Barton and Pooley Bridge, Cumbria and added text and ref to clarify the renaming. PamD 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is also to split but I would be fine with renaming if people don't think the "Barton" place is notable enough given is isn't an OS settlement. The listed building rename was definitely correct even if we preform #2 since the list is for the parish not the village. It may be awkward to have 2 articles given the rename but since it has its own church and there is information on the name origin of "Barton" a split should be OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any opposition I'm going ahead with the split. PamD 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]