Talk:Stainton, Westmorland and Furness

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

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Portsmouth/Applied Human Geography (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

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 some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 11:46, 09 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much pointless information

Far too much information and statistics here, all the guff about population needs removing. 146.199.238.29 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@146.199.238.29 I've removed all the pointless statistics about population as it adds nothing pertinent. 87.114.59.56 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Stainton, Westmorland and Furness be renamed and moved to Stainton (near Sedgwick).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Stainton, Westmorland and Furness → Stainton (near Sedgwick) – Ambiguous with Stainton, Dacre. This article was created by me on 10 June 2010 as Stainton, Sedgwick and moved to Stainton, South Lakeland "Because there are lots of places called Sedgwick" which probably isn't a good reason as there don't appear to be any other Staintons in or even near Sedgwicks however I probably thought that Stainton with Adgarley wasn't just "Stainton" but actually it might be. It was then moved to Stainton, south Cumbria by User:Chocolateediter last year because South Lakeland was abolished and was moved to the current title today by User:Hey man im josh, see User talk:Hey man im josh#Stainton. Other than the title proposed in the RM and the title used until today there is Stainton (near Kendal) which might well be better due to being larger and the fact that A-Z uses (near Kendal) as a disambiguator in the index. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stainton, Darce can be Stainton on Eamont or Stainton near Penrith.

This Stainton can be Stainton in Kendal since Kendal is actually Kirkby in Kendal.

I'd like postcodes Stainton, LA8 would be nice and short but thats a guideline change and would be wholesale conversation with many users.

It can revert the Stainton, south Cumbria; I think some user might want to move on from Cumbria after the county council was abolished but it will return as a combined authority and something something ceremonial county, etc. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're move was fine, the move the the current district wasn't due to the ambiguity. I think if there is no consensus the move made 10 days ago will get reverted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria and WikiProject UK geography have been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stainton (near Kendal), as per nom there are three "Stainton"s in Westmorland and Furness (the "with Adgarley" is sometimes cut-off for the other one)[1], multiple Sedgwicks (unless we go "(near Sedgwick, Cumbria/Westmorland and Furness)"?) for clarity, South Lakeland no longer exists, however Kendal (as primary) is more identifiable. Although "south Cumbria" is okay, it still exists somewhat, but if the "with Adgarley" is sometimes cut-off and also in "south Cumbria" then maybe "southeast Cumbria"? But using Kendal seems simpler. Dank Jae 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:ENGPLACE, the preference is to use comma separated disambiguation and not parenthetical. Given there are four in Cumbria (and three of them are in Westmorland and Furness), it's not an easy situation. I don't know a lot about Cumbria but I'm wondering if there is any argument for this one being the primary topic for Stainton, Westmorland and Furness? My thinking for this is that two Stainton's are disambiguated by parish whereas this one is the civil parish. From that, it seems like it could be and that this is the best title. Depends on if Stainton with Adgarley could be considered more primary though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title seems fine as is. Confusion with the other Staintons is avoided by the disambiguation text immediately beneath the title - or isn't this sufficient? Rupples (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not fine because there are at least 2 places called "Stainton" in Westmorland and Furness. Even though the Dacre one isn't a parish the settlement has over twice the population of the entrire parish of Stainton (near Kendal) so I don't think as case can be made for partial disambiguation and as noted Stainton with Adgarley is sometimes called just "Stainton". A qualifier is generally supposed to be unambiguous, how is it helpful to readers or editors to have a qualified title that is still ambiguous? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a reader and editor and have no problem with the current title so long as the disambiguation text is retained - it would also need to be placed on Stainton, Dacre. When I type "Stainton" in Google search, nothing on this Stainton comes up on the first page of results, except in the 'People also search for' section where Stainton, Kendal shows so I'd go along with that. Another possible is adding civil parish to the current title, but that may make it overly long. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel no longer in use - but why?

The chapel, which was "erected in 1698" is no longer used for religious reasons. Or should that read . . . for religious purposes? Ref no longer works so it's hard to determine from afar. Geopersona (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]