Talk:Barrow, Lancashire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barrow, Lancashire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

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

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

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.

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.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Barrow, Lancashire. No need for dab page per WP:TWODABS Born2cycle (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow, Clitheroe → Barrow, Lancashire — No reason to use odd disambiguation by neighbouring village when the ordinary disambiguation by county is quite adequate. (The only other entry listed at Barrow, Lancashire is not called just Barrow and is not in Lancashire - a hatnote to it would work just as well as the dab page.) Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For a long time Barrow-in-Furness was also in Lancashire and is often called merely Barrow. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But why do you "oppose"? A hatnote to B-in-Furness would be no less inconvenient for anyone than the two-item dab page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a more specific disambiguator is deemed necessary, would it not be preferable to use the district rather than the civil parish, i.e. Barrow, Ribble Valley, not Barrow, Clitheroe? PC78 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a hatnote pointing to Barrow-in-Furness is quite adequate if there are no other titles to disambiguate from. Jafeluv (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Barrow-in-Furness has been in Cumbria since 1974 and has a distinct name, hence I agree that a hatnote would be better than the current dabpage. PC78 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The proposed hatnote deals quite adequately with the former Lancastrians. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.