Talk:Wetheral

	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.

CCHT external link[edit]

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) 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User If5tatement[edit]

"Along with nearby Scotby and the merged village of Warwick Bridge - Corby Hill - Little Corby, this is one of the most affluent areas of North Cumbria."

Weatherall sure, Scotby sure. But no, no and no. Warwick bridge and Little corby are primarily council and low cost housing. are I'm going to remove them as it's blatently the subjective view of whoever put it there, one which I disagree with.If5tatement (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]