Jump to content

Talk:Marlborough, Wiltshire

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.95.15.60 (talk) at 14:44, 5 June 2011 (→‎Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV remarks about Kennet District Council

I have removed the following text added by User:86.15.233.181 as it is not directly relevant on a page about the town of Marlborough. If it should go anywhere (highly unlikely I would think, without some heavy editing) it should probably go on Kennet District Council.

Kennet District Council is the local authority and is not generally a popular council as they adopt policies that disadvantage and fail to consult with their council tax payers.
The Council is now generally perceived as pompous and arrogant which is far from its original roots as a small friendly council; senior management is aloof and detached and have been in their current posts far too long. A change of senior management would be a significant advantage both economically, culturally and socially.
Significant change is desperately required for this organisation.

I hope this was the right thing to do. Thanks -- Muntfish 11:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The main thing to establish in the mind of the reader is that the first syllable has the vowel from "call" not (non-rhotic) "Carl". This seems to be a frequent mistake by people unfamiliar with the town. Beyond that though, I'm curious as to whether the local pronunciation ought to be given as [ˈmɔːrlbrə] or if rhoticity has faded from the area. Perhaps older speakers say it this way? To be clear, this means that they would pronounce the "r" in the first syllable, in the same way that a West Country pronunciation of "farmer" contains two "r" sounds while someone from non-rhotic southern England has none in that word. Old Man of Storr (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the rhotic pronunciation is a "frequent mistake" then can we be sure that it is a mistake at all? Is the local pronunciation of a place name necessarily the "correct" one?

Is the town necessarily the primary meaning of Marlborough? Some people might say it was the general. So perhaps there is no primary meaning? PatGallacher (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the town, having been born there and having spent a great deal of time in and around it over the years. I have to tell you that the pronounciation is not fixed or common to all, not even those who are genuinely local. For example my grandfather owned a house on London Road at the easternmost end of the paved section before it rises up to the Savernake Forest; even after thirty years in London he spoke as any man of Wessex might with a wonderful rhotic vocabulary and Wiltshire dialect. His neighbour, but one, was a master at the College and spoke perfect BBC received English. They pronounced the name of the town differently to each other, but each understood what the other meant. They were both locally born but of different cultural and educational backgrounds. This did not inhibit their mutual respect and the town remains standing despite their differences in pronunciation. Personally, I would simply celebrate the fact that our language is robust enough to allow these differences. As for meaning; [1] suggests two possible origins: 'Maerla's (burial) mound' or 'hill where gentian grows'. They argue that the roots are based in the OE personal name of Maerla or meargealla 'gentian' + beorg'hill mound'. They add that the first element has no connection with Merlin, the name of the magician in Arthurian legend whose tomb is said to lie beneath Castle Mound - also known as 'Merle Barrow' - in the grounds of Marlborough College. Incidentally they also offer two pronunciations: 'mawl-' or 'mahl-'.<reference/>--SouthernFrog (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Richards buried in St Mary's?

The entry that states that Gordon Richards is buried in St Mary's is factually wrong. Sir Gordon's grave is very close to that of my grandparents in the 'New' cemetery on the Common. I would like to have this corrected. If tthere is no objection in a few weeks then I shall do so myself.--SouthernFrog (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Marlborough → Marlborough, Wiltshire – The highest result for this town in a Google search is seventh place. See Marlborough -Wikipedia. Both the Marlborough Region in New Zealand and Marlborough, Massachusetts are more notable. On Google Books, a search for "Marlborough -Wikipedia" brings up numerous references to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Kauffner (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mildly oppose -I could live with a Marlborough disambiguation page with this linked there as I have to live with so many other concessions to other people's heartfelt opinions. This is the eponym from which all other people and places named Marlborough, including the Duke were derived. Does history and etymology have no place in the Brave New World of Wikipedia? Dabbler (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just fixed 11 pages that incorrectly linked to this article, 10 of them meant Marlbrough Region in New Zealand, the other meant Marlborough, Massachusetts. I only looked at the pages on the what links here that looked likely to be wrong, so there will possibly be others (I didn't check any biographical articles for example). This is a very small number though compared to the pages that correctly link here. It would be a big task to update all the correctly linked articles, but incorrect links to dab pages would be found and fixed far easier than incorrect links to this page. Overall I'm neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Robertgreer. Also part of the problem is that there really is not a primary use. Churchill is likely to come up on a book search given the amount of histories written in that period. A weather search generally ends up with New Zealand Wine areas etc. Depending on which country you are in Google will take you somewhere different. We could I suppose just have a disambiguation page for the word, but if we have to have a primary the the original seems as good as any--Snowded TALK 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be arguing for "no primary meaning", which is exactly what this move request is proposing. PatGallacher (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm never that keen on disambiguation pages as the first port of call so my preference is to keep things as they are. If there is a firm consensus to move then yes no primary meaning is OK --Snowded TALK 17:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I'm never that keen on disambiguation pages as the first port of call" appears to be at variance with Wikipedia guidelines, where this approach is often perfectly valid, see WP:DISAMBIGUATION. PatGallacher (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look I really don't want to get sucked into a trivial issue. The article is only on watch as I live nearby. I have read the guide lines and I don't think I am at variance with them, if there is a primary use its this one and a dab link at the top satisfies the conditions. Leave well alone I think. --Snowded TALK 18:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whether a term should lead to a DAB or to the number one topic is a judgement call. But in this case, this town is not the number one, or even the number two, topic for the term. Perhaps we'll have better idea of which topic is primary after the page move. Kauffner (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a well-established principle on Wikipedia that the original meaning is NOT necessarily the primary meaning in these cases. If I had to choose a primary meaning, I would go for the general. PatGallacher (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my Google Canada search the Wiltshire town (Wikipedia article) came up first followed by Marlborough Region in NZ, followed by Marlborough Mass. Then a mall in Manitoba, a conference centre in Manitoba and a school in BC. Strikes me that this is a good a primary as any other. Dabbler (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google tends to put Wikipedia articles first (or very high up) by default. That doesn't mean very much.--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but everyone else was appealing to their local Google results, so I thought I would put mine in for information, the first three entries were all Wikipedia articles. Dabbler (talk)
Isn't using Google searches flawed? Arne't they calculated on your location=/=relevance? Rather than international search numbers, I mean come on, American Google searches and British Google. searches are no basis for deciding what is more notable. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I searched for Marlborough on Google, Wiki's "Duke of Marlborough" peerage article was on top. I assume this represents people who want to read about John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, since I doubt many people want to read about peerage. For Marlborough -Wikipedia, Google puts Marlborough College on top, which I suspect is a commercial placement. Bing puts Marlborough, Massachusetts on top, regardless of whether you put in "-Wikipedia" or not. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New findings about the Mound

Those with a better archaelogical grounding than myself may wish to incorporate some of the new information reported in this BBC article (and elsewhere?). Is the Mound yet sufficiently notable to merit its own article? I have seen a suggestion in some archeologically oriented book (can't remember which, possibly one by Julian Cope's) that Silbury Hill was modelled on the slightly earlier(?) Mound. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.164 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood that the Mound is the remnant of the old Motte and Bailey castle and is closely linked to King John. Silbury Hill is way older. Is the suggestion that there was something there from neolithic times as well? --Snowded TALK 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is this report from the BBC website Marlborough Mound: 'Merlin's burial place' built in 2400 BC, May 31 2011. Dabbler (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ayro J and Crofton I, (2005), Brewer's Britain and Ireland, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire&oldid=432687873"