Jump to content

Talk:Marlborough, Wiltshire

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

}}

POV remarks about Kennet District Council

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

References

  1. ^ Ayro J and Crofton I, (2005), Brewer's Britain and Ireland, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

Gordon Richards buried in St Mary's?

[edit]

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]

For this we have probably Sir Gordon's otherwise excellent article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to blame for giving currency to this misconception. Its editors are open to approaches from the public that with substantiation seek to correct their published information.Cloptonson (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement here that the Wiltshire town is not the primary topic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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.

New findings about the Mound

[edit]

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]

Help with move

[edit]

I would appreciate some help with this move; there are a lot of incoming links to Marlborough; see here. I'd like that list to be a lot smaller before I do the move itself. I think generally all or most of those should be pipe-redirected to Marlborough, Wiltshire. I'll work on them but would appreciate any help! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; we're done. Thanks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move decision NOT a Consensus

[edit]

It looks to me that there has been a unethical coup here. Four Opposed to presumably five in Support is not a clear cut decision. I consider that this mover is acting in a very anti-Wikipedian manner. I cannot assume any good faith in this move and consider that this is done in a very underhanded manner. Dabbler (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:NOTEVOTE, on Deletion, moving and featuring "...they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus". Strength of argument not numbers is what carried the decision. If you still happy I'm sure you could ask for the decision to be reviewed, but I doubt if anyone will agree that it was "unethical". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unethical is an odd charge; I'm not sure how or what to respond to there. But GraemeLeggett outlines my thinking in closing the move discussion, more or less. To me it isn't so much whether the opposition's argument – that the Wiltshire town is the original Marlborough – is or isn't strong, it's that this argument does not appeal to the guidelines about how articles are named at Wikipedia, while the supporters' argument – that Marlborough should be a disambiguation page unless there is a clear primary topic – does. Nobody really disputed that there was no primary topic, so the application of the relevant guidelines was pretty straightforward here. Local consensus, I think, should not easily trump well-established guidelines derived from wide community consensus. There is some disagreement about when it is ok for local consensus to override a guideline, and indeed there is a history here of guidelines being changed by repeated repudiation at discussions such as the one above. But I certainly lean toward the change-the-rule-first school of thought, so when I see a discussion like this where even most of the participants argue for upholding the guideline, I think it should be closed in line with our guidelines. It turns out there is a relevant discussion about these guidelines going on at WT:D; I would encourage anyone who cares about this kind of thing to see what the arguments are and weigh in there. If you want "history and etymology"(Dabbler, above) to weigh more heavily wrt article titles, I would encourage you to participate in discussions at WT:D rather than just !voting against it at move discussions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a silly example and not likely to help things. In that case Washington DC is clearly and overwhelmingly the primary use. In the case of Marlborough there is no primary use so its not the same thing. I regard this as a trivial issue so I am not suggesting the move decision be changed, but I do think that comment is just provocative. I would say that if there is a discussion in place about the primacy of history and etymology then it would have made more sense to refer people to that discussion and leave this article as it is pending resolution; the close here was premature but equally it wasn't unethical. --Snowded TALK 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at present Washington is "no primary neaning", since we have the president and the state. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is unethical to close down a discussion where there was no agreement and take unilateral action. I won't fight this elsewhere because I was only mildly opposed to the move in the first place but I do consider that it was a violation of Good Faith. Dabbler (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I acted in good faith, to address Kauffner's request in light of the evidence and arguments presented during the discussion and Wikipedia's broader guidelines and policies. Please let me know if I can clarify anything I wrote above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you acted in good faith. But I also think that it would be a good idea to relist this to seek a wider consensus. It is likely that the reason the results from the discussion were inconclusive was that very few people noticed the move request.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stop you, but I don't think the issue here was a lack of participation. Of the ~10 participants, nobody argued that this town is the primary topic for "Marlborough". One opposer even argued that there is no primary topic. Again, I would encourage people who want being the namesake to count toward determining the primary topic to weigh in at wt:D. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not an admin, I was asked to take a look at this decision and help with getting it re-opened[1]. Here's what I see:

  • Of those participating...
    • Supported (5): Kauffner, Good Ol’factory, PatGallacher, Kotniski, 65.95.15.60
    • Opposed (3): Robert Greer, Snowded, The Last Angry Man
    • Mildly opposed (1): Dabbler
    • Neutral (1): Thryduulf
    ...the support side has more weight.
  • The supporting argument is that this topic is not the primary topic for "Marlborough" and was cited directly or strongly implied by everyone supporting the move. This argument was not challenged by anyone.
  • The opposing argument reflects in essence the "education exception" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For example, Dabbler makes an appeal to "history and etymology", and Robert Greer notes that this use is original and the eponym for all other uses. Snowded in particular concedes the lack of primary meaning and yet wants to "to keep things as they are" "per RobertGreer". In other words, Snowded is saying even though it's not the primary topic it should be treated as if it is because it is the original use. These arguments would have been stronger had they explicitly referred to the exception.
  • I find this discussion to be all too typical, sadly. The problem is that the rule that is supposed to provide guidance here, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, does not. Instead, it supports both sides. I have proposed removing the "education exception" clause precisely because it creates quagmires like this [2]. Reviewing this discussion has caused me to reconsider my position - perhaps there is a way to word it so that it does provide guidance in situations where there is no primary topic, but there is a clear original meaning, in which case the exception of treating the original meaning as the primary topic would not be merely allowed, but mandated.
  • The discussion was open from 23 May 2011 to 10 June 2011, over double the normal amount of time, which is one week. Once could argue that it was still closed prematurely due to the close !votes and the strength of the argument on both sides (no thanks to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), but I doubt the situation would have changed much had it been relisted rather than closed, and, since no one challenged the primary topic supporting argument by citing the education exception clause, the support side was stronger not only in numerically, but also by arguments based in policy and guidelines.

I urge everyone involved to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal so that the wording at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can be fixed to provide better guidance, one way or the other, in situations like this. Sorry if this didn't help. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just made a new, alternative proposal, reflecting the idea I got above. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal_.232 --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks B2C. It's funny, I didn't think educational value was much of an issue here, since the NZ region and the dukes are hardly recentism and I wouldn't say that the wiltshire town is the most important in any sense other than being the namesake. Your new proposal is interesting; I'm not sure how I feel about it but anyone here who hates or loves my closure should get on over to Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal_.232. I'd be happy to go ahead and move this back if it carries the day. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposing argument was based entirely on wanting this article to remain because it is the eponym of the other uses. If that's not about educating those seeking some other use by searching for "Marlborough" about its original use, what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But how much educating is really going on just by having this article at that title? The point it is meant to convey – this is the eponym – isn't even clear! If anything, the disambig page seems most educational. I thought the point of the education exception was if one term was the most significant in some sense but just not the most likely to be searched for for whatever reason. But that is not the case here, as I understand it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there is not much educating going on, but that's true for any title used for that purpose. This is why I originally proposed removing the educational value exception from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but too many people think it's important, apparently. This original use of Marlborough is "significant in some sense" - in the sense that it's the original use and all others are named after it. Again, in what other sense might a particular use be "significant"? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One subject might be more important or influential in a lot of ways; I don't think I understand your question. There's an example above about Washington vs. its (albeit indirect) namesake, Washington, Tyne and Wear. Hopefully it is clear how the other Washington's are significant despite not being the original. Did you mean to ask how else the education exception could be applied? I think it mostly comes into play along with recentism; when one subject is the most viewed simply because it is popular despite another subject having a larger cultural or historical significance. Again, not the case here as I understand it. The Duke of Marlborough, Marlborough, Massachusetts, and Marlborough Region are not examples of recentism. Making them harder to get to does not serve to educate anyone. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d been avoiding this one as the eponymous Marlborough is just down the road from my home, so I was wary of local partisanship. However there are a couple of things that bothered me about his.
.a) If the good wiki-editors of Marlborough, Massachusetts (for example) had objected to the old arrangement, I could see a dab page as a reasonable compromise. But that wasn’t the case here; this RM was initiated by the WP:D team. And if the role of WP:D is to help resolve disputes over title ambiguities, it seems to have had the oppposite effect here. So I would question the wisdom of such a pro-active approach.
.b) The mere fact of opening a RM seems to have created a bias towards change. In a content dispute, an even split in those for, and those against, a change would generaly result in "no consensus for change". Here, where moving articles around is potentially more disrupting than changing article text, the opposite seems to apply; a lack of agreement is something to be set aside. It seems illogical.
.c) I was bothered by the comment "Perhaps we'll have better idea of which topic is primary after the page move", which seems to be putting the cart before the horse. And the current emphasis on preferring what is popular on the internet as a primary topic opens the way for the eponymous Marlborough to be kicked off this title to make way for, say, a redirect to somewhere like here.
.d) I notice here the comment that the page had a lot of incoming links; with hindsight, wasn't that a reason to leave things as they are?
My two-pennyworth, Xyl 54 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xyl, thanks. I've tried to address concerns like (b) above, hopefully that gives you an idea of what I was thinking. Regarding (c), it's easier to tell what the PT is when the disambiguation page is at the undecorated term; you can see what page people are trying to get to by looking at view statistics. The point was, I think, that it had already been established that the Wiltshire town was clearly not the PT, but maybe there was a different article that was the PT, maybe it would become clear that, say, the Duke was the obvious PT. It's more "conservative" in some sense to move the dab page to the title first, then after a few months check the page stats and see if we should move the Duke article there instead. To me, this doesn't seem likely here. Wrt (d), no, other than it makes the move harder to carry out, why would that matter? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basic fact remains that if this had been a content issue any close would have been premature. No one questions your good faith, but you took your view of policy (which it turns out was in question anyway) and took action without any clear consensus. The proper cause looks to have been to alert editors to the policy debate in progress and hold action pending resolution of that. This is a wider problem on wikipedia with some editors focused on discussions over common policy tending to see those discussions as having priority over the views of editors involved with articles. The latter group only end up getting involved too late when they realise the policy discussions are going to impact. --Snowded TALK 17:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any debate at wt:D or elsewhere that had much chance of changing the outcome of the move discussion here – remember B2C's eponym proposal was after my closure – so I don't think we really needed to wait for anything there to get resolved. The proposals at WT:D, if anything, would further support this closure. You're right that we're probably always going to be able to find tension between community-derived guidelines and what editors who watch a certain article want. In my reply to Dabbler just above I tried to address that and the kind of objection you raise again here with "took action without any clear consensus." It seems we are talking past each other at this point; I'll be happy to clarify anything or discuss my reasoning if you take issue with anything I said in that reply to Dabbler. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly see no evidence that you are listening to anyone who disagrees with you. You've clarified your reasoning several times, just accept some people think you were wrong. --Snowded TALK 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I do accept that people think I am wrong? I'm not sure what you mean. My "talking past each other" remark – I'm assuming that's what you are responding to here? – was because you are the ~3rd person to tell me, after I explained why I think there is consensus, that there is no consensus but without addressing my rationale. I am more than happy to get and address feedback, reverse my actions if I'm wrong, etc; but I don't have anything new to say to these points that have already been made. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of the "educational value" argument in relation to primary topic discussions, I dom't think this is really relevant to this case, unless you are saying that this means educating people about the original meaning. If anything, this is an argument for the British general as the primary meaning, the leading British army general of the 18th century. It can be annoying in discussions when you get people putting forward arguments which are not within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines, and sometimes don't even seem to properly understand what the discussion is about. PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Marlborough in Massachusetts and the one in New Zealand are more notable than this one, according to the search engines. As for the duke, he is the reason that there are so many cities named Marlborough. They aren’t named in honor of this town. We could restore this town to its former primary topic glory by making “Marlborough” a redirect to here, but I hope that the title can remain at “Marlborough, Wiltshire”. When it was at “Marlborough”, that was confusing somewhere around 100 readers a day who assumed it meant their local Marlborough in Massachusetts, New Zealand, or where ever. Redirects don't seem to have much influence on traffic patterns, certainly not compared to article titles. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation: it’s a moot point whether the other places are named after the duke or the town; Marlborough, Mass. (for example) was named after the town (as it pre-dates the Duke by about 50 years), while Marlborough, NH. was named after the one in Mass. “which was named for John Churchill, 1st Duke…”. And as Marlborough, NZ. was organized as a province in 1859 (150 yrs later) it could even be named after this guy. I don’t know that anybody knows for sure. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pat: I understand there is a guideline concerning the notion of a primary topic: And that according to it, the article that was here wasn’t the PT, so the remedy would be to move it somewhere else and either put a dab page here or some other articles or a redirect to some other article (eg. the most popular).
And I hope you understand the alternative view (at least, mine) which is:
  • The WP:D team write a guideline:
  • They then alight on an article, which is properly titled according to WP TITLE and the NamingConventions that apply to it (in this case WP:PLACE) and open a RM:
  • A number of people support the move (at least some of whom are active in the WP:D project), while others (at least some of whom are active in the relevant project) oppose:
  • The move then gets implemented because it is well supported and conforms to the guideline quoted:
  • A good deal of argument and bad feeling is generated in the process.
Now is it just me or does anyone else think there is something decidedly wrong with that course of events? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's decidedly wrong that there is bad feeling here; that is very regrettable. I just want to point out though that WP:TITLE says if there is no primary topic then "that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation." The current title is very much in line with WP TITLE, as far as I can tell. You link to wp:PLACE - do you think this should be at Marlborough, England? That might have been better, or am I misreading this? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, also in case anyone missed it, Xyl is a senior member of the WP:D team, if such a thing can be said to exist. I don't think this talk of "teams" and us vs. them is helpful; people who spend time on WP:D and WP:TITLE care about consistency and legitimacy, please assume that they are acting in good faith. Although I sure hope we can find a way to deal with these discussions without generating bad feelings! (You should see what's happening at WT:EN!) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RE WP:PLACE, specific guidance for places in England exist - "use [placename, ceremonial county]. For example, Halling, Kent." GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Senior member? hardly!
And my point here was only that the page was fine as it was, and has been changed because of a WP:D agenda which has been causing ructions all over the place; same arguments, usual suspects (including, now, me, unfortunately). Xyl 54 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Xyl. Obviously people who choose to spend time on WP:D care about consistency and act in good faith. They need to realise that other editors do not share that focus. That means that when the encounter opposition the response of involved admins should not be to close the discussion in line with their priorities, but instead engage with and listen to others. That did not take place here and (I'm sorry to repeat this) but I see no evidence that ErikHaugen is even listening to those concerns.--Snowded TALK 06:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved from Marlborough College

[edit]

The following text has been moved from the Marlborough College article as it did not fit there. Please see if it fits in this article better.


Archaeomythologists using mythology as historical fact to date sites have argued that Marlborough is named after a prehistoric Merlin. Prior to 2011 some, including Ed Joyce in 'The Key to Camelot', had stated that the connection of Arthurian Mythology to sites dated to 2400 - 2300 BC indicated that there had been an Arthur and a Merlin figure living in Britain during this period. Historians had countered suggesting that the mound was dated to the Norman period and that there was no genuine connection to a prehistoric Merlin figure. Carbon dating proved that the archaeomythologists suggested date correct. A legend in Geoffrey of Monmouth states that bluestones at Stonehenge were brought by Merlin to Stonehenge. These stones have also been dated to 2300 -2400 BC, however many archaeologists state that this is coincidental.

A similar dispute occurred over the dating of the golden Rillaton and Ringlemere cups. There were initially dated to 1600 BC by the British Museum however the carbon dating of the Ringlemere barrow site showed that it was from 2300 - 2400BC. Museum authorities continue to argue that the cup dates from around 1600 BC and that the site was dug into in the later period and deposited as a votive offering. The dating of this artefact is still disputed with leading authorities arguing that the dating of golden cups reminiscent of the Arthurian grail to sites with the Arthurian name is a coincidence.

Dabbler (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elucidate tag

[edit]

In the article both Marlborough Bucket and burial bucket are italicized. Obviously the author thinks they are important. I was unable to find a definitive answer to the question, "Were burial buckets use as coffins?" Or to the question, "Were burial buckets found in graves as treasures, but empty of human remains?" Nick Beeson (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge

[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 15:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marlborough, Wiltshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible derivation

[edit]

I've tagged the "marl" derivation of the town's placename as {{CN}}. As the text suggests, it's "plausible", or even attractive, but "plausible" shouldn't get it into Wikipedia without a reliable source. Of the sources I've seen the most common origin is from the barrow standing in the town, belonging to a character called Maerla (rather than the more common Saxon burh). This is in Victoria County History. Other sources suggest derivation from the meargealla plant.

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs now supplied for both possibilities.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough Jazz festival

[edit]

As the yearly Marlborough Jazz Festival no longer runs, this should be reflected in the content of the page. 82.21.243.202 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, updated. --Wire723 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire&oldid=1208819117"