Talk:Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh

Page Move

Doesn't seem to pass the "capitalised The in running text" test; naming conventions would seem to apply. Alai 21:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. In this case I think removing the definite article would make the title odd to say the least. -- Necrothesp 10:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the move proposed by Alai. What is being proposed is not to remove the word the when it occurs before Kimbles in running text but to remove it from the title because The (capitalized) is not part of the name itself. Consider how the United Kingdom is listed. The word the is almost always in front of it in text, but The is not a capitalized part of the article title itself. Jonathunder 20:37, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Support. As the text in the page says Beacon Hill that separates the Kimbles. Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support this myself, if that's not implied in my request. (Not clear why there's not in fact consensus for this, if consensus is even a formal requirement for RM -- seen many others pages moved after more marginal outcomes.) Alai 07:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 15:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Kimbles → Great and Little Kimble — I believe that the article name Kimbles serves little purpose for this article, as nowhere are these villages officially known as Kimbles or The Kimbles. The civil parish is called Great and Little Kimble, and this name incorporates everything that this article encompasses. I therefore believe that Great and Little Kimble should be the correct location of this article. role^player 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support 'The Kimbles' is used by some locally as a collective name for the three Kimble settlements but agree as it is neither a parish or village name 'Great and Little Kimble' is appropriate and would also suggest adding a redirect from Kimblewick. Tmol42 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

Proposed deletion and re-writing

This article needs rewriting. Almost all the facts stated are incorrect. As the existing article needs to be almost completely deleted, the main errors are listed below, I am engaged on a re-writing of the article with references, but this will take a little time to complete. For the time being I have deleted the erroneous statements and re-written the lead and the section on the name.

It is many years since it was seriously thought that the name came from Cymbeline. The account of Cymbeline appears to be taken from Holinshed via Shakespeare and is not a modern historical view of the facts. Cymbeline is a 16th century English version of the name which the Romans (contemporarily) spelt Cunobelinus. In any case there is no reason to think that he had anything to do with Caligula's proposed invasion which never got farther than Boulogne nor with either of the Kimbles.

It was not the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Place Names which put forward the alternative explanation of the name. This was first published by Mawer & Stenton in The Place Names of Buckinghamshire in 1925. Beacon Hill is in the next parish (Ellesborough) while Pulpit Hill is in Great Kimble and is thought by the new Cambridge Dictionary of English Place Names (2004) to be probably the hill in question.

The earthworks near (not on) Beacon HIll formerly known as Cymbeline's Castle have nothing to do with Cymbeline. They are in fact the remains of a motte and bailey castle built by the Normans more than 1,000 years after his death. They also are in Ellesborough.

There are remains of another motte and bailey castle which is in Little Kimble and which needs to be mentioned, as does the large prehistoric hillfort at the top of Pulpit Hill, which is in Great Kimble. There are also the remains of a Roman villa at Little Kimble and a probably associated barrow near the church at Great Kimble.

The paintings in Little Kimble church were indeed covered during the Reformation but have been uncovered so far as possible relatively recently. The warrior with the red cross is not a crusader but St George himself (the church is dedicated to All Saints and many of the paintings were of saints, rather than scenes from the Bible and British history as stated).

The cross at Great Hampden does not mark the spot where payment of ship-money was refused but is a 19th century memorial to John Hampden himself erected there because it was his family seat. The tradition that payment was refused at Great Kimble (mentioned by Carlisle) deserves to be re-stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Waysider1925 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on whether the article is deleted or re-written as I'm not sure I know enough about the villages in question to be able to comment. However is there enough about the individual villages such that they can have their own individual articles? Other much smaller places have their own articles and as they are two distinct places then why not? PS I know it was me that suggested the move to this location (above), however there I was merely trying to deal with the article name. If these are to be deleted hopefully the naming can be sorted at the same time. Delete one article and create two. -- role^player 19:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the article should be split into two, only that the content was quite wrong and needed to be re-written. I do not think there will be any difficulty in dealing with both Great and Little Kimble in the one article. Indeed there is so much in common that I think it will be more satisfactory Waysider1925 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean to suggest it, I'm suggesting it as an option. They are two separate villages a mile apart from each other so why not? -- role^player 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont feel they are really a mile apart, rather that they run into each other. I would be hard put to say where the boundary is and all maps now run them together, both the civil and ecclesiastical parishes. I suggest we leave them together for the moment. It can be reconsidered when the article is complete, but I personally favour keeping them together.

Waysider1925 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by Samee (talk · contribs) as unopposed RM. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Great and Little Kimble → Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh – Per the Ordnance Survey this is the current name of the civil parish. The parish council was renamed in 2009 which presumably also applied to the civil parish, since it mentions about the notification to the OS which would apply to the civil parish, not its council (which can call itself what it wants). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.