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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article states:
"Marsh is a corruption of march, which means boundary."
Whereas the following website
[1] (along with various others with identical text) says:
"The much misunderstood 'in Marsh' was originally 'Henmarsh', meaning boggy land where wild birds were to be had. This was added to many local place names from the 13th to the 17th century, when improved drainage gradually cleared the area and the district name disappeared."
Which is correct? Both seem plausible. However, I tend to leans towards the latter, given that the four Shire Stone (boundary) is a good 2 miles from the settlement propper. Any thoughts? 80.255 16:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is a lot of marsh land around the village and it is of that flat and boggy type. So I'd go with that to be honest. It floods a fair bit too.
80.41.25.43 (
talk)
00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I've cancelled this edit request for now - no offence; I hope people will discuss it, but, otherwise - it needs to be really specific - ie, "please change THIS to THAT with THIS REF" - if others agree, or if nobody disagrees, please just re-request in clear terms, and I'd be happy to change it. Thanks for understanding, 22:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what it is you cancelled other than some suggested references that should have just been added to a new section instead of making an edit request.
Saffron Blaze (
talk)
14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply