Jump to content

Talk:Isle of Wight/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Smallest County Claims

The Island is the smallest ceremonial county in England at high tide (if the City of London is excluded), but its land area at low tide is larger than that of Rutland, normally thought of as Britain's smallest county.

Anyone mind if I remove this from the top of the page (paragraph 3)? It seems a bit trivial for the introduction. --Neil (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do, I implore you. I'd kinda given up on that one. Naturenet | Talk 13:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As nobody has objected in over 1 week I have removed the claim. --Neil (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rocket research and satellite launching

Perhaps a mention could be made that a Rocket was launched from the Isle of Wight, which put a satellite into space. This was mentioned in the BBC series 'Coast'. It was also revealed that the satellite was still working, at the time of the programme. I think this was the only time a British Rocket launched a British satellite into space. Must be worth a mention?Betty Butt (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was launched from the island. There was a testing site for rocket motors at The Needles but the actual launches took place in Australia Ragebe (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kilometres or Miles?

Why are the distances mentioned in the article given in km's? The Mile is the unit of distance in the UK? Stephenjh (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of reasons I assume;
  • For the convience of non-British/American readers; In the opening paragraph the distances are first given in miles, then in km for those who are more familiar with these units.
  • Where km is the standard unit; My local canal in Birmingham has distances labelled in km. It may be that the standard for railways, coastlines and railways; I honestly couldn't tell you.
  • Whomever added these facts added them in km, and nobody has converted them as yet. If you wish to then please do so, but I believe the style guidelines request both imperial and metric units to remain. --Neil (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest island claim

England is a part of Great Britain, which is itself an island. So, is it really appropriate to call the Isle of Wight the largest island in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.181.162 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really like this "largest island" claim. It may be true for just England but if you look at Great Britain though, then of course it is not the largest island, Anglesea is far bigger, and so are many of the islands off Scotland. The Isle of Man is also larger in size (just) than the Isle of Wight. Editor5807speak 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The point isn't anything to do with other British Isles like Mann or Anglesea. It's that Great Britain is the largest island in England; Wight is the largest "completely" English isle, and the text should be changed to relfect that, it's just difficult to know how to term it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.209.97 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

my.wightbay.com

Hi everyone

It was recently brought to my attention by User:62.49.6.51 about this website and whether/where it should be included in this article. Initially I just assumed it was pointing to Wightbay's main homepage and so thought it didn't belong in the 'media' section of this article and removed it. After taking a closer look at the page it does actually include relevant up to date news stories, radio information etc. Does anyone have any views about if and where this should be added? Personally I wasn't sure so thought this was the best place to discuss it, so please do comment. Thanks Editor5807speak 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss. I've had a look too. My inclination is not to include. The news, as far as I saw today, is all about the mainland although doubtless from time to time includes island news too, and in any case is scraped from other providers as opposed to being original content. the other content is not particularly notable. This website, whilst not without merit, is more of a portal than a unique content provider. Naturenet | Talk 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Demonym

You have Mancunians, Liverpudlians, Londoners... so what are are people from the Isle of Wight called? Wighters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.8.51 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

People from the Isle of Wight are known as "Caulkheads" as stated here, or here if you want a third party source. Editor5807speak 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As an Isle of Wight native I have always understood that we are Vectensians - after Vectis, the name given to the island by the Romans.Vectis Sue (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard the term 'Vectians' as an abbreviation. Never been sure if Vectian/Vectensian implies having been born there as Caulkhead does though. --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Wessic or Wightian? 82.15.18.182 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I always have refered to myself as an Islander, know its probably not useful as this aplies to just about any island. Xhavnak (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential Leasing of Isle of Wight to China for 99 Years?

Discussion on potential leasing of Isle of Wight to China for 99 years. See discussion in Chinese media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.66.58 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a link to a reliable source, I think that sounds like a topic appropriate to 12 days ago. - David Biddulph (talk)

Back of the Wight

New page: Back of the Wight. Not by me. I'm not quite sure about this: it's well-written and comprehensive but I'm not sure the term in itself is notable enough to deserve a whole page. Please reply on that page's talk, not this one. Naturenet | Talk 10:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd

In the lead it says "From early 2009 onwards the Island was also known as Digby Island due to its new ruler Sir Digby. Although Sir Digby himself was not a blood relation to Lord Mountbatten, he has ran the island well for the past 2 years and many locals hope that long may his reign continue", this is patent nonsense, but when I go to delete it from the text, it doesn't appear????

Indeed, very odd. I've started a discussion about it at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Isle of Wight article not matching edit box...? Arriva436/talk/contribs 15:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversion (?) to Christianity

While the "early history" section says that "In 686, it became the last part of England to convert to Christianity", the "notable media references" section says "in the year 686, when the population was massacred and replaced by Christians".

I am not sure if both statements are based on reliable sources but if they are then I think that the opposing views should be expressed more clearly. AlexFekken (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable residents

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding the name of an actor who does not (yet) have his own Wikipedia article. I assume that this article uses the usual definition, that to be included in "Notable residents" an individual should be sufficiently notable to have their own article? I have tried to explain to the IP, but it may be useful if someone else could explain in words that they will understand. And as I have reached 3 reversions it may be useful if someone else keeps an eye open. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallest County claim

I'd like to remove this claim, and will do so early next week unless there are any objections. My reasons are: i) It is somewhat ridiculous to measure land area as being different at high and low tides. ii) The definition of a county is difficult, do we mean the ceremonial counties, historic counties, or those listed as Counties of England on that page (i.e. administrative areas). iii) Under none of those definitions is the Isle of Wight actually the smallest county, as it is not an historic county, is beaten by the City of London (technically a county) as an administrative county, and by Bristol as a Ceremonial County. --Neil (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the Isle of Wight alternates with Rutland as the smallest county was made on the television show QI, which at least takes this out of the realm of original research. A mention of QI's claim, along with the actual minimum and maximum (if we can track it down), and the size of Rutland, and possible London and Bristol (slightly more ORish), might be worth mentioning somewhere. Though probably not in the lede. Xtifr tälk 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a fairly long debate on this topic in 2008 on this page - I see it's been archived but here it is if you're interested. My view is that the assertion is essentially meaningless and so I agree with the recent deletion of the claim on the page. Naturenet | Talk 12:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing activity on the article has involved the addition (by User:Culverdene) and removal (by myself) of an external link to a tourism website (isleofwight.co.uk). My removals have been part of a wider removal of other similar sites. I think all such sites (there are currently 2 still listed) should be removed, as per WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky call. It also reflects unfortunate events IRL which have pitted various factions of the Island's tourist promotion businesses against one another in a fight for a dwindling pool of advertisers - which is far beyond the scope of this discussion. Looking at WP:ELNO I am not convinced that the guideline excludes either of the two sites currently on the page, isleofwight.co.uk and visitisleofwight.com. Both have a moderate amount of unique and up-to-date content. The VIOW link also has the merit of being the official Isle of Wight tourist information site, insofar as such a thing exists. This could arguably mean it alone falls specifically within the WP:ELNO guideline. But more of a concern to me is the likelihood that few readers or editors will consider these nuances, and frankly, they probably shouldn't have to do so. In the past I too have done link cleanouts because there are literally dozens of other websites which could have a similar claim to be listed on this page, and the promoters of these websites are understandably keen to ensure they get exposure. So naturally over time such links build up and are removed. Otherwise this would certainly take us within the realms of WP:LINKFARM. I think few readers would expect the VIOW link not to appear in the section, and isleofwight.co.uk is a fairly ad-free site that has unique relevent content on it. I suggest they are both worth keeping at the moment, but if this proves to be a magnet for swarms of similar links which are not promptly removed, then I would agree that deleting the whole section is probably the best cure. Also, for avoidance of doubt, this argument applies only to this page. I think that these general sites should only be linked from the Isle of Wight page (this page). They, and other similar links, have a habit of popping up on other pages relevant to the Isle of Wight. That isn't right. Naturenet | Talk 10:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for hosting this discussion. I'm all for avoiding unnecessary links, but would advocate more than one view of the Island, especially as many businesses do not subscribe to Visit isle of Wight's interpretation of the Isle of Wight. Statistically UK visitors use on average 6 destination websites in order to make a decision, this is perhaps too many, but a small choice of sites that genuinely cover the whole Island is a good thing. Also the status of "official" is contentious. The IW Chamber claimed to be official after the Council gave up its tourism services and now conferring this onto another private company is far from perfect. Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this. 31.49.123.68 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

These decisions should not be based on how many views of the island people think should be presented - Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure or a booking aid for people going on holiday. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the decision about whether to include any external link at the end of an article should be based on whether the link adds a unique resource from an encyclopedic point of view (see WP:EL - in particular, under 'Links normally to be avoided', note that "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.") (A featured article is one which describes its subject comprehensively) Seeing as there seems to be some dispute about which of these sites can be regarded as the official one, I think that if any of this type of link is to be included, we should firmly establish the basis of each inclusion, otherwise every website proprietor will think 'why can't mine be added?'. On that basis, Naturenet could you be specific about the unique relevant content which you state is on isleofwight.co.uk (and VIOW as well)? (I ask because I believe your knowledge of the island is greater than my own). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite so, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest thank goodness and heavens help us if it ever becomes one. My reasons for supporting the inclusion of both these websites, and only these two, and only on this page, are as follows. VIOW is the official tourist website of the Isle of Wight. Admittedly not everyone is happy with that, but at present it has that status. That strongly supports inclusion in compliance with WP:ELNO. It also has pages with up-to-date information on it, relevant to the page, but which would not, in itself, be encyclopaedic. So for example a page about 'Dog Friendly Isle of Wight' which is original, non-commercial content. There are numerous other similar pages. The second site, isleofwight.co.uk, is laid out more as a catalogue but actually has a broad range of entries which give useful background information about the page subject - an example is the Isle of Wight Beaches page which is original, non-commercial content. Both sites also have commercial pages and other content which is not relevant, but the balance of content in both cases is clearly towards the informative and non-advertisement led. I would reiterate though what I said above: despite all the foregoing if these specific links prove to be a magnet for swarms of similar links which are not promptly removed, then I would agree that deleting the whole section is probably the best cure. Naturenet | Talk 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I don't know whether it would be feasible in the article to link only to the specific pages of these sites which have the relevant content by Wikipedia standards? Would that involve too many individual link entries? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No, not really. We're talking about the particular case of 'external links' to a site in general, not inline links to specific pages. So I wouldn't be interested in adding such links. Although of course there's nothing to stop anyone adding them if they think they are relevant to the text. I chose the two examples above because they were both useful, but not directly encyclopaedic in themselves. I think most of the relevant content on those sites comes into that category. Naturenet | Talk 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nammet/nammit

As a caulkhead, I can confirm that this word is or was widely-used to mean a light meal (often what the upper classes would call "elevenses") and is not a specifically humorous word, unlike "mallishag" which is correctly so-classed. "Nammet" and variants are found elsewhere in SW England, i.e. it's not endemic to the Island. Chrismorey (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Language & dialect

IMHO, the word "grockle" is not IW dialect. I grew up there and heard many dialect speakers. None used it; all people from the mainland including visitors, not just the mainland-born who settled in IW, are "overners". I believe "grockle" is Dorset dialect; I've heard speakers of Dorset use it.

I would also add that "nippers" is not particularly unique to IW or even the south of England. It's pretty

universal in England. --80.254.147.148 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW the correct phrase is IN the IW not ON the IW. Maybe that can be fitted in if it isn't already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.85.16 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


I agree, grockle is not a word that has ever been in common usage here. Another error that many older farm workers will find amusing is the definition of Nammit as "Lunch". Nammit was a meatless meal typically of bread & cheese eaten around two or three hours after starting work in the morning, in my experience this meant 9.00 am ish. the meal taken in the middle part of the day was "Dinner" .213.123.39.241 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote (above) on "grockle" last year but have now corrected it. I agree also with the previous contribution, obviously from someone who knows the Island and its speech. "Grockle" is not in Lavers which is correctly quoted as an authority. An alternative etymology is from the Teutonic words for "to take with" (cf. modern German "nehm(en) mit") but I can't give a source Chrismorey (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Isle of Wight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isle of Wight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isle of Wight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isle of Wight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Grockle not unique to IoW

I have removed grockle as an example of word unique to the Isle of Wight. I doubted this because I have heard it used widely elsewhere. According to this article https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/what-is-the-origin-of-the-word-grockle, it is from Torquay, coined only in the early 1960s, and popularised more widely in a 1964 film. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of apparently non-contentious material

I saw that User:SovalValtos has removed [1] a number of apparently non-contentious statements on the basis that they had been tagged for citation for some time. I think it's unfortunate to lose the material which might be easily sourced. If it's worth the effort to remove it, maybe digging up sources is also worthwhile? User:IanB2 had the same concerns. DIY Editor (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually on second look the material may be somewhat promotional sounding or trivial. DIY Editor (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right that some of them appear to be promotions for particular activities. i think the Transport, industry, media and tourism deletions should be reverted, pending any citation (two of them I know to be accurate despite not having links, the others sound reasonable) and have done this. IanB2 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ictis reference incorrect?

History - Roman Period states that Wight was known as Ictis or Vectis. They are different places..

"There is an oft-quoted passage by the great polymath Pliny the Elder (Natural History Book XVI, verse 104) dating to the late 70's AD which names the island Mictis as the centre of the British tin trade, stating that it lay off the south coast of Britain some six days sail from Gaul. This name has often been mistakenly associated with the Isle of Wight, but is now known to refer to Saint Michael's Mount off the Cornish coast opposite Marazion, known in ancient times as Ictis."

Source: http://romanrepublic.org/bibliotheca/index.php?title=VECTIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makewa (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and my research into sources supports your view. I have removed the reference to Ictis from the main page, and on the history page under the etymology section qualified the reference by making clear that st michaels mount is the more likely origin/subject for it. IanB2 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Executive - wrong info box information

The island council's executive is Island Independent not Conservative, but I cannot see how to correct this as the information doesn't show on my edit screen, but does show on the main page IanB2 (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is automatically included by Template:Infobox English county. I checked the Isle of Wight Council page and it said the chairman is Conservative, not sure if that matters. DIY Editor (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox English county in turn calls Template:English district control, which said Conservative, but I've now updated it. The info re chairman on Isle of Wight Council was also wrong, so I've updated that too. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for info, the chair(man) of a county council, is a semi-ceremonial position, charing council meetings (like a mayor in a borough or district) and doesn't indicate anything about council control or decision taking. IanB2 (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on here IanB2. I haven't had time to review them in detail but the overall article looks good. I know you have done quite a bit of work. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) I think the main island page is now fully cited and copy edited, with most of the key points checked out, and I hope it reads a lot better. Unless I have a brainwave I can't see much more to do on it and might ask for it to be reviewed as a good article. I have been doing some work on some of the smaller pages on island topics and also the history page; this is updated up to about the end of the Middle Ages, but the more recent centuries need a lot of filling in which looks like a big job. User:IanB2 8 December 14:19

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isle_of_Wight/Archive_2&oldid=1060431633"