Talk:History of the Isle of Wight

message: "The pre-Roman name for the island was possibly Ynys Gywth meaning channel island, a name given by the early celtic speaking inhabitants of the island. These people may have been displaced by Belgic refugees from Jerusalem fleeing the expanding British."
wtf? Belgic Refugees from Jerusalem?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.122.114 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

message: I think that this article needs a major cleanup for the following reasons:
*The history is disjointed, often speculative and has significant gaps
*There are sections that either don't belong (Caulkheads, Festival) or should be incorporated into the main text.
*It needs a good set of informative illustrations, maps and diagrams.
I am happy to start work on this but I think the work needs some level of planning.
I love the Island and would like us to be able to create something of high quality that would do it justice.
I'm interested in other's opinions etc. Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess

message: "The name Wight came from the Beaker people who inhabited the island around 1900 BC and called it "Wiht"[1], meaning island, which the Romans translated as Vectis. "
This is all well and good, but we don't actually know what kind of language the Beaker people spoke, since they didn't write it down. --MacRusgail 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could recover Beaker words if they had left survivals in the Celtic language. However as the Celts came from the Continent the languages are not related and English has barely any Celtic survivals in its vocabulary, so it is unlikely that we have any knowledge of Beaker words at all and the idea that "Wight" could be one is the purest speculation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaker people named it?

message: This is a term which refers to the 17th century not to Queen Victoria--Streona (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Modern

message: In what respect is this comparable to "cockney" in the East End of London? Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Caulkhead etc.

message: Besides needing a general overhaul using cited authors, the article is unnecessarily vague regarding Wight's Roman name. The standard and authoritative work is Rivet & Smith's "The place-names of Roman Britain". I've a copy at home in London. I'll persuade someone to email me a facsimile of the relevant page. Haploidavey (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Vectis

message: Bad weasel! Get down. In the section on Jutish settlement, I take it that "some" refers to Robin Bush, as seen on TV proposing a viewpoint held by (at most) a very small minority? Haploidavey (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel alert

message: This is innacurate, Acarapis woodi has since been shown not to be the cause. I don't have the time right now to fix it, if anyone else wants to before I get to it there's better info here http://coloss.org/publications/Neumann-Carreck-2010-JAR.pdf CJTweedy (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Wight disease

message: I've been picking at the article copy and substance, and have made a few edits. Someone cared enough to create a stub for this article, but it has been expanded with little attention to Wikipedia's basic requirements for evidence. That's a pity. It has potential as an interesting or even a good article, but almost everything in it risks challenge and deletion. Very few citations are offered and of those, some are dead links, some are not encyclopedic and one links to a definition of "overlander". I'd be happy to contribute copy-editing. If anyone has an interest and is prepared to find proper sources, please post. It's on my watchlist. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dedicated copy-eding required

message: I have been editing the main Isle of Wight section, which has a reasonable summary of its history.
Looking at this page, I don't see that it adds much more, and am wondering why we need a separate section at all? It wouldn't be that big a deal to copy across some of the unique references from here to the Isle of Wight page - which wouldn't make it too much longer, then delete this page entirely?
Or, alternatively, to create here a more comprehensive survey of the Island's history, and take the relevant material off the main page.
Right now we are trying to do the same job on two separate pages, which doesn't seem right?
On reflection I am having a try at beefing this section up into a worthwhile summary history of the Island.User:IanB2 30 November 2016
:I've been following progress here, and your beefing up seems well worth it (can find no support as yet for the tagged assertion regarding Viking bases on the island, except in Wikipedia mirrors). But this is recent, and tantalising. Unfortunately, I've no access to Taylor & Francis online (or off). Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Isle of Wight. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402110146/http://www.connected-earth.com/Journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Awirelessworld/Theoriginsofradio/index.htm to http://www.connected-earth.com/Journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Awirelessworld/Theoriginsofradio/index.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~rob.martin1/fort/home.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified