Talk:Ait

England Low‑importance

	England portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Hatnote[edit]

Please see this guideline for the reason that AIT (disambiguation) is the proper hatnote form to use. SlackerMom (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIT is is TLA, not a disambiguation, thus the disambiguation guideline does not apply here. Saga City (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIT may be a TLA, but it is also a disambiguation page. Please go to AIT and note the disambiguation notice at the bottom. This redirect is completely in line with the disambiguation guidelines as referenced above. SlackerMom (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I oppose the proposal to merge with Inland island:

Ait/Eyot is a specific term and should be preserved in its own article
Inland island is a redirect so there is actually nothing to merge with.
Inland island redirects to List of islands in lakes. Aside from the inappropriateness of merging an article with a list, Aits are not exclusive to lakes, indeed they are more commonly found in rivers, particulary the River Thames

Nancy ^talk 10:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an ait is a specific type of island, and the reference to lakes may be incorrect. The nature of aits is that they are built up by silt flowing down the river. They are identified separately on the River Thames from islands which are usually either man made, or large expanses between two widely separated branches of the river. Motmit (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that this is a specific and separate term. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am boldly removing the merge tag. I see only the proposer in disagreement. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your boldness. Nancy ^talk 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your boldness! Verne Equinox (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am bowled over by everyone's boldness! 99.37.216.93 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular references[edit]

Greetings All - not sure that the categorical statement 'The words "ait" and "eyot" are not common in modern English, although a few famous writers have used it, including...' is necessarily true - apart from those who actually live/work on them, many people rowing, jogging, sailing, cycling, canoeing and what-have-ye along the river/towpath make references to the local ait/eyot. It may therefore require an inline citation. Likewise, what criteria is needed for not including every single mention by writers?--Technopat (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those areas where the reality of the situation is obvious but citations for or against will be hard to find. River and towpath users on the Thames cannot make up the majority of society who speak English, not even the majority of those who live in the Thames Valley. Of those users many will be familiar with the words and use them when relevant. But the name of a thing is not full use of the word. How many of these users will use ait or eyot in normal conversation is unclear, but the words are not in conversational use even by those users. I used to work at Ravens Ait and we referred to it as "The Island" not "The Ait". The words "I am going to sail round the ait" were not heard. We sailed round the island.

I know we are interested in facts, not truths. My comment is intended to show in an anecdotal way that the words were not in common usage even by those who worked on an ait. How we go about making this encyclopaedic I am unsure. As I said at the outset, I cannot see where one can find citations for or against the statement. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]