Template talk:Country data Isle of Man

Template:Country data Isle of Man is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Redirect

{{editprotected}} Could someone please add "IOM" as another redirect to this template? – Pee Jay 13:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that it is intentionally not included since it is non-standard. --- RockMFR 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that that is the case, but I am sure the "IOM" is a fairly commonly used TLA. – Pee Jay 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - it's non-standard, there is no parallel template i.e. {{Country data IOM}} & really no reason to create one simply as a redirect here. And assuming that this wasn't a request for a cross-space (article -> template) redirect. Skier Dude (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil ensign

{{editprotected}} Could the civil ensign of the Isle of Man ( ) be added, with the necessary parameters please. Something like {{flag|Isle of Man|civil}} etc Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag file

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg with File:Flag of the Isle of Mann.svg. The latter has a properly centered triskelion. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement about this in the upload history of c:File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg. Can you point to a discussion resolving the issue? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I know I'm not neutral on this issue, but this change will put 1,700 pages on the job queue, just for a version of the flag that you prefer (is it to bother me or is "my" version really so ugly?). The discussion at Commons is stale but far from resolved. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved and therefore do not get to deny my request, do that again and I will report you for it. File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg is protected in it's current state only by force and not by any consensus. SiBr4 kept edit warring on Commons to force their changed image and it was protected "in the wrong version" (as quoted by the protecting admin) to stop any more reverting. No consensus has been formed, no official sources have been provided, and in light of that, the previous version before any dispute is supposed to be the version used, that's one of Wikimedia's general rules regarding disputes. That requires the alternative file (which holds the previous stable version before the beginning of the dispute) to be used until any resolution is formed. SiBr if you want any sort of cooperation in forming a resolution, then you must reverse course and allow the original file to be reverted to it's previous version before the dispute until a consensus is formed, instead of hiding behind force. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There seems to be a lack of consensus here, please establish one before reactivating this request template per WP:PER. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not paying attention? The alteration in question is File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg which does not have any consensus. File:Flag of the Isle of Mann.svg is the original image. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The supposedly stable version was originally uploaded by you and never got any real consensus either (just no opposition). For seven years before that, the file was centered the same way as the one I uploaded; I've already proven that. Can't the file be reverted to the November 2011 revision by Alkari, before either of us did anything to it, pending wider discussion? SiBr₄ (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My image maintains the original style of centering the triskleion (we actually proved that it was not originally centered the way you think it should be) as well as the last stable version before any disputed changes were made to the file. You kept edit warring and pushing your unsupported change through until the file was protected, instead of working on gaining a consensus for your change first. Now you hypocritically demand that I try and get a consensus for the opposite. You have proven absolutely nothing, and provided no official sources or any secondary sources that outright support your claim of how the triskelion should be centered. You also have denied a request for something you are already an involved party in, which is a very obvious conflict of interest. You accuse me of just doing this to "bother you", as if I am so petty. You truly expect me to work in any way with you to form a resolution when you act this way? You won't do one act of good faith in this dispute and therefore I will do nothing to work out a resolution with you. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence really looks like the word "not" is misplaced and should be in the first part. Like I said in the AN/UP discussion, the triskelion in Alkari's revision differs 2% flag height from circular centering and 5.4% from rectangular centering, so that's a clear proof that it is closer to circular centering. Just saying "that's not true" repeatedly and refusing to accept literally anything I say, like you did, is not a counterproof.

Given that, my version is like a partial revert that keeps your colors and triskelion size but changes its position to something more like what it was before. Looking at it that way, since I'm disputing part of your change as well, the stable version would be Alkari's. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you admit that you didn't actually prove any of the previous versions centered the triskelion the way you think it should be? This is the second time where you have been forced to admit that claim is not 100% true. You dispute the previous version (my version) now, but it was the last stable version of the image that was undisputed or reverted for a period of 9 months until you came along and altered the flag into a new style of centering that has never existed in any of the previous revisions. You were reverted, and instead of gaining a consensus for your change, you kept reverting over and over and over until the file was protected "in the wrong version". No consensus has been reached since, and instead of recognizing the wrong behaviour that you did, you hide behind that file protection and a feigned consensus and accuse me of wrongdoing when I am simply maintaining the last stable version before you created this mess buy not following proper policy when a change of yours is reverted or disputed. You also accuse me of false intentions and throw around half-truths to further your side. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that happened before today was already discussed at c:COM:AN/UP. You're building up a list of everything you think I ever did wrong (some items of which are just blatantly untrue), which you repeat with every comment, and you are still accusing me of edit warring and not discussing the issue while I clearly explained the reasoning behind my acting in the Commons thread.

As for the small part of your comment that is actually new: what did I admit according to you? I gave the exact same percentages two months ago, and while they prove that one of my comments earlier this evening is not literally true, you're acting as if that makes my entire point invalid and proves that you are right, instead of accepting or even considering my reasoning. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has evolved into yet another discussion about user behavior that has nothing to do with the template, I have started an RfC on Commons for anyone to give their opinion on. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have posted about you is true and I can prove every single claim. You have forced your way around and it won't last forever. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellan Vannin

Would it be possible to add Ellan Vannin to the redirects to this, given that the Ellan Vannin football team has been established and serves as the IOM's national team, and is participating at the 2014 ConIFA World Football Cup, to enable it to be accessed via the fb template. Hammersfan (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersfan: {{fb|Isle of Man}} already links to Ellan Vannin football team via the redirect Isle of Man national football team, so a redirect to this template from Template:Country data Ellan Vannin would be reasonable. It appears, however, that there is another Manx national football team for which {{fb|Isle of Man}} is also used, thus linking to the wrong page. To distinguish these two there should be separate templates for each team. To which team should {{fb|Isle of Man}} link, and what template name should be used for the other team? SiBr₄ (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man official football team is not a "national team" for the Isle of Man; instead it is the team that represents the Isle of Man FA, which is a county association affiliated to the Football Association in England. As a consequence, it would be likened more to a team such as Selangor FA in Malaysia. Hammersfan (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best to understand but can't (my knowledge of British football is rather small). The article itself calls the official team a "national (football) team". Isle of Man national football team redirected to the official team until you retargeted it two days ago, causing links in the mentioned Isle of Man Football Association article to lead to the Ellan Vannin team instead of the official team. Can't Isle of Man national football team be changed to a dab page instead, since it may arguably refer to the official team as well? SiBr₄ (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersfan and SiBr4: This template creates links to Isle of Man national football team which is now a disambiguation page. Football articles tend to use "Isle of Man" to refer to the Isle of Man official football team (even though it's not a national team in the FIFA sense) and "Ellan Vannin" to refer to the Ellan Vannin football team. 2018 ConIFA World Football Cup qualification#Qualification points standing has examples of both (though the Isle of Man link is wrong, because it uses {{fb}} which uses this template). I suggest:

add | link alias-football = Isle of Man official football team to {{Country data Isle of Man}}
create {{Country data Ellan Vannin}} for the Ellan Vannin team (I can do this bit if there's consensus)

Ellan Vannin isn't a separate country, of course, but we have plenty of other templates such as {{Country data Isle of Wight}} for entities that behave like a country (e.g. by competing in international sport) without being one.

Comments please? Certes (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please change the value of | link alias-cricket to Isle of Man {{{mw|}}} {{{age|}}} cricket team (add the {{{mw|}}} part) so that Template:Crw works properly with Isle of Man? The template, which is supposed to link to the national women's cricket team article, currently links to the men's team article instead ( Isle of Man) due to the absence of {{{mw|}}}. Thanks. মাশ্‌ফী※Mashfi (ETP) 07:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]