Talk:Isle of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Isle of Man was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 15, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Government Structure[edit]

This section current includes: "The Council of Ministers comprises the greater part of the House of Keys." This is incorrect. The House of Keys currently has 24 members; the Legislative Council has 11 members; and the Council of Ministers has 9 members. Should this instead read: "Members of the House of Keys comprise the majority of the Council of Ministers"? Contributor tom (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Propose to correct some of the wording about the Northern Plain.Manninagh1958 (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Celtic Nations[edit]

"As one of the six Celtic nations"...Who defines what are Celtic nations and that there are six as opposed to five or seven? Do different entities list different "nations"? Is this stating a political position rather than cultural fact? Mannanan51 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's based on the Celtic League's definition. universalcosmos | talk 16:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Man or Mann?[edit]


Despite a section on its name, its English spelling never comes up. The name of the island appears to be Man, but the title appears to be Mann, see Lord of Mann or Kings of Mann. Why is that? And why is that not explained in the Name section? Indeed, the articles about the island (including Kingdom of the Isles) seem to interchange between 'Man' and 'Mann' when referring to the island itself. --Svippong 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"Mann" has been added.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much basic and historical information deleted[edit]

Too much historical, and even basic, information is being deleted, mostly by anonymous IP users. Very few of the changes over the last two months or so have been improvements, as can be seen in this long-term diff [1]. Even the basic fact that the Norse settlement of Mann was in any way related to Scotland was deleted, as was the very name Mann from the lead. I'm of a mind to revert most of this back to a stable version from December and re-integrate the few changes that were actual improvements.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that details about the King's titles should be there, but can see the arguments that the info on "Mann" should be put back. I am not familiar with the details of the Scotland connection; I note however that this "basic fact" is not present in the history section of this article, and History of the Isle of Man mentions the Kings of Dublin and the Earls of Orkney, rather than Scotland in particular. I'd like to see whatever the relationship is explained in both of those places before coming back in any form into the lead here. CMD (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It's more important to get the article in better shape than to argue technicalities about whether something in the lead isn't in the body. Just put it in the body, too, seems the obvious solution. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Given it is not in either this article or the main history article, I question its presence in the lead not because of a technicality but because that indicates it is not important. If it is important, that should be supported with sources, which are lacking given the information's absence. CMD (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
We're arguing the same point: It needs to be (with sources, of course) in the main body of the article, whether it's in the lead or not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)