Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations/Archive 1

Establishing consensus

Please note that the discussions below are not "votes". They are opportunities for interested parties to discuss and give an indication of whether long-established conventions for article naming and infobox usage in micronation articles should be formalised. Feel free to add comments and indicate your preference accordingly. If there is sufficient evidence that existing conventions should be formalised based on the below, then policies will be developed accordingly. --Gene_poole 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Naming

The general convention for naming articles about micronations has been to use the full name of the micronation entity - eg, Province of Bumbunga, Principality of Sealand, Kingdom of Sedang. This convention has been applied for the past 3+ years.

This naming convention was adopted to (a) differentiate micronations from "real" countries, (b) accurately reflect the name of micronations as they appear in 3rd party reference sources and (c) avoid disambiguation difficulties where the name of a micronation is similar to the name of other entities (eg Sealand, Seborga, Aramoana, Atlantium).

There are a small number of micronation articles where this convention has not been applied (Lovely (micronation), Ladonia (micronation), and others where it has been changed (Principality of New Utopia changed to New Utopia.

I propose that the established naming convention should be applied accross the board for all articles about micronations. Please indicate your preference below:

YES, I agree:

1. --Gene_poole 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
2. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, I disagree:

1. Bad idea. Instruction creep. >Radiant< 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find the term "instruction creep" in any of WP's major policies or guidelines. Perhaps you could explain what you mean, and show us other examples where you feel the inclusion of standardised article naming conventions is a "bad idea", because as far as I can determine this in fact seems to be a fundamental underpinning of the project. --Gene_poole 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look again. >Radiant< 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Naming conventions are not created by voting on them. >Radiant< 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

No. They're created by consensus, which is what we're in the process of establishing. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. --Gene_poole 05:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As you're well aware, what you are doing here is exactly the opposite of discussion and of establishing consensus. >Radiant< 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite? That would be not having a discussion, wouldn't it? Given that we are having a discussion your point seems somewhat obscure. --Gene_poole 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The following infobox format was devloped several years ago for use in micronation articles. The format and wording was adopted to address concerns by editors opposed to the idea that such an infobox could lead to people confusing micronations with "real" countries, and to ensure compliance with WP:NPOV.

Since then it's been used in a number of articles - but in other articles variations of it have been used. I propose the format below be adopted for across-the-board use in micronation articles, as an infobox template, to avoid the introduction of variations:

Province of Bumbunga

Flag	Coat of Arms
Motto: tba Musical Anthem: God Save the Queen
Type of entity:	Micronation
Location:	Near Snowtown, South Australia
Area:	4 km².
Membership:	< 5 permanent residents
Date of foundation:	29 March, 1976
Leadership:	Governor Alex Brackstone
Purported organisational structure:	Autonomous British colony
Language:	English
Currency:	Australian Dollar

I believe that the above infobox constitutes an appropriate template to be used in all relevant articles about micronations. Please indicate below whether you agree with this proposition or not:

YES, I agree:

1. --Gene_poole 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, I disagree:

1. Likewise, bad idea, and instruction creep. >Radiant< 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find the term "instruction creep" in any of WP's major policies or guidelines. Perhaps you could explain what you mean, and show us other examples of where the inclusion of standardised info box formatting constitutes a "bad idea", as this seems to be established as a standard operational practise throughout the project. --Gene_poole 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As you're well aware, what you are doing here is exactly the opposite of discussion and of establishing consensus. >Radiant< 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are at least a dozen people below who I'm confident will, in the fullness of time, beg to differ with your analysis. Most reasonable people might refer to this as an "overwhelming consensus". --Gene_poole 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Infoboxes aren't created by voting on them either. >Radiant< 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They're created by consensus, which is what we're in the process of establishing. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. --Gene_poole 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed your open task list had a few articles needing to be converted to this infobox, I had some time so I replaced the various infoboxes and tables with the the micro nation infobox for the articles listed there, I'm new here so in the event that I've manged to screw something up by doing that please let me know.Vantar 00:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I see Lundy has been added to this project (as an example of a GA). I put an infobox:SSSI on the page & wonder if you think the miconations one proposed here is more appropriate?— Rod ^talk 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Micronations discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description

To systematically expand and improve WP content on the subject of ephemeral, unrecognised statelike entities - otherwise known as micronations. This has been done on an ad hoc basis by a number of editors until now, but I believe it may be time for a more structured approach, particularly with regard to such matters as reference sourcing, the inclusion of in-line citations, the standardisation of categories and templates, and the development of content policies.

Project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Micronations

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. --Gene_poole 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --Orderinchaos 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3. --Infrangible 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
4. --myselfalso 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
5. --New Babylon 2 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
6. --BlueValour 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
7. --Munkee madness 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
8. --Kitia 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
9. •Felix• ^T 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
10. John Carter 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
11. --Bo
12. -- --Breadandcheese 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the notability guidelines would be a challenge since they are by their nature small potatoes. --Infrangible 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Infrangible. It is going to be a challenge as articles on micronations seem to be up for deletion every couple of months. --myselfalso 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe notability is a real issue. There are plenty of reliable sources available, and one of the project aims will be to ensure they're identified and added to articles as in-line citations. --Gene_poole 05:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • A real problem is enforcement of notability. Clearly notable micronation articles with sources have been deleted by admins that think this falls under the category of things made up in school one day. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There's certainly a misplaced perception among a small, vocal group of WP editors and the occasional rogue admin that that is the case. An active WikiProject will go a long way towards negating that issue. --Gene_poole 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If those individuals who have indicated interest in the project would add their names to the proposed project page above, I believe that the project now has enough support to be formally started. John Carter 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Freetown Christiania

Christiania is described as a "self-governing neighbourhood". I was thinking about adding the Wikiproject Micronations template to the article's talk page, but I'm not sure it qualifies.

From the micronation article:

Micronations — sometimes also referred to as cybernations, fantasy countries, model countries, and new country projects — are entities that resemble independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organisations. These nations usually exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. Micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group.

I think it meets most of the criteria, except for the population maybe (850 persons).

Anyone an opinion on this?

It's not on the micronations list, and in the micronations article it is referred to as a related concept. So I'm guessing that this discussion has been done before, but could someone summarize in that case? Key to the city 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

I would like to join this project. How do I do so? Tripodics 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [email protected] (Sorry for the nonstandard entry; I just couldn't find any instructions on how to participate. I also have information to contribute, but need guidance on how to submit it.)

Anonymous comment posted by 82.25.147.103 (relocated from project page)

All Micronations need to be re-written, its a fact that almost ALL micronations claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are not recognised by any country, and most importantly, the United Nations. Although, it is not a requirement to be a member state of the UN. It is essentual to have somekind of recognition by the UN. But real soverign states that are not in the UN, are formally recognised by the UN and have non-member observer status and still have an ambassador to the UN. Therfore, for a micronation to legitamatly claim to be a sovierign nation, then they need at the very least to have non-member observer status of the UN and an ambassador to the UN. Without that, they are not soviergn states, reguardless of thier claims, they are, in effect, nothing, until such time as thier soviergnty is recognised formally and they join the UN or obtain observer status. They should still be listed on Wikipedia, out of interest, but there should be a clear notice at the heading for the articles stating that they are not real countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Poole (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say here. Micronations are definitely not "real" countries. By the same token if they were recognised by the UN they would no longer be micronations. I think the difference is pretty explicit. --Gene_poole 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Valtio deleted

If someone can produce verification of the existence and notability of the above now deleted article, I will request a Deletion review. Thank you. John Carter 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 14 if you wish to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The speedy deletion has been overturned. The article is now being considered for regular deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valtio. Any opinions are welcome. Thank you. John Carter 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I have included more references to the Principality of Sealand article and added references where required. I have nominated the article for featured article status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The link to the relevant FA discussion can be found here --Gene_poole 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Sealand

In the past there has been many disputes as to whether Sealand is a micronation or a microstate. For NPOV, all Sealand articles should have both POVs. To solve this dispute, I have created this WikiProject proposal. Sealand needs a WikiProject so that this dispute won't continue and all Sealand articles will represent both Sealandic micronation status and Sealandic microstate status. The constant dispute has meant that the article has been changed significantly. Sealand is part of both WikiProject European Microstates and WikiProject Micronations, and the creation of a project would require about 10 Wikipedia users, 5 for a sub-project. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC) link internalised and "this" changed to "this WikiProject proposal". --kingboyk 13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Places in micronations

I stumbled across Category:Places in micronations and was a little puzzled by it, i.e. what is it for? Could you folks please add some text to the category page to explain to readers what it contains? Alternatively, if (as I suspect) it's an unneccessary extra category you can nominate it for deletion or merger into Category:Micronations. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The category was created by me for the purposes of including articles related to specific locations in micronations. I didn't think it would be as small as it wound up being. No objections to any merger or deletion, as least not from me. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I guess either add some text explaining that, or upmerge it into Micronations. Your category, your call... --kingboyk (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)