Talk:Micronation - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 28 September 2021 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Micronation/Archive 4) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:19, 28 September 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Micronation/Archive 4) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Micronation is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Micronations Start‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Unexplained reversion

Having been reverted by El C without explanation, I'm wondering why that is. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My explanation is here. El_C 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't think this merits a hatnote at the top of the page. If the article is ended up being retained, maybe add it to the See also. But you cannot put it at the top of the article. It is not that significant to merit that, which makes that addition promotional.
— User:El_C 22:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The principal purpose of hatnotes is disambiguation. As it is put by WP:HAT, "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for."

The title of the book in question is Micronations, a term which, reasonably, redirects to this article, leaving us with an ambiguity. Readers searching for searching for the book's title without including its subtitle will wind up at this article and, as things currently stand, will not be given any indication that the article they are seeking even exists. This would seem to be a clear application of WP:HAT § Ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article.

Of what relevance is the notability of the book, El C? The recent proposal that the article be deleted on notability grounds was declined earlier today by Ninetyone, who argued that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. While I am at this point agnostic on the question of the book's notability (which is a moot point anyway unless the article goes to AfD), I fail to see how it would affect what we do with a disambiguatory hatnote. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't seem to merit the attention of being at the top of the article. Having it as another See also item seems more appropriate. Readers may search for a whole host of things, but that does not mean that each related entry needs to be at the top of the article. I'm not really seeing an argument that addresses this context. El_C 23:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How are you assessing "merit" here? And since when do we use see also sections for disambiguatory purposes? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of the sources (or lack thereof). I'm not advocating a disambiguatory purpose. El_C 23:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, maybe we've been speaking past each other, in that case. The purpose of the hatnote was disambiguation. Why would the article's sourcing be a factor in the decision to include a disambiguatory aid? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're asking general questions that really depend on context. Anyway, I just don't think it needs disambiguatory aid in the first place. El_C 23:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're asking general questions that really depend on context. You had made the implicit assertion that the sourcing was relevant with respect to whether a disambiguatory hatnote would be included. I'm asking on what basis you are making that assertion. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

On the basis that we already have List of micronations. We do not need to promote this quasi(?)notable book with a hatnote at the top of the page, with all the attention that that entails. El_C 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for directing readers to commonly confused or searched-for articles. They're not kitchen-sink repositories for everything that might be related, certainly not individual books on the boundaries of notability. I'm inclined to AfD the book article as a form of bookspam. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

Is Confederate States of America a micronation or amicrostate? No country recognized it. But it did have things few micronations have, like a legislature, army, etc. deisenbe (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Confederacy would be an unrecognised state, that de facto controlled some areas of the southern united states.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Micronation is a 20th century concept, so I don't think the CSA can be considered as such. Also, while the CSA wasn't recognized as a sovereign state, it was recognized as a belligerent by the United Kingdom. pandakekok9 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It also wasn't a "micro" anything-- the Confederate States covered close to two million km and were home to nine million people. PepperBeast (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Micronational Organisations section

I would like to make note of a few edits– and revertions as of late, with regards to the newly added micronational organisation section to the article.

Notability aside, the citations within the section are unreliable self-published sources (which I did mark as such). To the credit of User:IslandUnity, the references citing MicroWiki (Which falls under WP:UGC) were removed, but several unreliable sources remain.

The Self-published template I added however was removed– for what I believe to be an incorrect reason. Given that there have been 2 reverts from both parties as of recent, I have opted to bring this forth to the talk page in order to discuss.

Cited Links:

Ciao. Pax Brittanica (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Citing Microwiki isn't WP:UGC as the content/wiki was not made by said user but rather a group of people under the private owner, Jonathan Austen; similar to Misplaced Pages proper. On to the the sources like the GUM or the Grand Unified Micronational, it is very reliable and is the oldest organization in micronationalism respectively. It appears there is a ton of misinformation and lack of research on your part into the subject at hand.--Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: WP:UGC quite clearly specifies "most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites". MicroWiki quite clearly falls under this grouping. Pax Brittanica (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: NCWP isn't collaborative, nor user generated. Neither is the LIN's website, neither is the GUM's website. I've already explained this to you. IslandUnity (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the MicroWiki citation, in regards to WP:UGC. The NCWP/LIN/GUM citations themselves are problematic as they are WP:SPS. I cannot find any independent verifiable sources pertaining to these subjects, so either an alternative citation should be found, or this should be removed altogether. Pax Brittanica (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pax Brittanica is correct, as self-published sources are not reliable (such as the GUM and LIN website) and neither are user-generated sites (like wikis). Please do not revert the edit again or add the citations back as they are not reliable. I would advise finding third-party citations (as Brittanica mentioned) that are not closely associated with micronationalism to avoid topic bias. ––Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Microwiki is not an independent verifiable source. The only 3 micronational organisations mentioned in Russian, French and Italian newspapers and books are the AMU, the OMF and MicroCon. --Delle89 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Conch republic: Notable micronation?

I've noticed lately, that Conch Republic got added to the list of Notable Micronations a couple times (by User:SoccerTrackFarm3264, and then removed again each time by User:Meters, who says it is "not a micronation", and that it is a "tongue-in-cheek publicity venture". The first line of the Conch Republic article states it is a micronation, and is also cited twice on this article, once directly calling it a micronation. The talk page over there seems to come to the conclusion that it's a micronation, though not a "serious soverignty-oriented" one, I think? To me, it seems relevant for inclusion on the list, given it's citation elsewhere on the page, but what do others think? --dr-spangle (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what the inclusion criteria of the list is, but it appears to only list micronations with "serious" claims. I note this because for example the Republic of Molossia (which is more of a tourist attraction and does not seek sovereignty) is not included, despite its large media coverage, and neither is the Aerican Empire (which is largely tongue-in-cheek) among others, whilst the micronations that are listed (i.e. Republic of Minerva, Freedonia, Rose Island etc.) were genuine sovereignty projects that led to government action (such as destructions of the micronations and arrests). But I may misinterpret that, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I had posted to the talk page of the person adding this supposed micronation asking him to discuss it here. If there is consensus to include it that's fine with me, but I think it should at least be discussed.

I'm not certain this is a legitimate micronation. We call it "tongue in cheek" and a "tourism booster", and even its geographical extent is nebulous. Much of the previous discussion on Talk:Conch Republic was from 2005–2007 and by SPAs and socks. Threads about its legitimacy continue to be raised on that talk page. user:Donald Albury recently made what I find to be a telling comment (albeit it while discussing the legitimacy of the supposed flag): The Conch Republic has no real existance. It originally was declared as a protest against the US government setting up a passport control point in the upper keys, but is now more like a meme, kept alive as a promotional stunt for tourists. Meters (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How about, we follow policy and say that the "Conch Republic" is a micronation if independent secondary reliable sources say that it is. And I hold that "Conch Republic" web sites, travel guides, and blogs do not meet the criteria of independent, secondary, and reliable. I'll just note that the first source cited in Conch Republic, a Miami Herald (a newspaper generally accepted as reliable) article, refers to the Conch Republic as "zany", "fake", and "farcical". - Donald Albury 22:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Notable micronationalists section

We already have the Category:Micronational leaders, is a section here on notable micronationalists entirely necessary? I feel like it may be too subjective (given the scarce amount of available sources), and the article (especially list of notable micronations) already mentions most of the micronationalists in the section anyway. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories: