Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention

Definition

The definition put forward on this page does not match that on the extant Micronations page. It probably should more closely match that definition, although it can give a degree of prominence to one type or another. We don't want to use different definitions than thos in the existing content, though, as that might cause a bit more confusion than we necessarily want. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that this proposed convention must reflect existing definitions and conventions. It should not be a back door attempt to subtly redefine or alter existing conventions. Most long-term contributors to WP are already aware of the conventions that apply to these sorts of articles, as most are simply common-sense interpretations of formal WP policy. I'm not convinced that repeating policy here is necessary - but if it is to be repeated it should certainly be accurate. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The text currently reads this:

If the micronation itself considers itself to be something other than a micronation, then this must also be mentioned in the article.

The micronation infobox should be used for micronation articles."

I would suggest changing the phrasing, for the purposes of clarity, to the following:

"If the entity in question describes itself with a term other than micronation, although the term "micronation" is also specifically used, then the term "micronation" can be used to describe it, although the other term should also be specifically included in the article. If an entity clearly does not consider itself to be a micronation, although outside sources regularly describe it by that or substantially similar terms, then it can also be called a micronation, based on the outside sources.

The micronations infobox should be added to the main page of all articles which qualify under either of the criteria above."

Having said this, it might be a good idea to add a parameter like "self-described" to indicate whether the entity in question describes itself as a micronation or not. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that - definitely a better and more accurate definition. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Promote to guideline status

I think it is time that we promote this convention to guideline status. It has been in existence for half a decade and in writing for half a year. With a stable edit history and wide acceptance within Wikipedia (including AfDs and naming articles), promoting it would greatly help the Wikiproject as well as in disputes with other micronations.

Signatures can be placed below if editors are in support of this. This is so I can first understand if this is something that editors would not mind having promoted. (Comment by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

• Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• --Gene_poole (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no immediate opposition as well as plenty of consensus over many years, I have promoted this convention to guideline status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Been a while! What needs to happen for this to get advanced from proposed to guideline? Bromley86 (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Springtime of micronations

I found 3 articles that might be interesting, both authors were present at the micronational conference this year in Italy:

• Julien Oeuillet (journalist): http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/4653/springtime-of-micronations-spearheaded-by-belgian-grand-duke-niels
• Chris Roth (academic): http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.be/2015/07/micronations-sign-alcatraz-accords.html & http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.be/2015/10/liberlands-empty-promises-to-syrian.html

Very interesting is their view on micronationalism in the 21st century: in the 70's we had Sealand or Hutt River who consider themselves as "real" countries. The new micronations like Flandrensis, Aigues-Mortes, Angyalistan ... are local, ecological or artistic projects and have no interest in recognition by the international community. Although Liberland is an exeption. I think an update of the definition is necessary? This can be usefull: "If the Alcatraz conference proved one thing, it is that newer micronations no longer seek official recognition. Niels has never compared Flandrensis to a real state. Another guest, the Principalty of Aigues-Mortes, never thought of taking such a position. Alcatraz is perfectly satisfied being what it is. When my turn came to speak, I had witnessed a springtime of micronations. They became something different: no longer a dream, yet not a country. They have their own causes and visions. Instead of describing them as purported states, I offered to define them as private people mimicking the public sector: rather than using the structures offered to citizens, they use an apparatus typically associated with nations. And it gives them one more available tool to do something with their life and ‘make a difference’." --Delle89 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on promotion to Guideline

This proposed guideline has been around for a while. The majority of the work that went into it was by pro-micronation editors Gene_poole and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, who (when they were editing) were presumably inclusionists. I'm an exclusionist. I only mention this because when both sides agree that a guideline is useful, it might be useful.

There are a number of micronation articles that are of questionable notability, and it seems that in the internet age there's scope for a lot more. In theory, WP:GNG covers this:
""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

However, it seems that application of GNG is leading to articles being kept when perhaps they should not be. For example, see the AfD for Aeterna Lucina. Whereas, if we had this guideline in place, we could quickly look at the sources to see if it:

1. Was the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources,
2. in multiple countries,
3. over a period of years.

Aeterna Lucina would probably fail that (main subject, multiple countries), whereas there were enough dissenting voices in that AfD to keep it in place. Additionally, having a clear, explicit statement of what is needed, rather than the more amorphous GNG, will make it easier to explain to advocates of any particular micronation why it doesn't warrant an article. Bromley86 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An AFD from 10 years ago is unlikely to persuade anyone that a guideline separate from WP:GNG is needed. Do you have a more recent example of WP:AFD "getting it wrong"? --Izno (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I wasn't trying to hand my hat on that one AfD, it just happens that it's the second item on the List of micronations, and the one I was dealing with at the time.

The clarity of a quick-and-easy guideline will make dealing with micronations much easier. Rather than going through a formal AfD every few years, we'd just be able to point to something that new arrival, micronation advocates can easily understand (GNG not being immediately clear on the subject). Otherwise what we usually get is a brief mention in a national news-of-the-weird piece and a detailed article in local paper being used to support notability. Once that's done, we tend to get a large creep away from what those RS say to include huge amounts of unnecessary information that's repeatedly added by ardent supporters of that particular micronation. The Principality of Ongal is a good example of this: we had a strong consensus to have a fairly-stubby article,[1] perhaps with a view to later merging with the other Danubian miconations in good-article level Croatia–Serbia border dispute. The patrolling editors, myself included, wondered off and the advocates have restored the old version (yet again). If we had this guideline, it'd be easier to deal with (fails the non-trivial, multiple countries part). Bromley86 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)