Micronations NA‑class | |||||||
|
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)
The text currently reads this:
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 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))
I found 3 articles that might be interesting, both authors were present at the micronational conference this year in Italy:
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)
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)