Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MicroSupporter (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 8 October 2022 (→Notable leaders of micronations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Microwiki

Many Micronational articles get deleted very easily on Wikipedia if you want to get involved in a community you can always go to Microwiki it uses wiki media still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserMcUserFace1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Galicia

Hello, my name is Joel de Abrante-Vazcez and I would like to know what is needed to include in the list of micronations the Kingdom of New Galicia because it's been a long time since I wanted this micronation to be included here at wikipedia. Here it is a link of a blog with info about this micronation in English: http://kingnewgalicia.blogspot.com/, besides it has been recognized by some micronational organisms such LoSS and UNMCN.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newgalician (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A new convention

The new convention will explain how to define a self-proclaimed nation, as well as how to edit articles in Category:Micronations on Wikipedia to avoid disputes. There have been many disputes in the past where Wikipedia users have argued that a self-proclaimed nation is a sovereign state or a self-proclaimed nation is a micronation. There have also been disputes about laws, whether the currency of a self-proclaimed nation is a currency, etc. The problem is that these dispute repeat themselves every few months, so a convention would stop the wasting of time and it would provide a guide to editing articles in the micronation category. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if a micronation is sovereign or not. Perhaps it would be best to describe all such things as micronations, and then the question of sovreignty (in general) can be debated at the micronation article. Disputes can often be resolved with more accurate sourcing. Vague or overly general statements should be replace with more specific statements that accurately reflect reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question as Microstate refers to both entities that claim sovreignty and those that are recognized to have it in the lead as "microstates". Personally, I tend to lean toward using "microstate" only to describe those entities which have been formally recognized in some meaningful way by at least one independent entity, like the observer status or higher at the UN, for instance. Beyond that, it would certainly be reasonable to say that a micronation claims to be a microstate in the article, but it's not particularly justified to say that they are simply based on their own say-so. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So with the convention all of these self-proclaimed states would be called micronations but the article can say that these micronation consider themselves to be microstates. I will start writing this convention, which can be edited if you think more information needs to be added. The convention can be found here. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "convention" is merely a proposal at this stage. Don't go getting too excited about it until others have had a chance to respond. There's no compelling need to finalise anything. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we say, there is no deadline. Jehochman Talk 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads?

I'm surprised by a lack of reliable sources for Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Is it real? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have major doubts about the veracity of the information in WP about that entity. I believe that it may be completely fictional, but I'm not certain. The paucity of sources would seem to support that view. I have a vague recollection that it might be a creation of Bruce Henderson, the prolific artistamp creator - in which case it's a fictional creation, and not a micronation. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need to verify it. If we cannot tell if it is real in some way it will have to be deleted. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This FOTW page cites a paper published in 1978 which discusses both Morac Songhrati Meads and the Kingdom of Humanity as private claims over the Spratly Islands, so it would appear that there is some historical basis to these entities. Further research is probably a good idea. Anyone? --Gene_poole (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] ----- This website is for a Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, with Google calling it a simulation if you search the micronation's name. It has also got a different flag and I read on the internet that this Republic has a government in exile. --- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I would say that the current Wikipedia entry for the Kingdom of Humanity/Republic MSM overstates the claim. All the available sources point back to the most comprehensive account of the claim that I've managed to find, which is in Marwyn Samuels 1982 study, Contest for the South China Sea. The claim was first pubicly asserted in the early 1950s by a group of American and British subjects who summarized their claim in an affidavit submitted to the US embassy in Manila in 1971. But some of the assertions don't add up and the claim to legitimacy (that they were the descendants of a British sea captain) are not corroborated by any other source. There is an interesting discussion of the problems with the foundation myth here: http://dustyheaps.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-curious-tale-of-humanity-islands.html I would recommend rewriting the Wikipedia article to more accurately reflect self-serving sourcing of the supposedly historical account, while acknowledging that from the 1950s to at least 1972 the claim was actively asserted and has since become dormant (except in Wikipedia! :)).

Jonathan Birchall (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations portal

I have created a portal for micronations, which willl organise all the micronation articles and provide a main page for micronations. I have named the WikiProject and all its members as its maintainers. I only created it in the past hour, so there is still plenty of editing to do. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Islands?

The content of Banknotes of the Jason Islands might seem to qualify the Jason Islands as a micronation. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title "administrator" along with the banknotes does suggest that its history is similar to Lundy's. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of micronations

I would like to nominate this article for Featured List status and I thought that other paticipants of this Wikiproject would want to contribute. User:The Rambling Man has some advice for this, that before we nominate we need an individual reference for each micronation (shouldn't be too difficult - some WP:MICRON participants own a copy of Lonely Planet's Guide to Micronations) and that we follow WP:LEAD. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm more than happy to "mentor" on the basics of WP:FLC before you submit the list. Feel free to contact me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of British West Florida‎...

This article has been tagged with a CSD tag, and while I feel the CSD will be removed, I think it may go to AfD... if everyone could keep an eye on it, and speak up on the talk page, or if it does wind up going to AfD... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I'm the editor whose going to send this article to AfD. I'm an inclusionist rather than a deletionist, but I still must be consistent in regards to policies. If you read the talk page you'll see what the concerns are. This article doesn't need people to speak up for it on the talk page or anywhere else. It needs improvement so that my concerns and the concerns of fellow editors are addressed. Otherwise it will get deleted and it may drag a few other micronation articles with it if someone points out that similar articles have equally poor verifiable notability. Best wishes! - House of Scandal (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to WP:CANVASS, even though reading my own entry I could see how it may be read as such... maybe "speak up" was the wrong wording... I was just trying to bring it to the attention of the project. Being somewhat of a deletionist myself, I fully understand your reasons, I just thought that some of the members of the project may be able to provide extra sources than what I have available... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. It did sound like canvassing but I wasn't even taking issue with that. I'm just in the practice of pointing out that the best way to save an article is by improving it rather than merely advocating for it. HINT: check out this numismatics website. There's your second reference. This blog might be referenced as well but it doesn't really hold much weight as a source if someone who wants to get rid of this article scrutinizes it. Keep looking. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had seen a couple of those sites myself, but didn't think they would add any information to the article. The coin sites really help though, I think... maybe the threat of deletion was what I needed to work on the article some more... I honestly think it's sourced well enough now... I'll leave the notability tag on there for you to remove if you think that issue has been resolved... Thank you for your help, and let me know if you think it needs more... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better. My advice is to write every article as if someone is going to propose it for deletion. It's exceedingly rare that someone overtly uses the "threat of deletion" to encourage and gently guide someone's improvement efforts. It's more common for someone to decide something needs to be deleted and to then make it their personal crusade to see it happen. They might be relatively good-intentioned or they might be what is uncivilly known as a "deletionist asshole". In either case, the person will probably know Wikipedia policy inside and out, they might even be an admin. In any case, it's easier to avoid the debate than to win it. Best wishes! - House of Scandal (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulationist States

I was thinking that maybe an article (possibly even just a list or table) would be in order for all the simulationist nations out there. I'd be more than willing to be heavily involved in the building of such an article as I am greatly involved in simulationism. How would people feel about this? Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet simulations (if by that you include micronations like the Kingdom of Lovely) are a type of micronation. I think creating an article or list would be a great idea, however we have this constant problem with the list of micronations, where newly created micronations are added to the list when they cannot be verified. Because simulationist states are much easier to create than micronations on land it will be likely that IP addresses and newly created accounts will begin to direct their attempts at "micronation advertisement" towards this new article or list. Other than that if references can be provided and policies are followed then it can be created. Are there enough simulationist states, with references, to include in a list that is specific to the topic? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the "advertisement" thing, I think that a verfication means should be found. Maybe if we had external links for every nation (to their website or forum) on the list, when a new nation is added from an unknown IP or a new member, then if a website for the nation cannot be found it should be removed from the list. There are definitely enough simulationist nations for a list, there are more simulationists than secessionists I'm sure. The "ForumList" has listed the names (and fora) of many nations which could all be added to a new article. Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But don't most simulationist states only have their website or forum as a reference? We need reliable third-party sources, are there enough simulationist states that follow WP:RS? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "simulationist nations" - by which I assume you mean the sort of micronations that populate the micronations.net online forum, is that, apart from a tiny number of minor exceptions (eg Lovely, Kemetia, Lagoan Isles, Caux), no reliable third party has ever noted their existence. There are no newspaper articles, books or any other independent source that can be used as a basis for a WP article on the subject, and thus it fails to meet both WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are articles which have information (not alone in list form) that is not verified by a third party. I have been editing the List of twin towns and sister cities in the United Kingdom article for a while, and have no real evidence that the towns mentioned are actually twinned with those that the article says they are. I just have to take people's word for it that any new additions are twinned with the places. Well, I could look around on the towns' twinning sites, but even then, many of them do not have such sites. Can you see the link between the verifiction on this article and a possible simulationist states list? Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we can't just take people's word for it, because it will just be deleted. We need references, especially since IPs and newly created accounts attempt to use these lists for advertisements. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that list I mentioned, nothing has been deleted because of a lack of references. Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will happen eventually, either that or someone (maybe a bot) will tag it for the lack of references. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But surely if, with that article, the twinning sites (should they exist) are enough for a reference without a third-party for their existence. Which would be the same for the simulationist states with their websites... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean using a self-published source. Anyone can create a website and say that they have created a simulationist state when really they haven't, that is why we need third party sources - to make sure that their claims are correct. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what most simulationist states are though, just a website or forum. I belive with effort, a list could very much work on here. We just need to try it out or something to see how it goes... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly do not need to "try it out". If they are "just a website" then they do not belong in WP. It's not negotiable. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes miss. So all those people who actually put more effort into their simulationist states than many who say they "claim land" and have been reported on don't deserve a mention. Hmm... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that some simulationist states have had a huge amount of effort put into their construction (such as Nova Roma), Wikipedia does not have information on these states unless they have references (Nova Roma has references, therefore it is included). As editors we don't include micronations based on how much effort has been put into construction, but whether it has reliable references to support their existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll have to try and get something published about us all then ;)... I've had an idea actually, although it won't be a full article, I could always have a User Page devoted to listing simulationist states... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a userpage, maybe you could create a sandbox for the list whilst finding ways of getting some simulationist states published. Notability is the only obstacle as far as I can see - so a list could be possible in the future. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of TwoChairs

I am trying to add my micronation, The Kingdom of TwoChairs, to wikipedia. I have tried to add it, but it has been deleted because of lack of notable references (see my talk page. Although we have a website, we are not anywhere notable. Please help me to put us on wikipedia! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your micronation complies with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE it cannot be included in Wikipedia. These policies and guidelines apply to all Wikipedia content. There are no exceptions. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It complies with WP:NPOV (see here, the original text of the page), and WP:NOTE as it is well known within the micronational community, but I can't get enough citations to get an article up and running. What would qualify as a reliable source, except, say, the press? Cadan ap Tomos 13:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh

I find it unacceptable that the article about Kevin Baugh,president of the Republic of Molossia, is up for merge with Republic of Molossia.

Why? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Micronations

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do I have to do to join?

I have never been a member of a WikiProject. What do I have to do to join? Do I just add my username to the list of members? --Micromaster (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add your username, and you will automatically be a member. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criterion

I can't remember the location that Gene's old notability / inclusion criterion was at. That should, even if still controversial or unapproved, be linked off the project page... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:MICROCON? - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which... isn't it time we promoted this to a formal policy? It's been sitting around as a proposal for a rather long time now, and nobody has raised any concerns about it (which makes sense - it simply reflects a 5-year community consensus). Should we seek further input from members of the project, or just go ahead and do it? --Gene_poole (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a few weeks ago, but an editor replied that it needs to be seen "by other members of the Wikipedia community". When I asked for an explanation, he never replied. We need to promote this to an official guideline - and we can seek input from other members/editors by leaving a message on this page. If noone replies or has any disagreements within a certain amount of time, then we can promote it. What do you think of this Gene Poole? If a section on support/object is started, I'll add my username on the support list. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MICROCON

Please add your username below if you support or oppose the promotion of WP:MICROCON to official guideline status, or if you wish to comment. (Written by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Issues at Kingdom of Humanity

The Kingdom of Humanity article is categorized as being part of this project. It needs some help. The article has recently come to the attention of the WP:RSN noticeboard as having multiple sourcing issues (some of the sources are not reliable, and others are iffy) ... also, in the course of discussion it seems that there are some other issues (such as edit warring by a persistant vandal). I hope some of the Micronation Project members will pop over and help sort things out. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations FAQ

I saw that there was discussion about having a Micronations FAQ, so I started coming up with some basic questions in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it. After we get enough questions, we could move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the FAQ is located here. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Assessment...

I just happened to notice that List of micronations was a feature list, but was not assessed on the importance scale... I went ahead and assessed it as "Top" importance, since (I believe) it's one of our (the WikiProject's) more important articles... I then noticed that there are very few articles that are rated for importance at all... I would like to propose that we take a look at the importance scale and try to assess at least most of our articles... We'll start with Top importance, and move down... We also need to figure out what would qualify for High and Mid... Here's what I'm thinking...

  • "Top" - we decide on like half a dozen or so articles that are the foundation of the WikiProject... I believe that the top importance class should be reserved for the absolute most important articles to the project, the ones that if all others were deleted, we would absolutely need to keep... I know that Micronation and List of micronations are obviously top, but what others do people think should be in that class?
  • "High" - reserved for the more important/famous/established nation's articles, and maybe some of the more important lists & more famous leaders... Sealand, etc.
  • "Mid" - a blanket class for all nations and leaders...
  • "Low" - everything else?

What does everyone think of this/ any suggestions on bettering / detailing this classification? any recommendations for specific articles in top or high? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatohobei

I am not saying that I approve of its continued wiki existence, but I thought you should be aware that Hatohobei (micronation) is currently a PROD. Regards, Ben MacDui 08:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like one of several articles started every day here about newly founded micronations that don't pass WP:N or WPV... while WP:MADEUP is borderline incorrect, the prod2 stating it does not pass notability concerns is correct... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood. Ben MacDui 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a coordinator? - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Roads

The World Roads Portal is at Peer Review, if any editors know of any articles, images, news items or DYKs which could be added to the Portal, please add them directly to the portal or contact ....SriMesh | talk 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

List of anthems of micronations AfD

Just a heads up if anyone wants to weigh in on the deletion discussion or can help find some reliable sources with substantial coverage. Antoher editor has uncovered some significant bits about a John Lennon song if I understand correctly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of micronations status review

I have nominated List of micronations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

This may just be my own opinion but dont you all think that we need a "Micronation Barnstar" or something along those lines?--Coldplay Expert (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"microstate" @ Principality of Sealand

Someone insists on adding the word "microstate" into the lead of the article. As this could be a precedent, members of this project might be interested in it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, other editors should be interested in discussing this possible issue. It could have ramifications for all micronation articles. Outback the koala (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Micronations are seperate from microstates, in that they are unrecognised state-like entities, not recognised states that happen to be small. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was solved months ago. Thanks though! :D Outback the koala (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Micronations articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Qualifications!

What are the minimum qualification a micronation must have so that it can be added to Wikipedia. Please tell me. I want to add something but I don't know the minimum qualifications. -Leodescal

Just driving by. I have to say, I know nothing about WikiProject Micronations, but I can tell you what is needed in general to start an article. Ultimately, inclusion on an article may be debated on WP:Articles for Deletion where the community can discuss inclusion. That's the final say. In general I can say you need independent reliable sources that give more than trivial attention to the subject. For example, a chapter or a few paragraphs in a book, an article in a magazine about the subject, or some articles in newspapers over an extended period of time. Being featured in ISBN 9781156532904 Micronations: Micronation, Principality of Sealand, List of Micronations, Principality of Hutt River, Neue Slowenische Kunst or ISBN 9781741047301 Micronations. Which is actually why I were here. Does anyone have the former? Which micronations are listed there in some detail? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Discussion of A WikiProject Micronations Article

I'm writing to inform you that there is a dicussion about deleting the WikiProject Micronations article of the micronation Republic of Nova Roma, and you might have intention to comment in the debate. Thanks --Gonda Attila (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micropedia

You can use Micropedia to make pages for you micronation. It is pretty popular these days and its multilingual. Here is the link: http://micropedia.asia/wiki/Micronational_Encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico Fors (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lundy

I put the following at Talk:Lundy but it will likely get wider visibility here:

The article explicitly states "Although the island was ruled as a virtual fiefdom, its owner never claimed to be independent of the United Kingdom, in contrast to later territorial 'micronations'". This seems to be stating quite categorically that Lundy should not be classified as a micronation, which is defined as "an entity that claims to be an independent nation or state but is not officially recognized by world governments or major international organizations", yet it is included in that category (all emphasis mine). I therefore propose that Lundy be removed from the Micronation category. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and done. It correctly does not appear in the article List of micronations. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have also removed the article from Category:Micronations in England. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skovaji, needs assesing

The new article Skovaji needs to be assesed and assigned a rating, as well as put on to your footer/article list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NZRE Empire

Is this micronation good enough to have a wikipedia article? NZRE Empire Numberguy6 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations guideline

If you're interested, please have a look at the Talkpage of WP:MICROCON, where I'm having a crack at getting the guideline approved. Bromley86 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation Lead and Verifiable Existence as Fact

On examining several articles pertaining to claimed micronations there are a number that are essentially John Doe claims they have a nation and that have seceded from actual nation X. The wording in the leads generally state that they are or is a micronation within nation X. How does the WikiProject Micronations determine if a micronation exists factually? Merely identifying something is WP:notable does not satisfy that it is also WP:verifiable.

In what manner does an imaginary state and/or government establish it's actual existence? Legally some of these are in fact imaginary countries without deference to made up claims by John Doe that aren't enforceable, aren't recognized. When John Doe is taxed by the legitimate government (e.g for example Republic of Molossia) it is by definition non-existent and bows to the police power of the legitimate government authority.

I propose that all of the articles pertaining to claimed micronations have the phrase "is a claimed micronation" right in the lead to clarify that wikipedia is not endorsing the existence of an entity without legal or other proof it actually exists. This would be differentiated from micronations or otherwise small nations that have existed (legally) microstates and others. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Republic of Lostisland

I created an RfC about the Federal Republic of Lostisland mention in Matthew Island and Hunter Island article, a discussion has been going on sporadically for six years but no consensus was ever achieved. Escargoten (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Micronations

Portal:Micronations, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Micronations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Micronations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis: The new micronation I tried to make a draft page about but it has been rejected

There is a new micronation between Croatia and Serbia and it's called Verdis. I made a draft page about it, but it has been rejected. Can somebody tell me why or try to improve the page, so it can be accepted? The draft page is here: Draft: Verdis

Thanks!

-Bulbasaur777Eevee Bulbasaur777Eevee (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original draft was largely copied from the website so I had to rev/del about 2/3rds of it. I also advised the editor about WP:NORG and of course WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Hello, I added the Grand Republic of Cycoldia, from MicroWiki, could anyone help me with the speedy deletion claim immediately on it, and with revising it to be effective for Wikipedia, thank you! --Real DarkLuke2005 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m blocked for life from it and I was fully taken down when I put I in my sandbox. I already announced I probably wouldn’t edit anymore here again on my talk page. - The User Talking about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.54.13.182 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatings from french wikipedia

Hello there, just a little word about the WikiProject Micronations in "fr.wikipedia". Yes, just one word : Alone !

Weeks that I'm looking for place to shell a project in "fr", but not even a reaction.

So, even is I'm "working" in french articles, I'll keep an eye here, and feel free to see my french articles. I reviewed everything, almost, and inluded lots of new sources and updates. Cheers --Hyméros (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

hi all, you may be interested in the above afd...ps. i have added your wikiproject to the article talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some per Talk:List_of_micronations

Please see Talk:List_of_micronations#Removing_micronations_that_have_no_article. Sorry, I hadn't been aware that this project exists until just now, or else I would have posted the list in this project. I would do so now, but I don't see a section where it would fit. ◅ Sebastian 06:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seborga

There is a discussion on Talk:Principality of Seborga concerning a proposal to delete the entire Principality of Seborga article. An editor feels that this particular micronation is a "hoax" and that the article should be deleted and redirected to Seborga#Principality_of_Seborga. If anyone would like to offer constructive views on how this article should be properly handled, do please add your views. Cnbrb (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject:Micronations" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WikiProject:Micronations and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#WikiProject:Micronations until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News Section

Hello! Just an idea, but I think that there should be a News Section like what is included on the MicroWiki website. It could possible include micronational news and updates for the WikiProject!

-- A MicroWikipedian Wikipedian (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Islandia

I've created a stub for the Principality of Islandia, a new micronation. If anybody wants to take a look and make corrections, please do. It would be really nice if a flagicon could be created. Abductive (reasoning) 23:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Republic of Artsakh

I have made a requested move for Republic of Artsakh to be move to Artsakh, your participation would be appreciated. The discussion is available at Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#Requested move 7 May 2022. DownTownRich (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject is not in any way related to Artsakh. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations on the Croatia-Serbia border

FAR for Emperor Norton

I have nominated Emperor Norton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable leaders of micronations

I'm considering creating Wikipedia pages of micronational leaders. (like Travis McHenry, Nina Menegatto).

The leaders I have in mind are ones that have articles about their micronations. For example

  • Carolyn I (Ladonia)
  • Kevin Baugh? (was moved to a redirect but could be considered notable enough per consensus) (Molossia)
  • Jonathan Austen (Austenasia) (was moved into redirect but could be considered notable. re-evaluate?)
  • Daniel Jackson (Verdis)
  • Bartolomé Angel Grillo (Parva Domus)

MicroSupporter (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Micronations&oldid=1114865292"