Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Definition

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Springtime of micronations